How is that relevant to this thread? You said that libertarians want to kill off poor people, yet instead of offering any evidence to support the claim, you change the subject to accusing New York and California of being moderately conservative.
How are you coming with those cites you were asked for?
I think the assertion is that a callous disregard for people being homeless or going hungry is effectively the same as wanting to kill off poor people. It is of course not the same, in the most technical terms. I repeat. In technical, precise language, they are separate categories.
But “conservative” isn’t exactly the same thing as “libertarian,” is it? Do you have a cite specifically for charitable giving from libertarians?
How many libertarian governments have there been throughout history, exactly?
Right. You’re comparing two of the states with the lowest populations, both in density and in absolute numbers, to two of the states with the highest populations, again both in density and in absolute numbers. You can see why this is not a useful comparison, right?
And who the fuck is the Mercatus Center, and why do I care who they think is “most free?”
Jesus. Robert, please, just… stop. Please. Watching you try to debate is physically painful.
Wait a minute, you agree that building stained glassed windows and paying an organist is charity? What need does either of those fulfill?
See, you’re not stopping. You’re still trying to make arguments.
And it’s hurting me.
Look, insult me all you want but until someone can convince me that a stained glass window is a need, I’m going to stick to my point.
Oww!
I have it on good authority* that Miller’s head just came off his body because of Robert163’s arguments.
*Okay, I made it up. But it would hurt. You can’t really argue that it wouldn’t.
Okay, so we agree that a charity and a non-profit organization are synonymous. Churches are non-profit organizations, and are officially classified that way. Therefore, according to the definition that you posted, churches are charities. Thank you for proving yourself wrong and me right.
Both help fulfill the need for pleasant, uplifting, or positive aesthetic experiences.
I’m with you. Charity means giving to others, and giving to the church is just giving to themselves. Charity means giving to the needy, and a church doesn’t qualify.
I think I’ll buy myself four new tires for my car…and call it charity. Take it right off my taxes.
look, i’m no linguist and i’m not an english professor but i think the crucial point in the idea of charity is that it serves some need. i don’t think need is defined as a pleasant, uplifting, positive aesthetic experience.
Well, protoboard started this thread by saying that libertarians want to kill poor people. When asked to justify his claim, he didn’t even try to do so. No one else has provided any evidence that libertarianism has ever harmed anyone either, or that libertarians have any desire to hurt the poor. If anyone wants to make that case, perhaps they should provide evidence that libertarians don’t like the poor.
According to the Index of Economic Freedom (linked earlier) the
most free countries in the world presently are Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland. Evidence of them mass slaughtering poor people seems to be in short supply. Indeed, there seems to be a lot more mass imprisonment and mass murder in the least libertarian countries: North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe. It’s almost as if libertarianism is good for people.
(It could be objected that the economic freedom rankings are not exactly identical to the dictionary definition of libertarianism, but obviously there’s a close link between how libertarian a country is and its ranking.)
Do you go by the name greywar on City-data.com? You remind me a lot of him/her.
Well, perhaps some of his statements were a bit strong. I would of took it more as sarcasm but I can’t say for sure. I think the point that resonates with me, is, if the libertarian defense towards their defense of their attitude towards the poor is “we don’t want to shoot poor people or put them in concentration camps”, well, is that really the best defense that can be argued ?
I didn’t give cites because the request for them is unreasonable and borders upon being fallacious and a variant of the Ad Hominem fallacy. And those countries you listed while business-friendly have strong socialist elements too. America is closer to the every man for himself society that libertarians hunger for. New Zealand and Singapore are quite libertarian but like the United States and unlike the more left wing Australia and Canada have a very large poor underclass.
[Quote=Stringbean]
Realize that libertarians have no problem with charity, but believe it should come from the private sector.
[/quote]
Do you even know what the words “private sector” mean? This post strongly suggests that you don’t. There is no connection between the private sector and maximizing profits. The private sector is all non-government organizations, including non-profits.
In any case, I don’t think Stringbean’s statement is correct. Most libertarians focus on eliminating government handouts to the well-to-do. Few, if any, want to eliminate government handouts to the poor. We may find many anti-poverty programs inefficient or wrong-headed, but would generally argue for better programs, not for no programs.
I thought Libertarians were against taxes, beyond things like the police, military, courts, etc. Food Stamps and the Pell grant are paid with taxes, right?
Yes he did.
What does that have to do with my question?
That’s great. I asked for countries with libertarian governments. Do you know of any?
I don’t think that’s obvious at all.
I’d go with “blatantly false” rather than “a bit strong”.
Can you name any libertarian who makes such an argument when asked about the poor? This libertarian would point out (and already has) that when comparing libertarian policy and big-government, high-tax, high regulation liberalism, libertarian policy leads to lower poverty and a better life for those who are poor. In California, the poverty rate adjusted for cost of living is 23.8%, while in North Dakota it’s 9.2%. (Cite). After the recent violence in Baltimore, many pundits noted that 50 years of liberal government, high taxes, high regulation, welfare spending, and aggressive policing don’t seem to have cured poverty in that city. Indeed, wherever we have a super-strong government determined to help people by controlling them, poverty seems to be high.
I find this thread informative and entertaining. Drivers in New York City can’t turn right on red??? The Horror! The Horror!
There are obviously many ilks of “libertarian.” For many of them, philosophy is summed up with “I hate guvmint but I don’t hate gays” or “I hate taxes but I like smoking pot.”
But it’s the ilks who have misconceptions of history, economics, and contemporary society that are most irritating.
Pro-tip for Libertarians: If you get the urge to to defend “libertarianism” by quoting a silly comparison between California and tiny North Dakota from the website of a Koch-funded right-wing “think” tank … you may as well just say “I got nuthin.”
“Robber barons” refers to people like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan who really did help build America, but whose trusts were eventually split up. Contrast this with Koch Brothers, Murdoch, and Wall Street swindlers who’ve only set back America.
Wow! To come up with an instance of modern American “leftist thinking” (I guess) we have a center-right idea (lamenting the tendency for U.S. to follow a socioeconomic model like Somalia’s) by a center-right statesman, taken deliberately out of context. :smack:
I still encourage the Board’s libertarians to start their own thread, debate their differences and come up with a coherent thought, with the Mods enforcing a “Only Libertarians Allowed” policy. Until that happens my view of libertarians will be almost as caricatured as OP’s.
I still remember a previous thread where I mentioned the construction of giant dams and levees in Thailand as an example where only public enterprise could manage flood control. A libertarian answered that Thailand’s rice farmers had only themselves to blame – they could have hedged against their losses by buying rainfall futures on the Chicago Board of Trade. :eek: :eek: :eek: