How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

And again, I'll ask you to pose a complete question, and not some "Why do you want to kill people?" type of asininity.

Going back to your "I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. ", we appear to disagree greatly on how a society is defined, what makes a society thrive, and the role if any of government in a society.
In my view, societies are formed by people living in close proximity to one another, who then benefit from each other by concentrating on their individual expertise in producing some portion of the needs of the society, essentially sharing their labors as the means by which they are then able to fulfill their needs.
Societies develop and thrive as long as each members labor is equitable in providing for their consumptive needs and wants. The collective judgment of people as to the needs of others results in charitable aid to those who experience times of need.
Nations are not a single society, but made up of many societies who share many common needs and goals, but not necessarily identical in every area.

You continue to look at society in a way that encompasses all human life, while I look at human life being a multitude of societies, including that within each nation. As such there can be societies which are prospering greatly, and those which are in dire straits at any given time. The fact that there are those which are prospering provides an essential source for assistance to those who are not. Success and failure are natural occurrences of life, and success for all may be desirable, failure for all simultaneously would be catastrophic.

You continue to look at life as a zero sum game, therefore the poor exist only because there are those who are rich. I, instead look at the fact that because there are those who are rich, opportunity exists to acquire some of their wealth. Government assistance programs ARE zero sum as what is given has to be taken, with no equitable exchange in the process. What I am talking about is programs which provide aid to those who are capable of working, and not those who are incapacitated and unable to work.

My views are based on allowing societies the ability to operate without government limitations, except those which are absolutely necessary, and determined so by the people who are effected directly in ways that they feel necessary, which may not be the same across an entire nation.

I think the facts speak for themselves, with a national debt of about $29 billion when I was born and today exceeding $14 trillion, and rapidly increasing with no end in sight.

My motivation is seeing economic destruction that may already be too late to avoid, and my aims are to see everyone who is capable of working being put to work to at least offset some of their demands on government to care for their needs.

Instead of welfare, how about workfare?

Perhaps asking a question more pointed than "why" would result in an answer more detailed than "why not".

 

So you are admitting to being a troll?

 

indie

Well I would ask why you want to forcibly remove children from their parents and sterilise people against their will?
That might seem a silly or irrelevant question to you but it seems important as to how you think.
But over the time of our conversations I’ve asked specific questions and general ones and your normal approach to them has been evasion.
In fact this reply seem to be yet more evasion, I mean you not addressing what was said just making excuses as to way you will not.

I know this is your view I’m asking why you have those views seeing that you seem unable to defend them.

But we have been through all this before – what you present is not the reality of a modern world (although it might be in some parts of the undeveloped world like Laos).
A fantasy Utopia is fine but you are putting forward you ideas as workable and practical in the real world.
A small village with a subsistence economy might be fairly self-contained but once you get beyond that simple socio-economic situation that becomes less possible.
And to me trying to enforce otherwise is likely to produce a dystopia rather than the promised land.

As I’ve pointed out to you before taking as your model a primitive socio-economic society and trying to impose that on a modern society is just not going to work.
I mean how would you bring this about?

There seems to be a contradiction here – first you seem to be arguing (and have in the past) that assistance should only be given extremely locally (within a given group) the next you are arguing that groups should give assistance to each other.
It is also an incredibly simplistic even naive world view – for example it doesn’t seem to ask questions, I mean why are some areas prosperous and others not, you claim that you want to give people a hand up not a hand out, but if you don’t ask why how do you know how to help them help themselves?
The thing is that from talking to you, you seem to presume to know - for example you seem to believe that all disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved (which goes back to the deserving/undeserving argument)

And as said before this is what I see as the problem with your system most people have not the time inclination or expertise to assess a situation and they will too often be swayed by unfounded bias and unsubstantiated opinions (which goes back to the deserving/undeserving argument).

The exchange is a better quality of life for everyone. But as pointed out before you don’t seem to want that.

Sorry I think you meant to say - What I am talking about is programs which provide aid to those who are incapacitated and unable to work, and not those who are capable of working -
I yes I know this is your viewpoint the problem is that the Keynesian approach is to try and achieve full employment but that viewpoint is not shared by most free marketeer’s.

You have refused so far to address that flaw in your argument other than to answer that yes you are a free marketeer.

I know this is your view but I’m asking if you can address the criticisms of it that are outstanding. Just repeating your viewpoint does not make those criticisms go away.

This is evasion – I think the facts speak for themselves – well no they don’t because you don’t explain who you interpret the ‘facts’.
I mean in my view the present financial problems of the US are complex and go back to such thinks as the wrong direction being taken at Bretton Wood, the US military spending, US foreign policy, and the neo-liberal approach that has been taken over the last 30 years or so.

Again you are not addressing the criticism already presented of these views – first I’ve explained why I think your ideas would bring about more economic harm – second I’ve pointed out that the Keynesian approach is to try and achieve full employment but that viewpoint is not shared by most free marketeer’s.

To the first you have so far only answered that you disagree

To the second so far you have only answered that yes you are a free marketeer.

Neither is a rational and reasonable counter argument.

But I believe that in much free market thinking that would be a gross manipulation of the market and in another sense it is a bit like slave labour and third it seem to imply that people don’t want to work, and four it seems like punishment for a crime they didn’t commit…and so on
It’s a simplistic slogan and as such doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

LOL – oh come on man, that is feeble, and you ask me why I think you dishonest?

I do detailed and you demand I be simple – I do simple and you demand I be detailed.

It’s a trick to evade answering the questions put to you.

 

I can't remember exactly what you may have said that I was responding to at the time, however it was intended to have been recognized as a facetious suggestion.

I'm trying to remember a specific question, perhaps you might refresh my memory.

I'm sorry, if you're so dense as to not understand me. I try to use simple words and not hold back. Simply put, it is people who make a society work, and it is not the responsibility of government to decide and provide for the needs of individuals.

Refresh my memory of your criticism. I can't think of anything I've said that needed a defense.

I don't look to achieve unachievable goals, utopia is not a realistic expectation. You picked Laos, not me, and although I occasionally frequent Laos I find that the further you get away from government the more pleasant life becomes.

I agree totally that utopia is a fantasy, and I've put forth no ideas which attempt to produce utopia, but only civilized and equitable freely engaged interactions between responsible humans.

That prompts a why question from me. I grew up and lived my working life in a big city, and started out life by barely providing my basic needs, and gradually progressed by getting better and higher paying jobs, staying out of debt and spending wisely. In todays societies, most people consider their wants to be necessities and allow debt to be the means of provision.

There is no promised land.

Imposing responsibility on those who work and pay taxes for those who do not and will not is not a rational solution.

By teaching at an early age personal responsibility.

I'm not arguing at all about where assistance should come from other than it should be directly from the people, or groups of concerned people who seek funding without drawing a salary from the proceeds, and without the government acting as a middle man.

I certainly would ask questions, but perhaps different questions in relation to each individual case where aid is needed. The ultimate goal is to assure that each able bodied person is eventually provided some means of employment and not just perpetual support.

I simply look at disadvantage as something which needs to be overcome, and looking for someone to place the blame on is not a very effective means of eliminating disadvantage.

What's the purpose of dwelling on "deserving" or "undeserving" other than a way of looking at those who have and those who have not, and creating anger or resentment?

If you want a better quality of life work harder.

I can't remember what I was responding to, but as written it sounds like I was pointing out government programs that I think should be eliminated.

I'm not trying to achieve full employment, and I too have been unemployed for some periods of my life. In fact I've been unemployed for over two decades now, and the first decade I was not old enough to collect social security.

I grew up being taught that when you receive a paycheck you always pay yourself first, meaning you set aside some portion for the possibility that times may get rough. Than you budget what remains in paying bills and providing your needs. Certainly I am a free marketer. I buy what I want, where I want, as long as I have the means to do so.

What is there to criticize?

How long can you accumulate debt at a continually growing rate and it NOT result in a total economic collapse? The facts are that every nation with the exception a a few very small ones is deeply in debt. Who remains to bail out anyone else? You can print and devalue all the currencies, but that brings with it price inflation, and impacts the poor even more. How do you find the facts acceptable? Only because you think economic collapse can be put off during your lifetime? What about those unborn kids you speak of with empathy? Is it not their lives that will be most greatly affected by the excessive spending of today? I have children, grandchildren, and a grandchild who I would like to see have at least as good a life as I have had, if not much better.

I would look back even further than just 30 years, although I guess your intent was to go back just to Reagan. The intent of Bretton Woods was to achieve peace through mutually assured economic destruction, and as for U.S. military spending, I see no reason for the U.S. to be the military protector of the world. Bring the troops home from each and every country, although that would at the same time create a problem at home as there would be no need for so many troops and it would be difficult for them to easily find work in the current economic downturn. And I would add entitlement programs, including social security and medicare, to the list as well which are rapidly growing beyond the capacity to fund them.

You mentioned this earlier. I don't support or subscribe to Keynes, and to be unemployed at some time(s) in life is a possibility that each of us has to prepare for.

My comment on which you are responding was "My motivation is seeing economic destruction that may already be too late to avoid, and my aims are to see everyone who is capable of working being put to work to at least offset some of their demands on government to care for their needs."

What is the 'first' that you claim my answer was that I disagree?

The above comments are in relation to my post as displayed above. Please elaborate in a way that I can properly respond.

So what's the answer? Everyone just sit around and let the billionaires feed us and provide our needs? I believe everyone has a right to eat, care for their health, and all the necessities of life. But in addition, I believe that along with rights there are responsibilities. Sure you can always find someone else who has enough to provide their own needs and yours as well, but they have neither the responsibility to do so nor do you or government have the right to demand that they do so. Why do I feel that way? Because if your life is important to you, you will take the appropriate steps to ensure it, and if not government does have a responsibility to scrape up or pick up your remains in order to insure everyone elses health. Yeah, I know that's a hard view to accept, and perhaps you might claim it to be Darwinistic, or more appropriately put Spenceristic, but it exemplifies the founding of the U.S. as a free republic, which over the years has been corrupted more and more by an infusion of socialism and a degradation of society which has been brought up with a belief of entitlements as opposed to responsibilities.

While it may sound like a slogan, it does make a point of the problem and the solution.

So you evade my attempt to gain clarity by claiming that I am evading answering a question when I only wish to answer it properly?

 

Last response to individual, I promise, since no one else is paying any mind to my attempt to save the thread.

Exactly. You are trying to build society around humans how you would like to think they are: responsible. You have to build around what you have, not what you wish you had.

There's plenty of responsible poor people, because they're responsible enough tpay taxes and be part of the grind, and there's plenty of irresponsible filthy fucking rich people, who don't bear any responsibility via increased taxes, or ANYTHING.

Quite right. It's irrational to impose dispreportonate responsibility on those who work and pay their share of taxes, while rich people don't work, OR pay a reasonable amount in taxes.

With great power comes great responsibility. That includes monetary power, and monetary responsibility. If you have that much more money, you're that much more to blame for national debts, recessions, and money problems in general.

It is inherently irresponsible to hold a uselessly large chunk of change and do nothing with it when things need doing. And these irresponsible people should not be given that option. Either spend it, or get taxed on it.

Also, limits on unions and the like are quite un-libertarian, it ends up amounting to slave labor, one must work to survive, and one can not bargan for a fair wage, but must keep working. Don't you agree? Attacking these must be done before you can attack taxes on rich motherfuckers, or else you give them an advantage over others, which is also inherently un-libertarian. Unless they're rich, because they're better, so they DESERVE advantages over others that let them get richer while others get poorer?

And NAO, I'm officially done with your silly word games and topic dodging.

 

Wow, you have really been brainwashed. I'll just wait and see if you keep your promises.

 

Indie

Another evasion trick, which you have used before, if I repeat a question (as I have done many times before) you just do more evasion(or ignore it)- if I don’t repeat it you say something like

And so on and so on and so on – evasion after evasion after evasion.

Be careful, are you honestly calling me stupid? And actually I do understand – you are using evasion to try and get out of answering difficult questions.

More evasion trickery, it’s the same trick as above – if I repeat them you just ignore or evade them again, if I refuse to repeat them again you claim they don’t exist.
And you wonder why I think you dishonest?

Evasion

Evasion

Evasion…..

 

Indie

But is someone who no fault of their own is born into disadvantage personally responsible for that disadvantage?

A simplistic slogan – And we went though this before and the criticism (the running race argument) is still outstanding.

Well seeing that I first mentioned Bretton Wood which took place in 1944 when I believe Reagan was a Democrat, I think you are way off.

But to say again - what is your aim?
To me the only way to bring about societies that are fairer and better for all to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity to all the habitants of having a healthy and fulfilled life is for the people of that society to try and bring that about, through democratic governance.
But you should know that since I’ve explained it at length.
This seems like a rational and reasonable aim, I mean nobody in their right mind it would seem to me would want to aim for a worse society a place were most people’s quality of life was lower and where most people had even a less of a chance to be happy or satisfied.

But in discussion with you it seems that is you aim, it would seem that all your ideas are designed to make most peoples life worse. True they would make a few people and institutions richer and even few of those vastly more rich and powerful, but it wouldn’t actually increase their quality of life much, while at the same time reducing the quality of life of many in society.

I’ve pointed this out time after time explaining often in detail why and how your ideas would have an adverse effect on society, but you seem unwilling or unable to address these criticisms of your views, and so I’ve wondered often and openly why you have them.

But you have already pointed out that your family had above average incomes (grandfather, father and yourself). So I find it hard to see why you could barely provide for your basic needs?
Again you are putting forward a completely self serving story, based on your own biased outlook and designed specifically to promote your own agenda. It isn’t rational or reasonable argument.
As to “todays societies” as I’ve pointed out many (if not most) of the problems that are manifest today are the result of the neo-liberal policies and outlook that has dominated for the last 30 years or so.

This implies that you think anyone who seeks assistance wants it for perpetual support? Again their seems to be a bias against those seeking support which once again brings up the deserving/undeserving argument.

But that’s the problem I’m trying to be objective and understanding and seeing disadvantage as deserved or not deserved, I want to try and help people to fulfil their potential and go on to have a healthy and fulfilled life.
My criticism of you viewpoint is that you seem to believe that all disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved.
And that your ideas seemed designed to make most peoples life worse. True they would make a few people and institutions richer and even fewer of those vastly more rich and powerful, but it wouldn’t actually increase their quality of life much, while at the same time reducing the quality of life of many in society.

You seem to have misconstrued the argument (although repeated many times)
As I pointed out earlier about the idea of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ – “that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any and the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was little or no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these disadvantaged people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

It is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make the right choices they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make bad choices they’re feckless and don’t deserve assistance.”

The thing is that people make good decisions and bad decisions they are at times responsible and at other times irresponsible. And like the idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – the view of decisions and responsibility can be affected by time, place, circumstance and viewpoint. For example what might seem like a ‘good’ decision and praised as such at that time may be seen later on and in hindsight as a ‘bad’ decision.

It is not about ‘haves’ and ‘have not’s’ but that what were seen as deserving and undeserving were often the same people, and the distinctions were used as a means of justifying not giving to either.

 

Indie

I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life

No of course not. But as I’ve already pointed out this is a rather simplistic approach in that in you mind progressive taxation is equivalent to stripping a person of everything they own, but a more rational and considered viewpoint would realise that is silly.

But progressive taxation is where the quality of life of a few is not diminished but the quality of life of all is improved.
What you seem to be arguing is that you don’t want the quality of life of all improved because… well just because….

So do I.

So do I.

But what is your aim? I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.
Your ideas seemed designed to make most peoples life worse. True they would make a few people and institutions richer and even fewer of those vastly more rich and powerful, but it wouldn’t actually increase their quality of life much, while at the same time reducing the quality of life of many in society.

 

indie

In other words if someone falls into hardship through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control they should be allowed to die of want.

Herbert Spencer
The weak should die and how do you gauge the weak from the strong, the inferior from the superior, well by how much money they have.

I don’t claim it to be Darwinistic, that is at least scientific - Social Darwinism is gibberish, political snake oil used by the dishonest to try and bamboozle the gullible

Social Darwinism is a pseudo-science that Herbert Spencer did a lot to promote (and was paid handsomely for doing it by some very rich people).

Pseudoscience - is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. wiki

In other words a con game – in this case a political con game, it has been used mainly by those on the right wing of political ideas to back up the idea of the wealth based establishment, just as in previous centuries ‘divine right’ was used to justify hereditary monarchy and nobility.

It is the basis for believing that people are positioned socially because they deserve that position. Just as in previous centuries people born into nobility were said to have been divinely chosen for that social position, just as were peasants divinely choose to be (and remain) peasants. All social Darwinism did was replace a theological entity with ‘junk science’.

So it is not surprising to me that you are a follower of this silly cult, since you seem to believe that all disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved.

So basically you are basing your ideas on rubbish, no wonder you evade so much.

 

If no one comes to their aid that would be the result.

 

Born into a struggling family my dad was a libertarian he believed in freedom.

 

It depends on what your definition of freedom is? I mean for some it is the freedom to die of want due to no fault of your own.

 

I was born into a lower middle class home but I was raised by my mother, who was single and only had a high school education. She went from minimum-wage paying job to the next and never moved up the economic ladder. We rarely had telephone or cable service and I only had a few new clothes, never name brand. We lived in the projects for 8 years with the occasional government hand out from time to time. But I know that it was my mother's poor choices early in life that caused all that and I don't feel like we had a "right" to any of the stuff we received from the government. I'll bet my mom would've made smarter choices from the get-go if she knew there would be no safety net to fall back on if she screwed up.

 

For my childhood, as far as I know, we were pretty financially stable. After my parents divorced, we were extremely poor. We had a roof over our heads, but were regulars at the foodbank, and sometimes ended up living with relatives, and spent a lot of time in co-op housing. It could have been worse though! We were definitely paycheck to paycheck.

 

I would only support welfare if it involved some sort of work. But then that would be some sort of wierd communism which I'm against.

A libertarian society would be no minimum wage. Therefor welfare would be replaced with $5 an hour or some crap wage like that. It would suck so people would get a higher paying job as soon as possible, but it would get them food in the meantime. Basically these jobs would have a high turnover rate so only the truly bad workers would be stuck. And at least wages wouldn't be taxed!

*edit* Libertarian, but upper-middle class. I may have been on the lower upper class fringe around year 2000, but I was 9 so w/e.

 

So you're against any idea that resembles communism even if you... support the idea?

 

So let’s examine this –

You want to scrap any type of minimum wage.

You want to force those who are so desperate they need state provision to work for subsistence wages.

*

So you basically want to set up a slave labour force.

What work would you be forcing these people to do? I mean any work that they’re used for that could have been done by someone else for a actual wage is a corruption of the ‘free market’. You would be using the state to help employers to drive down the wages of those they employ.

If you are going to only give enough for food what housing if a person doesn’t have a home, cannot keep up mortgage repayments or hasn’t enough to rent?

What about healthcare if one of the forced labourers becomes ill and is unable to pay for the medical care?

In the event of a forced labourer having children what about childcare during those periods when they have to work?

And also if you are forcing them to work, when do they go looking for work? People who have been unemployed often find that looking for work can be a full time job in itself.

How is this workforce supervised? For example who decides which worker has worked hard enough and which one hasn’t (basically who eats that night and who doesn’t) and how do you keep abuse to a minimum?

*

This seem to me to be another simplistic idea that has not been thought through and if implemented would likely be damaging to society and have a devastating effect on those trapped by it.

 

Labor omnia vincit

 

Obviously not a truism, particularly when the economy is terrible.