I’ve learned a lot about the so-called “libertarian” movement ala Tea Party and Ron Paul over the past few years, and the message I get from them is that those who are not able to “carry their weight” and need public assistance, whether it’s due to mental illness, physical disability or laziness, do not deserve to live and need to be weeded out physically, either through passive or forcible means or perhaps a combination a both.
Although they almost invariably claim to be “progressive conservatives” who reject racism and support things like gay marriage and legal cannabis use, I have found that when I debate them they usually turn out to be just as bigoted as a plain old Christian conservative. It seems to me like the only difference between them and a regular Republican is that some libertarians do not believe in God.
Hell if anything libertarians seem more hateful and bigoted towards people with disabilities, autistic people (many of whom struggle with employment), and the poor than regular Republicans, many of whom still believe in charity and basic decency. “This is Sparta” should be the Libertarian motto lol.
Do you think if this country ever elects a libertarian government they would actually impose policies in favor of killing off the lower class? I could see them cutting welfare and sending people to labor camps, broadly expanding the death penalty, encouraging the shooting of the homeless and “vagrants” and enacting policies that caused famine such as getting rid of food stamps and making it even more difficult for people to find jobs.
I contend that either a) you’re laboring under a cognitive bias that causes you to believe the most extreme libertarian positions you’ve ever encountered are somehow the baseline or commonplace positions, or b) you’ve somehow only discussed these issues with reprehensible people.
Maybe I’ve just talked to some of the really horrible ones, but the idea I get from many of them is that the poor should just eat cake. I’m not making stuff up, I mean this is coming from their own words that I’ve heard over the years debating them. SOME of them are reasonable and support some pretty damn socialist ideas like universal basic income but most of them seem to have nothing but contempt for those who are less fortunate than themselves.
The idea is that by cutting off aid, the poor will be forced to get jobs and become independent agents. This would be better than the status quo for both the affected people and society in general. Libertarians do not want poor people to die.
Realize that libertarians have no problem with charity, but believe it should come from the private sector.
I do empathize with the notion that many libertarians are really just self-absorbed idealists who don’t feel concerned with the problems of their fellow man.
A lot of business owners look at society in this way: if I provide you with a job then I don’t “owe” you or anyone else anything. If I want to give some of my wealth to charity, I should be able to choose to whom it goes and not have the government do this for me.
It is difficult to strike the proper balance, something between the social Darwinism of the robber barons and the “you didn’t build that” naivety of the modern Progressive.
So basically, we are supposed to rely upon people who’s primary concern is maximizing profits to be in charge of handing out charity? Isn’t that kind of an inherent contradiction?
That’s the intention. Whether it works in practice is a very different debate, but the point is that libertarians generally don’t want poor people to starve.
We rely upon the free market to distribute millions of goods, many of which are needed for modern life. Whether this system of distribution should be regulated, and to what extent, are questions of debate. But there isn’t really any doubt that a system based on self-interested actors can work.
They may or may not want it, but it would still be the inevitable result of their policy. Plus most libertarians support banning begging and the criminalization of homelessness (their “small government” stance usually does not apply when it comes to punishing people they dislike), so if the benefits of unemployed and disabled people were cut off overnight, those who aren’t lucky enough to have family or friends who will take them in will find themselves either in a privatized jail or starving, maybe eating one meal a day during “good times”. Perhaps some of them might become concubines or maids for the elite. Charity is a great thing but it’s naive to think it comes anywhere close to fulfilling the needs of the unfortunate.
I actually think charity would decline in a Libertarian society since a culture of self-interest would take root, even though the need for it would increase dramatically.
So you admit it doesn’t work then? Just cutting off people with limited ability and and expecting them to suddenly become productive members of society?
A mechanism can work at what it’s good at and still be useless at other functions.
There isn’t any debate on whether an oscillating fan can move air around. There also isn’t any debate on whether it can usefully perform intestinal surgery.
On the other hand, we know that goods can be distributed by the market where there is distribution infrastructure and sufficient demand. There’s no debate that somebody will buy some proportion of our work product, as there is no debate that the fan moves air. The question you’re hand-waving is whether the disabled, unfortunate, and undercapitalized can get out of that situation in a way that is “free” to the libertarian, and also “law-abiding” to same.
Can you give some citations to libertarians saying this? Because if you can’t, I think we’ll all feel pretty safe believing that you’re making $&#@ up.
