How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

But government knows best, and the fewer the number of people allowed to make decisions eliminates us from making mistakes. Besides people would be dying all over the place without government taking care of them. People need the force of a powerful government to make them do the right things. Right Balbus?

Actually, I've been a cash and carry person all my life, doing without when the cash doesn't exist.

 

Indy, if you argued against what your opponents are saying, instead of what you'd like to argue against, and if your argument logically supported the ideas you're arguing for, you'd have better luck...

 

He doesn't really read the posts of people he talks to. After repeated attempts he refused to answer a simple question about something he already said.

 

Better luck at what?

 

And exactly what was it I said that you questioned and claim I did not answer?

 

Oh dear, this routine. It doesn't work with Balbus and it certainly won't work with me.

You made this statement:

I responded with the question:
Are you implying that idleness is the reason why people suffer?

Instead of ever answering what you meant by the statement, in other words, answering my question, you provided answers to questions like "What are some reasons people suffer", or you would answer my question with a question.
Here's a rundown:
"Are you implying that idleness is the reason why people suffer?"

Your answer:
"You would have to examine each case individually to answer that question. "

Notice here how you dodge the question entirely and respond as if I asked something else. Why would anything have to be examined for you to answer what you mean by a statement you already made? Is it so you don't commit to any meaning in particular? Why did you say it in the first place? The charade continues:
Me:
"Actually you just have to answer it. Did you even read the question I asked you? It was pretty straightforward and you dodged it entirely. The question was in regards to what you were implying. Nothing other than your own intentions need to be examined. "

You:
"I did answer your question, and look at your question again, it cannot be answered in a way that encompasses what might be defined as suffering by every individual person with a simple yes or no answer. If you're not trying to veer from the thread topic then I think it should be clear that idleness provides no solution at all out of poverty. "

Here you falsely claim you answered the question by responding to a different question that no one asked. Once again you claim in order to answer what you mean by your own words, we'd have to examine all sorts of different things. Why would this be necessary for you to clarify what you mean with your own words?

You:

"Avoiding the topic of poverty, and replacing it with a broader term representing unpleasantness in general, I would agree that 'no' would apply in most cases. Is the intent on these forums to avoid the eventuality of agreement, by broadening rather than narrowing the inspection of a topic? "

More avoidance and refusal to answer.

You:

"Define clearly your intended definition(s) of the word suffering. "

Me:

"The effects of poverty: Hunger, homelessness, illness, discrimination, etc. All these things as when they occur due to poverty. "

You then proceed on a nice little rant all about what causes poverty, and all implications point to the fact that your answer should be 'no', but for whatever reason, you cannot commit to it and directly answer what I asked. This all points to my growing suspicion that you do not wish to discuss these topics with even a modicum of honesty, evidenced by the very fact that you cannot bring yourself to clarify your own statements.

And now here you are pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about, as if the entire thing isn't on record just a couple pages back on this thread.

So here's something I'm wondering - you admit to not really reading what people write, particularly any post that you deem 'too long', you don't answer questions related to your views or even simple statements that you make. All this leaves me wondering why you participate in these discussions at all.

 

Which government exactly are you talking about?

No. People need a government so the weak can be protected.

That doesn't really make sense to me.

 

Seeing your lengthy post, I'd say it did.

 

McFuddy, You seem to believe that all questions are answered with a simple yes or no, and I tried to point out that without examining the underlying facts that is not always the case. If you are unable to accept that, I'm sorry.

 

The intent was to be facetious.

 

Joker

Sorry but the problem is that there seem to be contradictions between what right wing libertarians claim they are trying to achieve and where their ideas actually seem to be headed.

For example you shout at me ‘the people’ but the problem is that many right wing libertarian ideas would take power away from the majority of people while increasing tremendously the power and influence of wealth.

Also many right wing libertarians seem to be hostile to democracy (like Indie) because they see it as ‘mob’ rule and if working properly gives power to the majority to curtail the power and influence of wealth.

They seem to be aiming for a plutocratic oligarchy.

The whole ‘small’ government argument seems to be aimed at all governance not just the US federal government, its ideological, not specific, it is as much aimed at State level as federal.

To me localism can be I fine thing if properly regulated were democracy is protected from the influence of money, but in a right wing libertarian context that would not be the case and so it could be positively dangerous for the majority of people.

 

What has big government done to preserve people's freedoms and stop corporate corruption? The bigger government becomes, the more intrusive it becomes and people lose more of their rights. It also becomes less and less accountable. That's what I associate the term "liberal" with. The politicians are in the pockets of big business, so tell me how it's supposed to work in the people's best interests. You somehow seem to think government = reign in corporate criminality and greed.

 

It seems to me that the problem is a political system that has given too much power and influence to wealth it is a problem of governance that needs reform.

The problem as I see it is that those that proclaim that it is all the fault of ‘big government’ are actually trying to bamboozle people into giving even more power and influence to wealth.

I mean come on Rat, you have been promoting right wing libertarian views for years and all of them would give more power and influence to wealth.

 

I was born into serious poverty and deprivation in a very violent place. I was once a left leaning libertarian - but got utterly tired of the social conservatism of my unwashed 'comrades', who represented the lumpenproletariat more than the proletariat to be honest. I have shifted right having become slowly more disillusioned over time. I cannot help but notice that too many people simply won't put any effort into anything - not even their protest movement.

I'm on the cusp of PhD now, and I'm a shareholder, and am starting my own businesses - not just buckshee selling like I've done for the past decade, but fully registered tax paying companies [and believe me the red tape and the taxpaying is unpleasant]. I worked my ASS off, and suffered numerous setbacks - mostly from my 'comrades' more than the state [which, to be honest, certainly hindered as much as it helped] - but never gave up.

And that's why I'm now what would be called 'right libertarian' - I got too tired of people simply not putting their heart into it. Marx argues about alienation and that all people are inherently creative - he forgot to mention some are more creative than others, alienation or none. So - I got on my bike, and I cycled like fuck, to 'get out of the ghetto', and I got out. And I recommend everyone else does the same. No need to change your sense of who you are [fuck, if some asshole decided to call me 'bourgeois' I think I'd punch him now, for his epistemic violence degrading me with his very uncreative abominations] - no need to change your dress sense or music tastes, just go for it.

That's the main thing. And what saddened me most when I was in the left? There were some really good people there, just a minority, who did go for it - but they got ate up by the majority. All their sincere efforts to better the lot of all - was lost - and then they were dehumanised, forced by 'The Party' to become... uncreated... alienated from their own abilities - for the needs of... a mass of nothingness...

You can't dance if the Revolution doesn't let you be you, and if others don't recognise your dancing skills and reward accordingly. The left is 'nice', if 95% of the people there would just... well... get their asses in gear, and let the good 5% be themselves and 'get on with it'.

So - I've gone out on my own - and here I am. As happy as can be.

 

Any point you had (you didn't have one anyways, but that's beside my point) was totally negated by what I bolded.

The fact that you're the type who would try to use words as an excuse for violence is not suprising.

 

What are you talking about Roorshack? I made no real mention of violence - and my points are fairly clear.

 

Are we talking about Left or Right wing Libertarians?

 

Hmmm, it's the wearing of class distinctions in the first place which perpetuate them! I'm not from aristocratic or wealthy stock, quite the opposite in fact, but everything is relative. As a Westerner I don't think that I have the perspective to truly understand poverty, but I do know that there is a poverty of compassion across all socio-economic groups....

 

Once again, you have a baseless accusation about the entire "left" wing, in red. You also speak of being a left leaning libertarian, but then you pretend this has something to do with communism-are you retarded? LIBERTARIANISM has a focus on personal freedom, it's just that the left doesn't want it coming at the expense of others, while the right wants no rules about unfair advantage to a degree that is of no practical use to one person, but limits the potential of others. The left wants you to dance, the right wants to let a few step on your toes.

And you say that you would assault anyone who called you a name, because your panties would be so twisted by their lack of originality, in green. This is first rate right wing libertarian behavior: Pretend that something with NO effect on you is a personal affront, in order to justify a violent assault on ideas that you disagree with you.

Additionally (and back to the red) you seem to not trust people to decide what your dancing is worth -- so you're a right winger who believes in the free market, but you want to be able to force people to pay what YOU think your dancing is worth, and force them to watch you in the first place, even though they don't recognize it as good?

You're the right wing, personified :2thumbsup:

 

I grew up extremely poor. Raised by a single mother waitressing. I got a 1320 on the SATs back when the high score was still 1600, and even with scholarships could not afford to go to a university. I went to a community college, always felt like I had less tools to work with, and more hurdles to contend with.

That being said I am a dyed in the wool libertarian to social anarachist. I value fairness, liberty, privacy, and tolerance. I hate any form of consolidated power wether it's a government or corporation, feel that any time we try to dictate fairness we or tolerance we create more nepotism, and that the government only exists to protect people in higher positions from what individuals might accomplish with free will.

Big business needs big government and vice versa. We don't need more govt power to balance out mega corporations, we need less govt power protecting mega corporations. Corporations are not natural, they don't exist with natural rights, they need government laws and regulations to protect them and their way of operating.

I skipped the social stuff, cause I got the sense everyone understands that part, but the op didn't see how poor ppl could benefit from less govt.