Why are you wasting both our time? You're not interested in productively working on solutions, fine. Feel free to fuck off.
To Libertarians: a proposition
- Thread starter Pseudo Nym
- Start date
Why are you wasting both our time? You're not interested in productively working on solutions, fine. Feel free to fuck off.
Who said that?
How do you know they aren't? Didn't you just admit you don't know what anyone is doing?
Or do you now claim to know what every libertarian in the world is doing and has done?
Why are you avoiding answering the same question you feel entitled to ask others?
Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Maybe it's just the inherent predisposition of most Libertarians to not want to work together as part of a movement for societal change. If they can't come together, how are they supposed to achieve what they want?
I knew someone would say that.
Voluntary charity isn't so bad, if it comes from your heart. Further, there are alternatives to a system with charity that we'd all be far better off under.
I just see forced charity (All forms of charity that are involutary, like all government-run entitlement programs) as creating a worse world than one where all charity is only voluntary. If you think about it, it's easy to see how it could be much better for everyone that way... No Welfare class, no big brother stealing from everyone, nada.
I have relied on family before, as has every human.
But family is different.
In all species, parents and sometimes even extended family look after their own. Humans have forgotten how to do this it seems. Many animals are better at it than many 21st century human parents.
In fact I feel that welfare programs and government-run charity are a huge problem resulting in many ugly situations like the mindless looting crap we saw in London last week or the flash mobs and other bad-parenting situations.
In a world with no charity, sure the infant mortality rate might be higher, but the populace would all be healthier, smarter, and more evolved overall.
If there was less abundant charity, EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO KEEP BREATHING would be forced to stick close to their family and watch out for their family members closely. Bad parenting would be a far smaller problem because kids wouldn't feel closer to their facebook friends than their mom and sister.
But you're defeating the entire point by ASKING for it!
If charity doesn't come from inside yourself then it's no longer voluntary charity.
Look, you have to keep in mind that there is a delicate balance that Nature had perfected over millions, or possibly billions of years. Humans are screwing things up with their charity & goodwill and now the hyper-exploding population and horrid pollution problems are the direct, irrefutable result.
How does nature fight back? With human nature. She gave us all the ability to be ENABLED by charity.
So for example, if you decide to do some charity and hand out $1000 a day to the poor in your neighborhood, then your neighbors will become Enabled and come to depend on that extra, free income. (See: Welfare Families)
Mother Nature has time on her hands and she knows that if you allow yourself to be enabled, sooner or later that enabling income stream is going to dry up. When it does you're broke and have no skills and pretty much have to die of hunger. Lots of needless suffering first, too.
Point: Mother Nature.
So if you want your family to thrive, the lesson is obvious: Take NO Charity.
And if you REALLY want others to thrive too, you should want the same of them. So all the while you are trying to drum up more charity you are actually drumming up more long-term suffering.
The ones who need real help are the ones who can't help themselves, so private charity works great for them. Mentally handicapped, people severly physically handicapped, etc.
I wasn't asking for anything, I was proposing an idea. There's a difference. It seemed like an idea that could go some way toward achieving a Libertarian society. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe it's a crap idea. There sure doesn't seem to be much support here for it, that's for sure.
No one has any idea what people donate, what lives they lead, etc. But let's talk about reality for a second.
I'm pretty sure the point the OP is making (and one that is shared by the general American population), is that Libertarians believe that economics and the free market are the ultimate answer to everything that IS the human condition, so prove it.
The burden is on you guys, not the very systems you say create the problems in the first place. But oops I forgot, your systems cannot exist in our society today because of our big government regulation...even though they are all FOR SURE better than any other systems/policies out there. Right? I mean, why would developed nations all over the world that are thriving using more "socialist" policies than we do, be correct/"right" in their experiences/beliefs that THEIR current system is what is best for the human condition? You Libertarians act like they cannot be correct, they are doomed to fail, etc ALWAYS....because the policy might be considered "socialist" to you?
You guys do realize that the Socialist political party is a serious group outside the U.S as well, right? This isn't just a word Sarah Palin threw out there awhile back....
I just never understood the general "arrogance" from people with a belief in a specific political/economic/moral/social/etc "policy" that has NEVER existed in our lifetimes (aside from maybe some RARE brief examples in certain instances?), and true Libertarianism that is raved about constantly on here will NEVER happen in the U.S. and I don't see it happening much elsewhere, unless you guys are aware of some secret country somewhere thriving on the free market and zero government intervention.
I also love how Libertarians tend to say Liberals are "idealists", but to me, they are idealists because people are always going to need assistance, and people are always going to abuse this assistance. At some point we need to make an educated decision that is based upon the fact that WAY MORE people benefit from gov assistance LEGITIMATELY, than those abusing it (sorry if this does not mesh with your mental images around your neighborhoods, it does not with mine either...but again, i am not short-sighted like I believe others are in this regard).
I'm all for ending the assistance program abuses, but I am not short-sighted and know that these programs truly help people AND there will always be people abusing the system. Did someone seriously say 1% above in regards to the percent of the population that they believe needs legitimate assistance in the U.S.? LMAO I'm outta this one....WOWWWW
I'm pretty sure the point the OP is making (and one that is shared by the general American population), is that Libertarians believe that economics and the free market are the ultimate answer to everything that IS the human condition, so prove it.
The burden is on you guys, not the very systems you say create the problems in the first place. But oops I forgot, your systems cannot exist in our society today because of our big government regulation...even though they are all FOR SURE better than any other systems/policies out there. Right? I mean, why would developed nations all over the world that are thriving using more "socialist" policies than we do, be correct/"right" in their experiences/beliefs that THEIR current system is what is best for the human condition? You Libertarians act like they cannot be correct, they are doomed to fail, etc ALWAYS....because the policy might be considered "socialist" to you?
You guys do realize that the Socialist political party is a serious group outside the U.S as well, right? This isn't just a word Sarah Palin threw out there awhile back....
I just never understood the general "arrogance" from people with a belief in a specific political/economic/moral/social/etc "policy" that has NEVER existed in our lifetimes (aside from maybe some RARE brief examples in certain instances?), and true Libertarianism that is raved about constantly on here will NEVER happen in the U.S. and I don't see it happening much elsewhere, unless you guys are aware of some secret country somewhere thriving on the free market and zero government intervention.
I also love how Libertarians tend to say Liberals are "idealists", but to me, they are idealists because people are always going to need assistance, and people are always going to abuse this assistance. At some point we need to make an educated decision that is based upon the fact that WAY MORE people benefit from gov assistance LEGITIMATELY, than those abusing it (sorry if this does not mesh with your mental images around your neighborhoods, it does not with mine either...but again, i am not short-sighted like I believe others are in this regard).
I'm all for ending the assistance program abuses, but I am not short-sighted and know that these programs truly help people AND there will always be people abusing the system. Did someone seriously say 1% above in regards to the percent of the population that they believe needs legitimate assistance in the U.S.? LMAO I'm outta this one....WOWWWW
Yep, and that should be one of the last things to eliminate anyway until private charities did cover the entire need. I have a friend who's brother is legally retarded but he still works a normal 9-5 job and acts more capable than the unemployed who don't have a disability but receive welfare. He would put them to shame if those undeserving recipients weren't so shameless.
Ok, so take this example. A couple get married, have a couple kids, and the wife decides to be a stay-at-home mom to raise the kids properly. Husband gets killed in a car accident, wife is left as an unskilled laborer, and since we're living in a libertarian society with no laws regulating businesses, the insurance company fucks her out of any money she should be owed.
You're actually saying society is better off without helping her? So now you have a mother and two kids sleeping on the streets, going to sleep hungry every night, she can't get a job because unemployment is at 8%, she's unskilled, and thanks for the libertarian society, even if she landed a job it'd only pay $0.75/hour. Obviously, she's going to do what's necessary to take care of her kids, even if that means doing some things she shouldn't. That's just human nature.
Now let's compound that scenario by 10 or 20 years, and take a wild guess at what your precious little society is going to look like. Definitely not one I'd want to live in, or open a business in either. I'd have to pay out of my ass for security of my business, residence, would need a bullet proof car, wouldn't be able to comfortably walk the streets almost anywhere except gated communities, etc.
^ Gee mang, you don't have much faith in humanity. There are already privately funded charities that would help that family. Now imagine if people weren't paying trillions in taxes - these charities would get even more donations.
If the depressing scenarios you are talking about did somehow become widespread, it would get a lot of media coverage, which would lead to tons of donations. Look at how much was donated after the Haiti earthquake, for example.
If the depressing scenarios you are talking about did somehow become widespread, it would get a lot of media coverage, which would lead to tons of donations. Look at how much was donated after the Haiti earthquake, for example.
This is such a loaded question OP, are you proposing that some otherwise rational businessperson start a non-profit charity that would directly compete with a government-run program?? I don't see a line forming for that one. Hmmmmm....do I want to go through the trouble of trying to sustain a business based on the voluntary exchange between two parties that competes directly against an entity with a monopoly on violence that can coerce its revenues either from the barrel of a gun or a printing press?
Dude, before you start asking questions to libertarians you should do a bit more research than the mainstream news organisations that are currently molding your perceptions. One thing I have noticed is that libertarians are alot less likely to be caught up in Democrat vs Republican sideshow dramas, and are aware that policy tweaks and little cuts and raising taxes on the wealthy are NOT going to make any difference.
One thing you might want to work on is that fish-giver complex of yours - yes I know it feels good to give, but be ready for the consequences...resentment, entitlement, dependency. I think thats why God helps those who help themselves, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've been involved in a charity that feeds hungry people, we are SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient with money than the state is. For 1/10th of the cost we feed approximately 40 times the people ($500 budget a month feeding 20,000 people, versus the state who has a budget of $20,000 and feeds 500-1000).
So , yes , some of us libertarian-minded people put our money where our mouth is.
Just wondering your take on how the current governing system handles paying for its entitlements - when the gov't makes more monetary units to pay for its expenditures it makes the dollars in your pocket worth even less, aka inflation. What does the Fed do? Keeps interest rates super low to facilitate risky investment(really malinvestment) - but do you look at the consequence of this?
Savers - people who have worked and saved what they didn't consume for later - are punished. Since you offer no other alternatives I am assuming you are cool with the status quo. Possibly you want even more stimulus since I would take it a step further that you are a closet-Keynesian so what about the savers? My turn to tug on those extra long heart-strings of yours and ask if you would like to dine on cat food tonight with the savers who now make nothing from their saving, and even have to put it into more risky investments just to get something. What about them?
Oh wait - maybe I underestimated you and you did consider this and that is why you are bringing this up now. Once all the savers are wiped out they will need charity too....why you do care!!
Savers - people who have worked and saved what they didn't consume for later - are punished. Since you offer no other alternatives I am assuming you are cool with the status quo. Possibly you want even more stimulus since I would take it a step further that you are a closet-Keynesian so what about the savers? My turn to tug on those extra long heart-strings of yours and ask if you would like to dine on cat food tonight with the savers who now make nothing from their saving, and even have to put it into more risky investments just to get something. What about them?
Oh wait - maybe I underestimated you and you did consider this and that is why you are bringing this up now. Once all the savers are wiped out they will need charity too....why you do care!!
Why would she be using an insurance company that will rip her off? Should she not do any research at all?
Why didn't her husband have any savings? Where is her family? Does she have no assets? She is unable to train herself or get training? She doesn't know how to do anything at all? No skills what so ever? Does this lady have down syndrome?
You have to at least plan a little bit, you can't just expect other people to take care of you if something goes wrong...
This is my whole point here... If you haven't sufficiently planned then you're asking for it.
-And living in a libertarian society would very well encourage you to plan so this is a non-issue... The father would have had some AWESEOME life insurance & Savings because it's the right thing to do.
The problem with Matt's example took place before the example began... In that society I seriously doubt two people would be getting married in the first place without having some serious funding in place.
All non-issues, Matt. You're thinking like someone who is used to Socialism's enabling devices.
Another thing; Why do you think any life insurance agencies would survive in that society if their biz plan was to screw customers?
libertarianism != anarchism
And people donate when they're inspired, not challenged by someone who doesn't believe them. The only proof of what works is history, </status quo fail>