How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Did I really say that?

I thought you said "Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true."

They're just "poor", without necessity of spinning it with un-deserving as though though those who are not poor see themselves as the deserving. Another Marxist ploy?

Failure cannot be completely eliminated without eventually having to face the consequences of outright total failure.

So this post was simply to avoid answering my question?

 

Indie
For example Indie above seems to be saying that he has based his whole view of relative wealth on one guy and has extrapolated from it that all financial hardship is due solely to the ‘inferiority’ of the individual concerned, so all financial hardship is deserved.

Well yes I think you have, I mean this isn’t the first time you have brought up this particular example to promote your whole philosophy. For example in posts 273 or 483 of the Effort or Luck thread in the latter you said -

My reply to it at the time was –
“Again you are seeing outcome and making a judgement of who you think is worthy and who not, but as I’ve pointed out before you seem to be doing it without knowing all the reasons.

I mean a lot of people are in debt – it is called a mortgage, others have other investments that might mean they are sometimes short of cash (such as children).

Also it might not be the same all there lives, I’ve known young people that spent all their wages out partying but later on settled down got married, saved, raised kids etc.

You see an outcome and think that was always going to be so and would always remain so.

It is the old con of the self serving argument of the deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving being 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 no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

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

And as I pointed out at the time this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.”

As pointed out many times now – some people are in a better position to realise their potential and so to make “better decisions” and some are not.”
*

 

Indie
This isn’t a new mentality it is actually a very old one and the reason why charity as a means of helping the disadvantaged has never been a great success.

I the concept of the ‘deserving and undeserving’ poor has been around for centuries, and has been the subject of debate for as long, so I’m not exactly sure what you are suggesting here?

*

It’s the idea of there being the ‘deserving’ and the ‘un-deserving’ poor.

I think you need to do a bit more research because you don’t seem to have the background knowledge you may need to give an informed answer. (A read of Dickens’ novels is a fun way of learning try Oliver Twist).

As to it being a ‘Marxist ploy’ oh please, what next a world wide Bolshevik conspiracy that’s trying to make your arguments look weak?

I’m sorry but the reason your arguments come across as weak is because you don’t seem able to defend them. I mean look at your replies here, snide one liners and some bits that make it clear you don’t have a handle on what’s been said. Where are you addressing the issues, where’s anything of substance.

*

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.

And in the next fortune cookie…

Oh come on Indie at least try, this is a slogan not a considered argument, and rather vague one at that.

OK its all I’ve got to work with so here it goes –

It suggests the same ‘either/or’ mentality I’ve warned you about before. It is about ‘completely’ and ‘total’ it doesn’t see a more moderate or balanced approach. It implies it is either your way or ‘outright total failure’.

Next, once again seem to be seeing outcome and making a judgement of who you think is worthy and who not, no that.

*

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.

So why does a complex issue get boiled down to a story about some guy at work? Do they actually understand that it might be a complex issue?

What question have I avoided answering? The thing about - Should those who make better decisions be forced to share their success with those who perpetually make poor decisions

I think I’ve addressed it a number of times.

Here it is condensed to “What does "B" owe "A"”

But as I’ve pointed out it seems a bit ridiculous to seemingly base your whole viewpoint of social assistance on one individual. To extrapolate from one case that all financial hardship is due solely to the ‘inferiority’ of the individual concerned, and so proving that all financial hardship is deserved.

*

 

Indie why not stop trying at ‘clever’ and just begin to debate honestly, I think it would be much more interesting and enlightening.

Anyway I think we are moving further away from the intention of this thread – I’ll begin another -

Why are you a right wing libertarian?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=6773131#post6773131

 

Should those who make better decisions be forced to share their success with those who perpetually make poor decisions? Yes or No?

 

I could produce many examples similar to the one, although limited by both time and space, and then ask what do ALL the "B's" owe ALL the "A's"?
Again, you, like government, look at a complex problem and try to apply a single solution ignoring its effect and costs.
If instead of focusing on me personally, and instead examining more closely the problem we discuss, you might find that I am not against providing aid to others who are in need, but am against the inefficient, mostly unproductive, costly, and often corrupt way that a central government does it.

Would you say that ALL persons receiving aid should be receiving it?

 

I could ask the same of you.

Without a clear definition of both libertarian and poverty, it would be hard to determine the intent of this thread.

Am I a libertarian? All I would say for certain is that I am not to the left of center.

 

Indie

Oh hell you really seem incapable of stepping out of a simplistic mindset.

As I keep saying this is a complex issue, – “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.”

*

LOL

I mean look above man, you don’t even seem to acknowledge it is a complex problem; over and over in our discussions you’ve presented simplistic either/or arguments or demanded yes or no answers.

In fact it is me that is constantly trying to explain the complexity of particular issues. Just as I have been trying to do in the last few posts to you and what do I get as a reply another demand for a yes or no answer, go figure.

*

 

Indie

I think you need to get your thinking straight – you tell me not to focus on you personally only then to give me your personal view, which is it?

Anyway I know your views already; what I’m trying to work out is why you have them and if you can defend them from criticism.

I mean haven’t you noticed yet that I’ve remembered what you’ve said and can quote you at will?

For example you said in the small government thread (post 201) that you believed in ‘minimal’ welfare, -

But you have also said in the effort or luck thread (post 415) in relation to my views on giving assistance to the disadvantaged that -

But as I’ve said it would seem to me that little or no state welfare provision would seem to make it more difficult for those in hardship or disadvantage to get out of poverty and would also make exploitation easier which would seem to help the few rather than the many.

But you don’t seem to want to assist people out of poverty because the main thrust of you argument, all the way through our discussions, seems to be that you think people in hardship (seemingly even those born into it) have brought that situation on themselves, and so you seem to think it simple - why should help be given to ‘inferior’ decision makers that you consider as having little or no value to society.

*

I’d ask why they seemed to need aid.

*

 

Indie

No I’d say you were definitely to the right of centre which would make you a right wing libertarian – so why not go to the and explain your views?

Why are you a right wing libertarian?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...31#post6773131


*

 

I think we both agree the issue is complex, but the question I asked was quite specific yet you refused to answer it.

Quite the opposite, my point has always been that many problems the Federal government attempts to solve are much too complex to be solved by a central authority, and that they should instead be attended to at a more local level.

Yet you still support allowing the solution to be a decision of a central point where it is applied carte blanche across the entire nation of over 305 million individuals.

 

Is it me or my views you wish to talk about?

That is correct. And how do you wish to spin that?

I stand by my statement, which did not imply that I would eliminate providing assistance to those truly in need, although you would likely wish to spin it that way.

When aid is provided to those in need what results would you expect the aid to produce?

 

Because I don't feel a necessity to constrain myself as a libertarian when I may disagree with many things that those who define themselves to be believe.
Surely you don't claim to be a libertarian, do you?

 

there are a lot of libertarians where i live

a lot of them are farmers

using federal irrigation, federal crop research, various cash subsidies and help at both the state and federal level

kinda like those 'keep your hands off my medicare' signs at the rallies . . .

guessing they'd like to keep those farms?

[eyes rolling, rolling, rolling]

 

indie

The very fact that you think that it is a simply matter of yes or no makes it very clear you don’t see it as a complex issue, the fact that you have based your whole view of this complex issue on a few people that you claim to have known, speaks volumes about how seriously you’ve looked into it.
*

We have been through that before as well – I know you are against federal social programmes but in conversation with you it’s clear you are not that interested in local social programmes either, it not where they are coming from that seems to be a problem with you.

I mean you view seems to be that you think people in hardship (seemingly even those born into it) have brought that situation on themselves, and so you seem to think it simple - why should help be given to ‘inferior’ decision makers that you consider as having little or no value to society.

*

As I’ve said I already pretty much know your views; what I’m trying to work out is why you have them and if you can defend them from criticism.
*

Better ones than if no aid was given. I think you need to explain yourself a bit more clearly, this is a bit vague.

*

 

Indie

But you have also said in the effort or luck thread (post 415) in relation to my views on giving assistance to the disadvantaged that –

“It would appear that your entire argument is based on keeping people alive regardless of the cost or their value to society”

Again we’ve discussed this, the problem is that if you come at need from the point of view that the people in need are ‘inferior’ decision makers who have placed themselves in need and deserve what they have got, then your view of what should be done for them is going to be somewhat biased.
For example in the discussion about a children who through no fault of their own are born into disadvantage your reply was the verbal shrug of ‘shit happens’ (effort or luck thread –post 207)
It again reminds me of the old con game of the deserving and undeserving and so it becomes a matter of what criteria is used to choose those ‘truly’ in need and what happens to those that are deemed not to be ‘truly’ in need?

I mean is it really worth as you say “keeping people alive regardless of the cost or their value to society”

 

indie

Just because as a right wing libertarian you might disagree with the views of another right wing libertarian, does not stop you being a right wing libertarian, or explaining why you are one.

So since we are moving even further away from the intention of this thread – why not continue at

Why are you a right wing libertarian?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...31#post6773131

 

So you obviously either didn't read the question I asked or don't understand it.

I have little argument with programs that originate in my community.

If this was a verbal conversation I would open your ears and listen, but it would probably be fruitless as you would likely continue to hear what you wanted to hear just as you read into what I write what you wish to claim that I am saying.

I've still yet to determine WHY you hold the views you hold. Essentially it appears that you rank government above the people while I rank the people above the government. Government is a creation of the society, not the other way round.

Worded differently, "What is the primary purpose of providing aid to someone in need?"

 

The question is "Who has the 'right' to make such decisions, and who has the 'right' to determine who should bear the costs?" And it might also be asked "Could the one, or agency having the 'right' exercise the right to refuse assistance, and if so who would determine the criteria for making such decision?"

 

Indie

Oh please Indie stop trying to be ‘clever’ and start debating honestly, of course I read your question and yes I understood it, it would seem more clearly than you did.

You presented a completely self serving story, based on your own biased outlook and designed specifically to promote your own agenda. You then dictate that you will accept only a yes or no answer.

You then have the audacity to turn around and claim you understand the debate about social assistance being a complex one, to which I’d ask – then why are you not treating it as such rather than indulging in such childish tactics.
Even if true and given its convenience that may be doubted, it is as I’ve said simplistic because it is about outcome without asking the pertinent question why. And a few anecdotal examples or questionable validity don’t seem the best basis for a considered view of a complex subject.

*

We have been through that before as well – I know you are against federal social programmes but in conversation with you it’s clear you are not that interested in local social programmes either, it not where they are coming from that seems to be a problem with you.

I think you misunderstand – your viewpoint seems to be opposed to, is biased against, the idea of social provision, I mean your view seems to be that you think people in hardship (seemingly even those born into it) have brought that situation on themselves, and so you seem to think it simple - why should help be given to ‘inferior’ decision makers that you consider as having little or no value to society.
And that point of view is very much going to colour what kind of provision you think should be provided.

You might prefer a local system to a national one, or a charity based system to a tax based one but your basic viewpoint on social provision doesn’t seem to change.
What I’m trying to determine is why you have such views and if you can defend them.

*

I mean you view seems to be that you think people in hardship (seemingly even those born into it) have brought that situation on themselves, and so you seem to think it simple - why should help be given to ‘inferior’ decision makers that you consider as having little or no value to society.

Indie my friend, I can only work with what you give me, time after time I ask you for clarification and explanation, I plead with you to tell me why you have your views and ask you to defend them in honest debate.

And what do I get?

Games, tricks and evasion.

The assessment of your outlook I give here is based on long discussion with you, it is based on your own comments and I’ve presented it, in many forms, on many occasions. You’ve not put up any serious counter-argument to it beyond hints (like here) that somehow it is incorrect.

So if you think it incorrect why not explain why you think it incorrect, rather than once more trying to use tricks to suggest I’ve made it up.

*

Another reply and yet another trick.

If you want to discuss my views, I’m happy to do so, but you already know we have, you are just trying to suggest we haven’t, so you can pull the childish retort - “you haven’t so I’m not”

Don’t you remember me saying -

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.

And all the discussions that lead from it?

*

Again a trick (please stop) – You are trying to suggest I’m against the ‘people’ but you already know that I’m a vocal supporter of democracy, while you are definitely not. You have even suggested that wealth be given greater voting power and influence so in effect it could always block the majority vote. (small government thread post 67)

I have always argued that in a money based economy, a political system should always allow the majority to balance and check the power and influence of wealth so that it cannot corrupt the system to its own interests.
See - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

You however have always seemed to champion ideas that would give more power and influence to wealth.

*

To bring about a better result than would have come about if no aid had been given.