How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

This reply invalidates your use of that slogan in the first place.

Poor people are not idle, or they die.

When you're poor, you can't go applying for CEO positions. You can only work minimum wage. And when you work minimum wage, the only thing you're qualified for is more minimum wage. And minimum wage is hardly enough to live at all. And you don't even think that minimum wage should exist.

 

Because it's too much government interference and all corporations and business should be trusted to self-regulate. Duh. Oh wait, that's utterly absurd. My apologies.

 

Maybe the Individual can explain the means for down grading the communication of the information about each one of US in the Libertarian developed nation. Would that be controllable at facebook along with something like that in our public and private washrooms all over the country, OR would it be the state of observability with the End in Mind of a the rather a Collective State. Nevertheless, America is defended against that last possibility by the crime and the debt to the Mob, and also the institutions of concern for all of our racial origins.

I'm on a role; :hat:

 

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?

 

Is it possible here to post a question or make a statement with a clearly defined topic and adhere to the topic with the intent of reaching agreement where possible?

 

We can't possibly come to an agreement on anything if you absolutely refuse to answer the questions posed to you. I'm left to wonder what your intention is when it is clear you either don't read the responses and questions of those writing to you or you're dead-set on not having an honest conversation. I'm going to repeat the question I asked you in context, in hopes this time you'll give answering it a shot, instead of answering some other question that no one asked.

You said:

to which I asked:

Now please look closely - I'm asking what you were implying by what you said. There are no 'most cases' about this. It's about this one case where you said this one phrase. Your response should essentially be one of two possible options - I'll write them here so it'll be like a multiple choice exam. (This all occurred just after you brought up the phrase about hard work conquering all adversity. A phrase you posted as a post all by itself, and then later sort of acted coy about it saying it was 'just' a motto of a union you worked for, once again leaving us wondering what you meant by it when you posted it.)

Answer 1: No, it was not my intention to imply that idleness is the cause of people's suffering.

Answer 2: Yes, it was my intention to imply that idleness is the cause of people's suffering.

Please be assured I'm not being a smart ass here - my assumption is you're not really reading posts that are written to you but skimming them and providing a kneejerk response. I've seen you evade questions before, but this one is fairly innocuous and I had hoped we could simply have it answered and move on with the discussion. But it's hard to have a discussion if I can never be sure about what you mean because you won't clarify what, exactly, you mean.

 

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

 

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

This really shouldn't have been necessary for you to tell me what you meant by something you said, but I'll indulge in the hopes you'll now answer the question.

 

Excluding 'etc.', which dismisses and ignores my request to 'define clearly', hunger and homelessness more often than not are directly related to poverty when defined as being poor related to lacking money. Illness, while it can be brought on as a result of poverty can also be a result of lifestyle regardless of wealth. Discrimination too, is not applicable strictly to only those who are stricken with poverty.

Eliminating poverty would not eliminate discrimination, nor would it eliminate illness. Even the wealthiest members of society experience illness, and regardless of wealth not all illness can be prevented or treated successfully.

Hunger and homelessness are most often a result of poverty in the sense of lacking sufficient money to provide ones needs or wants, and for most humans in todays world, needs and wants, including the treatment of illness, are purchased from those most capable of providing them.

Can we not agree that our needs and wants, when they exist, are provided by others, as a result of their labor, which are then made available to us at some cost in return for the labor which provides them?

The procurement of money as the means of purchasing our needs and wants is a result of our own labor in acquiring it, and recognizing the fact that we obtain money as a result of our individual productivity in relation to its value to society, some of our needs and wants will always remain outside of our means to acquire. The fact that others have the means in no way obligates them to provide for the needs or the wants of those who are lacking, although in a free society they do have the right to do so as an act of charity.

If someone refuses to exert any effort to avoid living in poverty, then their suffering is self inflicted. Then there are others who will exert only minimal effort demanding that others make up the difference in providing their needs. And there are others who no matter how much effort they exert, it fails to be sufficient to provide their needs and wants. And lastly there are those who are physically and/or mentally incapable of providing the most basic of their needs or wants. There is no simple single answer which resolves this problem, and the most rational way of attacking it is to do so as close to the source of each individual instance as possible.

If this answer is unacceptable to you, then there is little more to discuss, therefore you are welcome to have the last word.

 

Indie

I’m just wondering how someone with Social Darwinist views might see the motto “Labor omnia vincit”

I could see how someone like that 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 that would fit in with you stated view that if someone fell into hardship through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control that they should be allowed to die of want.

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

 

Indie

Again that simplistic tendency to see things in black and white that you’ve shown before, you seem to think things have to be superior or inferior to another (a tendency of Social Darwinists as well it should be noted).

To me it is a matter of balance, the balancing of the needs of the individual and those of wider society. It then becomes a matter of how this can be best achieved.

Government is just a means of ordering society and it can be about the serving of the interests of one or a few or the many (e.g. dictatorship, oligarchy, democracy).

To me the best form of government is one that brings about societies that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. That are places were people are more likely to realise their potential.

You seem to prefer a society (and government) that would be dominated by wealth, where potential was stifled rather than encouraged.

 

Indie

“regardless of any consequences”

I’m unsure what the ‘consequences’ you are hinting at would be?
I mean as is discussed in the thread ‘The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011” the rise of neo-liberal ideas (that you seem to favour) have not been very good for the US or a majority of the American people.

"The slow economic strangulation of …millions of other middle-class Americans started long before the Great Recession, which merely exacerbated the “personal recession” that ordinary Americans had been suffering for years. Dubbed “median wage stagnation” by economists, the annual incomes of the bottom 90 per cent of US families have been essentially flat since 1973 – having risen by only 10 per cent in real terms over the past 37 years. That means most Americans have been treading water for more than a generation. Over the same period the incomes of the top 1 per cent have tripled. In 1973, chief executives were on average paid 26 times the median income. Now the *multiple is above 300.
The trend has only been getting stronger. Most economists see the Great Stagnation as a structural problem – meaning it is immune to the business cycle. In the last expansion, which started in January 2002 and ended in December 2007, the median US household income dropped by $2,000 – the first ever instance where most Americans were worse off at the end of a cycle than at the start. Worse is that the long era of stagnating incomes has been accompanied by something profoundly un-American: declining income mobility."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1a8a5cb2-9ab2-11df-87e6-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ZQRDTkTA

 

You appear to go to great length to put everything into a context other than that which it was originally intended.

 

indie

Like Mc Fuddy’s question it seems like a simple enough request, why are you evading giving a reply?

 

Reply given, discussion completed.

 

Indie

Ok the possible meaning of “Labor omnia vincit” to a Social Darwinist.

Lets see – you’ve stated that it is "without effort ones needs will not be obtained." And I pointed out that someone with Social Darwinist ideas, like your own, might see that as meaning that if someone was in dire straits they must have not made enough effort and therefore deserved to die from want.

Since you don’t seem to be disputing this argument are you agreeing that it might be so?

 

Perhaps you should ask that question of someone who claims to be a Social Darwinist, I've not claimed to be one. Should I be asking if you really would kill wealthy people just to acquire their money and property to give it to the poor?

 

So I guess this means your answer to my question is no?

 

Indie

Well you probably wouldn’t call yourself a Social Darwinist (because of the negative connotations) but you have presented a number of ideas that are clearly Social Darwinist in nature that you once called “Spenceristic” after Hubert Spencer who also didn’t call himself a Social Darwinist but who preached ideas that were clearly Social Darwinist in nature. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

No I wouldn’t why do you think I would?

 

Its funny reading through this and realizing how many people just don't seem to understand how libertarianism works. YES, we do not want federal government playing a roll in our lives.. no social security.. no medicare.. no handouts.. no no child left behind.. BUT it's because it's on a level that is NOT controlled by the people. Federal government is dealt with by politicians. Libertarianism would much rather see social security.. medicare.. and handouts.. education.. or any other personal choice to be dealt on a more LOCAL/STATE agenda... the PEOPLE should have the right to vote on who and what happens to their livelihood. Not vote to have someone else vote on something we have no control over

btw.. been a check to check person my whole life.. been homeless as well