Well, since this thread is about libertarian philosophy, it’s necessarily about what libertarians believe. And libertarians don’t believe that implementation of their policies would lead to people starving or dying. Practically, whether the polices actually would lead to such an outcome is not particularly relevent to what libertarians think will happen.
For what it’s worth, it’s been fairlywellestablished that essentially no one starves to death in America today due to a lack of food. Given that conservatives donatemore to charity than liberals, if the country somehow became and remained libertarian overnight, it’s doubtful that anyone would literally die from lack of food.
Most libertarians would counter that Uganda (or Somalia, which seems to get raised in nearly every discussion on libertarians) are not actually libertarian paradises, since libertarian policies emphasize both minimal regulation and strong enforcement of existing laws. Since strong rule of law has been established in the West for centuries, this second point often gets overlooked. However, it may be useful in understanding why modern American libertarians find dilapidated and corrupt third world hellholes undesirable locations to live, if the answer was not obvious to you.
I wonder, when it says conservatives give more to charity, does that include giving to church or is that restricted to actual legitimate charities, like the red cross, etc. What about donating money to your alma mater, duke university, is that giving to chairty?
No, I don’t. In fact, as a practicing libertarian, I can assure you that we have no plans to do so.
Let’s put it this way. How many people have ever been killed by libertarian policies, and how does that compare to the number killed by advocates of expanded government such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong I’m, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, et al? I think the big government advocates killed more.
Yes except I’m not really concerned with philosophy. Why would I be? Seriously? I’m concerned with results. And I can quickly disprove the idea that if you remove assistance people will pull themself out of trouble. All I need to do to disprove that idea is to point to all the homeless and unemployed people. That the would pull themself out of it is by definition a failed hypothesis. So, are we going to talk more about philosophy or are we going to talk more about what does or does not work, in, reality? (Please don’t think I don’t like talking to you. I enjoy our chats)
Yes, of course it is a loaded extremist example. I am simply pointing out it is the real world example of what happens when you remove all regulations. BTW, not to get too distracted, but I only ever seem to hear Libertarians/conservatives talk about regulation being bad in the abstract. I hardly ever hear them give a logical reason why regulation A or B is detrimental in any specific sense.
because giving to your church or your Alma Mater helps you, glorifies you and your memories and your religion. It doesn’t actually help other people. Isn’t charity supposed to help people? Of course if you give to the food drive at your church or you give to the need based scholarship at your Alma Mater, that is charity. Putting in a stained glass window at your church or building a bigger football stadium, how could that ever be considered charity? Isin’t it a bit deceptive to pretend that it is?
How many people have ever been killed by using food stamps to buy groceries? How many kids have been killed by eating a free lunch at school? Shall we continue to play games? Do you need more examples?
Ok, let’s talk results. According to Mercatus Center rankings, the most free states are North and South Dakota, while the least free are California and New York. Which pair has a higher unemployment rate? Which has more homeless people?
Could you please wait 10 minutes for me to go look up some really bad statistics about Alabama and Arkansas? I mean if the objective here is to win by pointing out something bad that happens in a state, I can play that game, I’m just going to need about 10 minutes. Do you mind waiting? Maybe I can find some bad statistics on 10 red states? Would that mean I really really won as opposed to just simply winning?
On what grounds do you make that statement? I would say that giving to my church helps people quite a bit. First of all, such donations pay the salaries for the pastor and organist, thus allowing them to hold services, offer counselling, visit the sick, organize numerous events and groups, etc… Second, parts of such donations go to food for the poor, housing for the homeless, disaster relief, and so forth. Third, such donations pay for the church building and grounds.
If a person gets to see a pretty stained glass window thanks to a charitable donation, that person has been helped, have they not?
Perhaps you should have given your argument more thought before you posted it.
California and New York are still moderately conservative by First World standards and favor big business over people. The Google Bus is a perfect example of that.
Oh please, can we get real, or are you ACTUALLY asserting that paying your organist and building stain glassed windows is charity? I’m NOT saying you shouldn’t have an organist or a stained glass window. I am saying calling those two acts charity is incredibly deceptive.
Please give me three solid example of how freedom is restricted in NYC in any meaningful way. Apart from not being able to get an extra large soda at McDonald’s, I can’t think of any.
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
1.
the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
synonyms: financial assistance, aid, welfare, relief, financial relief; More
help or money given voluntarily to those in need.
“an unemployed teacher living on charity”
2.
an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
synonyms: nonprofit organization, voluntary organization, charitable institution;
I carry a knife with me pretty much everywhere; it’s a really useful tool. NYC has some of the most restrictive knife laws in the country. Some of the knives I rotate in carrying would have the ability to be classified as “Gravity knives” by the typical application of NYC law. I’d be committing a Class A Misdemeanor and could be imprisoned for up to a year.
Yes, and believe it or not NYC is one of the safest cities in America. Gun laws are even stricter. I knew someone who had a coworker go to prison (for three years I think) for defending himself when the store was robbed at gunpoint because the gun they used to defend themself was unlicensed. Most of their safety laws I agree with but it is obvious some are excessive.
New York City also bans right hand turns on red and has extensive rent regulation covering around 50% of apartments. Combined with the above comment, these are three substantive regulations largely unique to NYC. There are many more, especially in the area of zoning.