To Libertarians: a proposition

[Pseudo Nym]

See, this is the fucking problem. Ask a Libertarian what to do about poverty and disability and they wave their hand and point to "charity." Suggest they actually create that charity and what do you get? A bunch of excuses and reasons why it won't work/why it's not even worth trying.

Come on guys. This isn't just about the able-bodied poor, either. There are disabled people, right? People that can't provide for themselves? What about charity for them? Don't you want to get them off government assistance on to less wasteful, voluntary charitable assistance programs? Or is Libertarianism really about just throwing them to the dogs and letting them fend for themselves?

If you think it's a good way to run a society, fucking prove it. I'm not just talking about starting one or two charities here and there, I'm talking about starting a Libertarian charity movement. A concerted effort to do it and make a real impact on government spending. But if what I've heard in this thread is any indication, that's going to be hard sell. You all want more freedom, but you're not willing to work for it, to sacrifice to get it. Is that what I'm hearing? If that's really the case, if you're not willing to work for it, then you'll never get what you want.

 

[jonas33h]

See, this is the fucking problem. Ask a Libertarian what to do about poverty and disability and they wave their hand and point to "charity." Suggest they actually create that charity and what do you get? A bunch of excuses and reasons why it won't work/why it's not even worth trying.

Come on guys. This isn't just about the able-bodied poor, either. There are disabled people, right? People that can't provide for themselves? What about charity for them? Don't you want to get them off government assistance on to less wasteful, voluntary charitable assistance programs? Or is Libertarianism really about just throwing them to the dogs and letting them fend for themselves?

If you think it's a good way to run a society, fucking prove it. I'm not just talking about starting one or two charities here and there, I'm talking about starting a Libertarian charity movement. A concerted effort to do it and make a real impact on government spending. But if what I've heard in this thread is any indication, that's going to be hard sell. You all want more freedom, but you're not willing to work for it, to sacrifice to get it. Is that what I'm hearing? If that's really the case, if you're not willing to work for it, then you'll never get what you want.

the people I know that donate don't talk about it the way liberals do they do it because it's the right thing to do not so they can brag about it maybe that's why you don't here about libertarians and their works of charity.

At least that's my experience, speaking for my self you will never here me talk about my donations or charity contributions it's none of your business.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

the people I know that donate don't talk about it the way liberals do they do it because it's the right thing to do not so they can brag about it maybe that's why you don't here about libertarians and their works of charity.

At least that's my experience, speaking for my self you will never here me talk about my donations or charity contributions it's none of your business.

This isn't just about charitable donation, or even primarily. This is about starting and/or promoting charity that works and that replaces government spending. Bragging about being charitable is completely different than promoting charity. Every charity that aims to be successful needs promotion to do it.

 

[pfgannon]

Do you really believe that donating to charity en mass (in addition to the taxes we're already paying) would really help curb federal spending? I have a feeling they won't be so willing to give up that extra cash...

 

[guerilla]

The first post mentioned the "disabled", so I wasn't under the impression that they were just talking about handouts for the lazy.

I already help care for a disabled person. It's not charity, it is my responsibility.

If people stopped being lazy, and look for others to carry the load, we would only have a small number of people in society, probably less than 1% who are in need of assistance.

But if people think that we should replicate the welfare state with private institutions, they are delusional. Many of the people getting government [sic] charity are simply lazy, useless or both.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Do you really believe that donating to charity en mass (in addition to the taxes we're already paying) would really help curb federal spending? I have a feeling they won't be so willing to give up that extra cash...

Again, not just talking about donating here, but about starting and supporting charity that has the specific goal of displacing government spending. I would guess that there are relatively few existing charitable organizations that directly overlap with government programs since there's not a great need for it.

Would it actually curb federal spending? If the charity serves the need better than the government, why not? You could argue that in some cases you'll get people trying to 'double-dip' from both the charity and government, which is a legitimate concern, and something that might require some measures to prevent. I would argue, one area where charity might be superior is in "customer" care. This may be surprising to some to you, but some people avoid seeking government assistance because of demeaning the whole process is. It's not uncommon that social workers treat people applying for benefits like complete garbage. There's definitely room for improvement there.

Remember also that charitable donation doesn't have to be "in addition to" the taxes you're already paying - you can write a lot of it off. Assuming the charity is really better/more efficient than the equivalent government program, isn't this is a better use of your money?

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Do you really believe that donating to charity en mass (in addition to the taxes we're already paying) would really help curb federal spending? I have a feeling they won't be so willing to give up that extra cash...

He's saying, for example, replace the government subsidized food bank in your local community with a completely privatized one. Round up volunteers, corporate sponsorships, make partnerships with local grocery stores to pickup what they can't sell, etc. Make it by the citizens for the citizens, without any government funding or assistance whatsoever.

 

[guerilla]

See, this is the fucking problem. Ask a Libertarian what to do about poverty and disability and they wave their hand and point to "charity." Suggest they actually create that charity and what do you get? A bunch of excuses and reasons why it won't work/why it's not even worth trying.

It's not worth trying because it's economically inefficient and makes the society as a whole less prosperous, which feeds back and creates a need for more charity.

There is a reason why communism doesn't work.

That said, the real fucking problem is that you continue to ask others to do what you apparently will not do yourself. If it bothers YOU so much, why are YOU not solving it?

You all want more freedom, but you're not willing to work for it, to sacrifice to get it.

LOL, I love how you judge people you don't know.

It's always about someone else. What they are or aren't doing.

Why don't you tell us about what you do? Tell us about your plan, your accomplishments, your success stories. It seems only fair that if you're going to challenge others, you also submit yourself to the same scrutiny.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

But if people think that we should replicate the welfare state with private institutions, they are delusional.

It would be more efficient and cost-effective though, right? So wouldn't it be a net gain? In addition, unlike the government, private institutions have an interest in moving people off charity as it allows them to serve more people, and eventually perhaps lower the overall numbers of people that need help.

Many of the people getting government [sic] charity are simply lazy, useless or both.

And many are not. Many have situations in their lives that are a lot more complicated than that.

 

[lukep]

This isn't just about charitable donation, or even primarily. This is about starting and/or promoting charity that works and that replaces government spending. Bragging about being charitable is completely different than promoting charity. Every charity that aims to be successful needs promotion to do it.

Ok, I'll be the uncle Scrooge then... None of you could do it so it's up to me I guess...

FUCK those who need charity.

There, I said it. Somebody had to the way this newbie guy is carrying on...

Nature horribly murders all who need charity in every species including homo sapiens. If it weren't for the mental condition of empathy that we evolved, we NEVER would have been any different.

But we do have empathy and we did create charity. I'm OK with this much and of course I'd rather live in a world where people do charitable good deeds for others... It makes for a few more pleasant memories.

But what NEGATES those very same memories is being forced or entitled into doing them. In my mind that's no longer charity but simply wealth redistribution which is WRONG and IMMORAL.

So the bottom line here is that government-run "Charity" is always wrong, and can never be right. If charity doesn't come from the heart then THE FUCKERS HAVE IT COMING BECAUSE NATURE WANTS TO KILL THEM ANYWAY!!!

Get fucking used to it.

 

[Mr Jacksonian]

Why don't you do this yourself to prove whether this theory does or doesn't work. Oh, you want someone else to do it for you? Let me guess, liberal?

 

[guerilla]

It would be more efficient and cost-effective though, right?

Everything is more efficient than government, because government is socialized and cannot calculate rationally. When you confiscate your revenue stream with force and operate under a monopoly, how can you possibly make a judgment call about how efficient your business is?

1. You have no competition.

2. Your clients give you money or you beat them up.

That's theft and extortion, it isn't economic activity.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

That said, the real fucking problem is that you continue to ask others to do what you apparently will not do yourself. If it bothers YOU so much, why are YOU not solving it?

LOL, I love how you judge people you don't know.

It's always about someone else. What they are or aren't doing.

Why don't you tell us about what you do? Tell us about your plan, your accomplishments, your success stories. It seems only fair that if you're going to challenge others, you also submit yourself to the same scrutiny.

Hey, I'm just trying to help here. Most of what I'm seeing hear is people knocking it down, rather than proposing anything themselves. It's fine if you do things on your own time, but again, I'm talking about a charity movement. If all you're going to do is sit there and bitch about why it won't work, you're part of the problem.

 

[guerilla]

If all you're going to do is sit there and bitch about why it won't work, you're part of the problem.

How do you know what people here do and don't do?

 

[guerilla]

Why don't you do this yourself to prove whether this theory does or doesn't work. Oh, you want someone else to do it for you? Let me guess, liberal?

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Ok, I'll be the uncle Scrooge then... None of you could do it so it's up to me I guess...

FUCK those who need charity.

There, I said it. Somebody had to the way this newbie guy is carrying on...

Nature horribly murders all who need charity in every species including homo sapiens. If it weren't for the mental condition of empathy that we evolved, we NEVER would have been any different.

But we do have empathy and we did create charity. I'm OK with this much and of course I'd rather live in a world where people do charitable good deeds for others... It makes for a few more pleasant memories.

But what NEGATES those very same memories is being forced or entitled into doing them. In my mind that's no longer charity but simply wealth redistribution which is WRONG and IMMORAL.

So the bottom line here is that government-run "Charity" is always wrong, and can never be right. If charity doesn't come from the heart then THE FUCKERS HAVE IT COMING BECAUSE NATURE WANTS TO KILL THEM ANYWAY!!!

Get fucking used to it.

Are you actually serious? That's probably one of the most self-deluded, arrogant, selfish, and conceited things I've read on the internet in years. My god...

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Ok, I'll be the uncle Scrooge then... None of you could do it so it's up to me I guess...

FUCK those who need charity.

Aren't you a tough guy. Never relied on anyone on your life, and never will. Lucky you.

But what NEGATES those very same memories is being forced or entitled into doing them. In my mind that's no longer charity but simply wealth redistribution which is WRONG and IMMORAL.

So the bottom line here is that government-run "Charity" is always wrong, and can never be right.

Which was the whole point of proposing this in the first place - to replace forced "charity" with voluntary charity.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

How do you know what people here do and don't do?

I'm referring to the dominant attitude in this thread. I've proposed a way of working towards the kind of society Libertarians claim to want, and what seems to be most of the Libertarians here just want to bash it.

 

[guerilla]

I'm referring to the dominant attitude in this thread.

So you admit, you don't know anything about the people you are criticizing in this thread. Correct?

I've proposed a way of working towards the kind of society Libertarians claim to want, and what seems to be most of the Libertarians here just want to bash it.

Why would a libertarian take advice on how to improve society, from someone who doesn't understand economics?

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Why don't you do this yourself to prove whether this theory does or doesn't work. Oh, you want someone else to do it for you? Let me guess, liberal?

Libertarians say that this is what society should look like. I'm saying, step up, Libertarians, and make it happen. I've proposed a way that could work. If Libertarians aren't willing to step up and work together to make it happen, it's not going to.