How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Just a widely used Latin phrase, and motto of a Labor union I was once a member, and regardless of the state of the economy, it holds true for those who employ it.

 

Time to bring back the CCC and WPA. Worked in the 30s. Or does everyone out of work and losing their jobs,houses and families need to just roll over and die?

 

Something you are fond of saying but never fail to not back it up. How can you possibly say that every person who ever has, does, and will work hard will conquer any adversity? What silly nonsense.
You made the statement, now prove it. Prove that hard work always conquers no matter what the circumstance. Or at least make a cogent argument bereft of dubious anecdotes. And if you insist on saying "I already have", please point out which post you did so.

 

Don't bother. He's a strict Darwinist with all that entails. That this society and it's monetary system is way out of whack with the poor and middle classes losing badly and only getting worse, is not in his vocabulary. You either make it with the rules that the ruling class makes (which they can and do change at will)--or rightly suffer--LOSER.

 

What if they get sick, or want their wages, or have a kid, or want to find a new job? sucks for them, they shoulda thought about that before they became wage slaves.

What meaningful response.

Might mean a bit more if your libertarian buddies like the koch brothers hadn't recently finished totally crushing the unions.

 

All we consume is paid for by someone in the end. Helping those who are incapable, and those capable and are attempting to help themselves is a laudable endeavor, and best accomplished through voluntary charitable organizations and individual efforts. For government to assume the responsibility creates an environment which only diminishes the society and opens the avenues for corruption to grow uncontrolled.

 

Indie

I see your Labor omnia vincit and raise you a Arbeit Macht Frei

Both phrases have long histories and can have differing means given the context and the person expressing them.

Given your Social Darwinist leanings I wonder what your interpretation of "Labor omnia vincit" is?

 

Pretty simple isn't it? To state the opposite, "without effort ones needs will not be obtained."

 

Indie

As to charity we’ve been through it all before and you still haven’t addressed the criticisms of your position (other than the unsupported assertion that charity would work).

*

As I’ve pointed out – the reason why social provision was demanded and fought for in many countries was because charity was unable to give the cover that was needed. This is why many charitable organisations can only function with the funding they receive from government grants

Also who decides which people get assistance and which do not? Because in the past there is the problem that the self serving idea of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ crept into peoples thinking on the matter of giving to charities.
This is the idea 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 wouldn’t need assistance but if they are in problems then they must be irresponsible and have made bad choices and are therefore feckless and don’t deserve assistance.

 

Indie

Arbeit Macht Frei (“work will set you free”) is also pretty simple but it still ended up above the gates to Auschwitz.

*

And you seem to admire the ideas of Herbert Spencer who said –

And you have replied to the statement - 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.

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

So I could see how someone might see "without effort ones needs will not be obtained" as meaning – if you are in trouble you must have not made enough effort and therefore deserve to die from want.

I mean when you look at in the context of Mustang’s idea for a slave labour force the idea of “Labor omnia vincit” can seem quiet sinister.

 

And you feel that government is capable of rationally solving the problem with a one size fits all solution that has done little more than greatly increased the Nations debt as a result? Government programs of this nature are much better handled at the State and/or local levels, with private charities closely involved, more or less in line with our Constitution and not Marxist emotionalism as promoted by the Left, which does little more than divide the members of society against one another in an attempt to expand the power of the Central government over the people as a whole, eventually resulting in a two class society comprised of those who govern, and those who are governed.

 

Indie

Nice rant but it doesn’t address what has been raised.

And I already know that you seem to think that anyone’s views that are to the left of your rather extreme right wing libertarian ideas are ‘emotional Marxists’ but that still doesn’t explain why you seem unable to defend your ideas.

And from what I can tell from my many conversations with you - you seem to think anyone is an emotional Marxists (anyone left wing) if they don’t adhere to Social Darwinist ideas that you think all left wingers are too soft because they would help people that had fallen into hardship through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control rather than just letting them die of want.

 

I think I clearly stated that "Labor omnia vincit" was the motto of a labor union I once belonged to, and had nothing at all to do with Germans, Jews, or Death camps, but simply implies that work rather than idleness is the more likely means of acquiring ones needs.

We appear to have distinct philosophical difference in that you seem to think that societies are created by government, thereby making government superior to society, while it is my opinion that societies first form, and at some point find it necessary to create a form of government, thereby making the individuals who comprise the society superior to their government. And yes, anything left of center as well as some thing just slightly right of center appear, unacceptably to me, as based to varying degrees on Marxist Socialism. And no, I don't think that "left wingers are too soft because THEY would help people who had fallen into hardship...", but would like to use government force on those most successful as the means of providing anything and everything they can label as socially unjust, in an attempt to achieve what they might define as an egalitarian society, regardless of any consequences. You seem to be of the opinion that being rich equates to being right wing, and being poor equates to being left wing. By the way, has George Soros taken a long or short position on the Euro?

 

Are you implying that idleness is the reason why people suffer?

 

And other than that there is the Need for future generations to own a survivable world of Nature and natural morals for surviving one another. That last part is a shocker.:2thumbsup:

 

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

 

So who can answer the political philosophical problem I have about liberty in general which really is continuous in the known experience of fellowship but IS discontinuous for the individuals' individual (hey, hmmm?) self-conscious free Being.

 

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.

 

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.

 

No, you didn't. You answered how one might know how often idleness is the cause of poverty. That's not what I asked. I asked what your implication was, and you still haven't answered it (and it WAS a simple yes or no question). I'm not sure if you're being intentionally evasive or simply fail to understand the question I asked. Since it's clear either way you're not going to answer it, I'll assume your answer is 'no' and give you the benefit of the doubt of being a rational person.