How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Just wondering.

To be fair, I didn't exactly grow up poor. Yes, my family struggled mightily. We were always a paycheck away from food stamps. (Also, it's pretty funny when I think about how my "welfare" buddies looked at my family...we were broke as fuck, yet those guys thought we were well off.)

But just considering my own -- and my family's -- experiences with making ends meet, I wonder how many libertarians on this board come from working-class or poor backgrounds. I mean damn...when half your neighbors are afloat because they're in unions and the other half are on public assistance, it's kind of hard to support a pure small government free market.

For honesty's sake -- I do consider myself a "small L" libertarian on a few issues, notably sex between consenting adults and dope. But I won't for a minute pretend that I wouldn't be living in a housing project right now if it weren't for my dad's old union and a few "government handouts".

 

I'd say I was lower class, maybe perhaps lower middle class. Grew up in a trailer park, then the foster system.
I'm a far left libertarian, or a socialist anarchist.

 

when u recognize that the REASON a lot of people have nothing is because others are hogging it all, you want govt' to stay out of things. If you've agreed to work for me, at a given wage, you have no right to use violence to keep me from using other workers, just because you later want more money than I am willing to give you. Big Brother stepping in to support unions is what made it possible for the union people to jack up the prices paid by everyone else. Govt support of corporate monopolies is the only way such things can extort excessive money from buyers. Otherwise, open competition would keep prices low.

 

Read "The Jungle by Upton Sinclair among others . You'll see why unions were formed and should make a comeback when the Hispanics realise they won't be machine-gunned here for unionizing. Government should support the RIGHT of workers to form unions. Henry Ford hired goons to beat up union organizers. JP Stevens laid people off with over 20 years experience to preclude them getting their retirement and defied the NLRB for years defending their actions as just. On and on.If you treat workers badly,there needs to be recourse.

 

I wasn't born onto poverty but it wasn't a kick in the ass off it! Just managing is probably the best phrase to use. Did it colour my thinking on things? I don't think so, I became politicised as a young adult through a reaction to the injustice that I saw.

 

Oops into poverty - too lazy to proofread my own piece.

 

Your post gave me a headache, so I'll only address this part.

1. "Big Brother" hasn't supported unions in a very long time. *Edit: And the American "Big Brother" never really gave more than half-assed support to unions anyway. We've always been a right wing country, even during the New Deal. The mainstream American "left" is still very far to the right of other left wing politicos in other nations.

2. The unions "jack up the prices". Okay, that's debatable, but whatever. Unions also pulled lots of workers out of poverty.

3. What sort of open competition are you speaking of? Because open competition also drives wages down.

 

Hard to answer without first defining Libertarian and poverty clearly.

 

I was raised in a family that was just above the Welfare line for whites, and would just below the Welfare line if we were minorities.

Would be considered lower middle class?

 

I've been homeless. My dad built houses for a living until he got strung out on heroin. I've lived on my own since I was 16. I've worked my ass off for everything I've ever had. I've never had food stamps or any other kind of welfare. I'm 28 now. I make a little more than 50,000 a year but I'm no where near what I'll top out at. I pass people who have been doing the same job for a lot longer than me. It's because I earn it. I've never been in a union but I was harassed, had my car vadalized, and was forced to quit a job once because I didn't want to join one. I don't have a problem with people organising and having unions. However, the same people that go on and on about having the right to organise need to respect peoples right not to organise and stand on their own feet if that's what they want. When they go from negotiating raises to bullying and strong arming companies out of business(and yourself out of a job when they go under) then they are nothing but criminals and thugs. Some unions, not all, need to start respecting peoples right NOT to organise before they go screaming about their own rights to organise. I really don't think the union guys understand libertarian philosophy. You can do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't violate the rights of other people. Does getting together and negotiating wages collectively violate anyone's rights? No.
However, getting laws pass to force others to do what you want does. Your using force of law to force people to do what you want with no regard for the rights of others. Without so much government that wouldn't be a problem. The unions should have NO AID and also NO RESISTANCE from government. The only thing tat government should do is protect the rights of everyone, such as when the unions force people to join with strong arm tactics and harassment. I don't care what they do, organise all you want. In my field a lot of companies are union. The non union companies pay more. Lol.
As far as anyone barely getting by and needing food stamp sometimes, think about how much easier it would have been if we didn't pay all the ridiculous amounts of taxes. If your family worked and drew stamps or something else did they ever draw near what they paid in taxes? Maybe if you had kept that money not only would you not have needed help but maybe would have been better off. Not to mention that if people kept more money they would buy things with it. Which would create jobs. As far as barely getting by goes, does anyone else think that inflation caused my out of control government spending have anything to do with it?
Well anyway, good luck with whatever you want to do. I hope you'll be able to do whatever with no interference one day.

 

I'm a libertarian in some respects, although I do believe in having a safety net for the poorest members of society.

I grew up pretty poor. My mom raised 4 kids basically single-handedly. She never applied for food stamps or welfare although I think she would have been eligible. I learned from my mom that a good work ethic will take you far in life and that as long as you have family and people that love you, you're not poor. I also learned compassion from her which is a big reason why I do support some social programs, although I think social programs could be ran a lot more efficiently. There is way too much waste in government.

 

i can't find a site to tell me what the poverty level was in the 40s. this is pissing me off greatly. i wanted to know was i born into poverty, and i can't specifically say based on any government figures! so, i will say from my own opinion....

no. i was NOT born into poverty. we had a usually dry roof, we had beans, cornbread and pickles-sometimes bacon and a pork roast. we all had a place to sleep without our noses up someone else's butt. my folks were sensible enough to not have a mess of rug rats-dad knew he couldn't make enough to feed a dozen, although he always said he wanted a dozen til he had me. wasn't poverty. we did have an outhouse...but i still have an outhouse. a compost toilet in the shop is an outhouse. we even had water that i think was cleaner than they have in juarez or a lot of other places(including some of what comes out of u.s. taps with medical waste in it). i do not have a totally dry roof now...so, i went downhill.

i frankly will not agree with anyone who has a mostly dry roof, a reasonably warm (above 50 degree) place to sleep, a place to shit that is not out in the open where their ass freezes and 1200 or more calories of food a day saying they are in poverty. some things are a choice, and one's perspective on 'poverty' is one of those things.

 

Poverty is both relative and absolute. Literally no one in the US, hell few people in the entire western hemisphere outside of Haiti and a few other isolated places are living below the UN world wide established poverty of $1.50 a day. The point of programs is to eliminate relative poverty, otherwise you wind up with a nation of nothing but mansions and poverty stricken workers who have to feed their children watered down milk, like in the early 1900's, with nothing in between.

 

I'm glad you posted this. There are a lot of people who use this sense of perspective -- "Poor Americans really aren't poor, but many Africans are" -- to simply shut down the argument about social justice in first world countries.

And the last sentence in your post is absolutely correct. America could very easily slip into the early 1900's type of society, shit, we're sorta seeing that happen now. (Also, hardline conservatives supporting just that sort of regression are huge with the Tea Party right now.)

One argument against the safety net is "In the 1920's middle class families only made about $2,000 a year, they make much more now, so the safety net isn't necessary." And that is bullshit, because adjusted for inflation, $2,000 in 1920's money is roughly $60,000 in today's money.

Blah, I rambling...My point is that Americans who are struggling to get by shouldn't be left strictly to their own devices simply because they're not as bad off as peasants in Mogadishu. Slaving away for your entire life working 2 jobs to cover the rent is a terrible existence, regardless of who "has it worse." Being poor in America might not be as bad as being poor in Bolivia, but it still sucks.

 

Ah, social justice. Why should only crooks, politicians, and hard workers succeed in life. A simple solution would be a 100% tax rate, where government would skim off its operating expenses, and divide the remainder equally among the entire population. In 2011, for example, the GDP is expected to be about $15.15 trillion, and the government wishes to pass a budget of $3.73 trillion leaving about $11.43 trillion which could be distributed equally to all citizens in the amount of around $37,000 per person, or $74,000 for a couple, and large families would fair the best of all, which might put an end to abortions. Obviously that would be an absurd move, and eliminate any motivation to produce anything which is essentially what any form of redistribution of wealth mandated by a government does in the long run. Humans are the least equals of any life forms on the planet, therefore it is natural that the outcome of each individuals life is not equal, and can only be made equal artificially up until a point is reached where it becomes economically impossible. My Grandfather started out making $9 a week 100 years ago, my Dad $75 a week 75 years ago, and I $170 a week 55 years ago each with the arrival of our first child. None of us would consider having lived in poverty, although we did have to budget carefully and neither asked for nor received any government assistance. No one deserves a paycheck simply for living, bring something of value to the table and then demand your just rewards.

 

Indie

In 1906 I’m told the average U.S. worker “made between $200 and $400 per year”.

Your grandfather on $468 was making a very good wage – didn’t you tell me he’d been a coal miner, which I though was a rather a low paid job at that time?

I believe the average wages in 1935 was about $1,600 a years which is around $30 a week so again your father on $75 - over double the average - would seem to be getting a very good wage, what did he do?

The supposed average yearly wage in 1955 was $4.130 which is around $80 a week again you on $170 are nearly double the average what were you doing?

Maybe I’m wrong but this would seem to indicate your family were always rather comfortably off and wouldn’t have actually needed any assistance?

*

 

How many pinko socialists on this board were born as trust fund babies?

 

How many people on this board think trust fund babies deserve to keep all of their $40 million inheritance with no estate tax on it, cause ARRGGH GOVERNMENT.

 

The thread starter was clearly basing this thread on the crappy generalization that all poor people are anti-free market and all rich people are pro-free market. It isn't black and white like that. I've seen super privileged kids grow up to be marxists, probably because they feel guilty about something.

 

Marxist, and even Communist forms of government do not eliminate the rich, but only distinguish the rich as a separate class from the remainder of the society who allowed to suffer more equally.