How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

That's not my premise at all. There can be numerous reasons which produce the situations which place people in need, and without examining each one individually it is difficult, if not impossible to provide the type of help necessary that would most effectively reduce or eliminate that individuals need. I don't think the correct solution is to just throw money at every problem assuming that will produce the results desired.

Your approach doesn't appear very complex, those who are not wealthy are disadvantaged, therefore giving them money solves the problem.

You are allowing emotions to cloud the issue.

Most of the developed world countries provide a basic education for free, which should suffice to find some employment. You have to start somewhere in life, and there are more opportunities for those beginning at the bottom than those who start at the top.

I don't favor any policies other than fair and equal treatment of all individuals.

I get the feeling that if I were to post that I agree with you 100% you would still ask the same question.

 

Where do you live? In Bangladesh?

Not at all are you?

Move to a forest and try foraging, that requires no money.

 

and they wonder why ekaterinburg happened . . .

 

Downright childish and meaningless.

Individual is hung up on ideas of ownership. Everything has to belong to someone, and it obviously belongs to whoever is sneakiest with paperwork. And then it's his forevers.

I'm no commie and generally think of a system where no one may "own" anything as a failure. But with people like individual running around, I see what makes the option look appealing, during a revolution. Like, alright, we just killed all the assholes.... Let's make an anti-asshole law! Which sounds awesome to the class that individual supports brutalizing because they have nothing as it is, so they don't lose anything.

Sounds like you've spent your whole miserable life thinking about how big everyones slice of the pie is, without understanding that we're only borrowing the pie in the first place, and as such, there's no excuse for someone to have the whole pie while others starve to death, just because you manipulated some sounds or squiggles on paper to make it "your" pie.

Someday you will die somehow and something or someone will steal your carbon. And you won't get a dime for it.

 

I'm supposed to make sense of that without knowing the details of "your spin"? And who are the "they" you refer to?

 

It's not necessary to apply a title to your posts.

See, you've proven the title was unnecessary.

Instead of looking with deep resentment and envy at everyones pie and trying to figure a way of stealing it or a piece of it, try to learn how to make your own. You seem to have the opinion that everything related to social interaction is zero sum, one pie that must be shared equally for all to prosper. I see it as non zero sum and that instead of a need to share a single pie, we can create new pies and freely trade slices in order to acquire an equitable share of many. Learn how to make a pie.

 

There's a lot of people who make their own pie. And then it gets collected and added to someone elses pie collection, and they starve, because it's just fair that someone with hundreds or thousands of pies pays one, and so does this person with one pie.

Also, don't muddle up resentment and envy. I envy very few, and not for their pie. I resent many. Your association of them might be showing some of your own problems.

That's great, except that, again, people who don't have much pie can't do much, because as soon as they get enough pie to, just maybe, sell some or something, that flat tax swoops in on their pie. Meanwhile, people with lots of pie are laughing all the way to the bake sale, to sell their pie and make twice as many next time.

 

Just who is "collecting" the pies? That sounds like government as there are laws against collecting others pies without renumeration.

I did not mean envy in terms of admiration, but instead: To feel uneasiness, mortification, or discontent, at the sight of superior excellence, reputation or happiness enjoyed by another; to repine at another's prosperity; to fret or grieve one's self at the real or supposed superiority of another, and to hate him on that account.

Any problems I encounter, I find solutions to. It was a problem that you misunderstood my usage of the term "envy" which I solved by providing you with the definition of my usage.

What "flat tax" are you talking about? Pies don't just appear, they must first be created. You are free to refuse to buy from those who make many pies and take your business elsewhere, or get with some others, pool your resources, and abilities and compete.

 

"Any problems I encounter, I find solutions to. "

Well, lucky you.

 

his solution was to run away to the jungle where he could live like a little kurtz

 

Indie
But this is the problem you can’t back up the premise that all disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved.

We have been through this before – you claim that’s not what you mean – I then give examples of what you have actually said that very strongly suggests that it is what you do mean and then I ask you to explain what you do mean and you become evasive once more.

I mean in all our discussions that has been your basic position - that all disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved – people only need to check through your post to see that, so I’m sorry but this statement does seem rather dishonest.

It isn’t ‘impossible’ to help the disadvantaged, I mean we have been through this at length (and briefly in this thread) the fact that many normal peoples lives are better today in such places as the UK is down in very large part to policies of the redistribution of wealth for the public good.

Once again try reading ‘The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

Nor do I – it needs to be coordinated and that’s why something like government is needed.

*
As I’ve explained at length you seem to have this simplistic approach based on outcome and biased assumption.

Oh again with the simplistic mindset, you really have to read what I write, for example to repeat from just a few post ago -

But of course direct assistance is only one aspect there should be a holistic approach aimed at bringing about a society that is fairer and better to live in, where all are given a reasonable opportunity, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

It is not ‘simply’ about giving ‘them’ money it is about environment, infrastructure, education and training, political structures and a lot more. It is about trying to create a society that delivers a better quality of life for all.

 

Indie
To countenance the forceful removal of children from their parents and sterilisation on the basis of a premise you can’t even defend seems to me monstrous as well as deeply irrational.

You think the forceful removal of children from their parents and/or enforced sterilisations are not going to be emotive subjects?

Thing is that you seemed to get worked up, angry, at the idea of being taxed to help others, you bluster at the ideas and shout words like ‘theft’ and ‘robbery’. In other words you get emotionally worked up about the subject.

However when it comes to the sterilisation of individuals against their will and the forceful removal of children from their parents, as punishments for the ‘crime’ of being poor you are suddenly saying that if people disagree they are allowing emotions to cloud their minds?

If such measures were imposed on an enemy in time of war, they would be classified as war crimes, and I think they would definitely come under the heading of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ (Eighth Amendment of the US Bill of Rights).

So I ask why you think they’re a reasonable solution to the problem of the disadvantaged in a society and by what rational argument you’d defend them.

 

Indie

I wish to increase the potential of people to achieve success which is more likely to bring about 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.

To me ‘basic’ education or training is not going to achieve that it is more likely to limit many people’s potential which in turn is more likely to continue unfairness (if not increase it).

I’ve asked you to address the criticism of your views but you seem incapable or extremely reluctant to do so, and I wonder why?

As I’ve pointed out just recently you make assertion that you never seem able to back up – I’ve explained in detail why I think being born into disadvantage can affect the range and depth of a person’s choices.

Rather than empty slogans could you please give reasoned and rational arguments?

*

You on the other hand seem to favour policies that would limit many people’s potential which is more likely to continue unfairness (if not increase it).

Oh another argument we have been through before at length.

Is it justified or fair for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged

So far your most considered comment on this seems to have been ‘life’s unfair’ which I don’t think anyone would accept as a reasonable ‘counter-argument’.

*

I’ve asked you to address the criticism of your views but you seem incapable or extremely reluctant to do so, and I wonder why?

I don’t care if you agree with me or not – I’m not here trying to persuade you nor am I interested in ‘converting’ you.

As I’ve said many times now - I’m trying to understand the views you hold and I’m curious as to why you hold them when, so clearly, you seem incapable of defending them from criticism.

 

Luck has little to do with it.

 

You sound like you've been Hollywood educated.

 

as i'm not entirely sure of the level of your cultural education, i feel it is my duty to remind you that the character actually comes from a book

since it's not by one of the founding fathers i suppose you have never read it - i am a bookseller, i can send you a copy if you like

it's not my favorite conrad work, oddly enough under western eyes is the one i go back to most often

when the libertarians have closed the rest of america's libraries then its children can finally forget books, as i suppose you already have

 

I just don't agree that taking something from one to give to another is the solution to the problem.

Be specific.

Somewhere along the way I believe I did mention the education system has failed under Federal Department of Education, and union control.

One of my favorite Beatle songs was "Taxman" written by George Harrison, with help from John Lennon.

Key word being "Almost"? But are you trying to use that as your foundation for making government rather than the individual citizens responsible for producing equality by means of redistribution? Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who once said "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money."?

If at the local level, and not the Federal level, I agree somewhat, but still feel that government should be the last resort and not the first.

We're each entitled to our individual biases, but I don't consider viewing and responding to each individual separately as a simplistic approach.

Someone has to pay for everything, and your solution doesn't appear to be sustainable in the long run. Eventually there is no one left to provide the necessary bail outs.
The best thing you can give someone is a job.

 

Let's make a deal, I'll give up on the forceful removal of children from their parents, and sterilization against their will, if you'll agree to give up on forcing people against their will to take on additional dependents they had nothing to do with creating for the 'crime' of having or accumulating wealth.

According to Forbes there are currently about 1215 billionaires in the world who control a total of about $4.5 trillion which if distributed equally among everyone would amount to about $664 per person. If tomorrow everything on the planet was divided equally, how long do you think it would take for the same problems that exist today to reoccur?

 

Then do so, but in reality you are only promoting an ideal and looking to government to become the source of power over those who you would like to make responsible for accomplishing your goals.

You seem to have missed your calling to be a minister, but then I guess socialism is a religion in itself.

You in turn have shown to be both reluctant and incapable of understanding that some human beings demand the right to make decisions of their own, while not refusing to help others, prefer to retain the right to provide the help they see fit without need to have your approval of adequacy.

Some of us just have to work a little harder than others to accomplish the same or similar goals. I don't see that to be as great a problem as you seem to.

How about, take that chip off your shoulder and get on with life?

You continually try to place blame on those who achieve success as the cause for inequality. I don't. I see those who have achieved success as the best source for others to achieve success. They have money and all you have to do is find a way to separate some of it from them.

If what one possesses was gained legally, then no matter how much or how little I would not consider it to be unjustified or unfair. Should it be made illegal to accumulate and pass on to your offspring or some other you care for deeply?

Do you mean to cut and paste that in every post you make? Have you got some murine or visine to use?

Actually, you just have great difficulty in accepting the fact that what is earned by others is not for you or a government agency to decide how to disperse or dispose of. Both the rich and the poor are provided with access to the same roads, utilities, police, fire, and military protection and many other services provided by government. You tend to base fairness on what a person receives without thought to what a person gives, or produces. That is a Marxist view to which I do not subscribe. Sorry, but until which time it becomes necessary to once again bear arms that's all the defense I feel to be necessary.

 

Sorry, I just assumed you were referring to the character in "Apocalypse Now", which was based on Conrads work. I find many today seem to get their account of history through movies accepting them as factual sources.

"Lord Jim" was my favorite, and the movie too was good, but the book even better.

Are the libertarians actually looking to close libraries? I've not heard that, and your words appear to state that they have already closed some. I do read quite a lot, but mostly technical books necessary to accomplish my work. Retired or not I still find work necessary, only now I no longer get paid for what I do.