The gist of it seems to be that Libertarians favor getting rid of food stamps, welfare, social security, and related programs, instead encouraging those in need to get help from family, friends, community, churches, and charities.
Maybe I’m being cynical, but I have to ask… What if someone in need does not have supportive family members or friends? Or perhaps the fam/friends don’t have room to take in needy ones, or are struggling themselves, or simply don’t want to help, for whatever reason? Or they live pretty far away from the needy folks?
Well, then, perhaps those with needs could turn to the three Cs: community, church, charity. Butould those places have enough for everyone–food, clothing, and more? Housing included?
What about health care?
What becomes of Medicare under the Libertarian plan? If you really need, say, a knee replacement or some other surgery that is going to costs tens of thousands of dollars, how do you raise the money otherwise?
Perhaps this is not a debate, but I wasn’t sure which forum it fit.
It’s simple. You eliminate poverty by killing off as many poor as possible.
The basic problem with private charity is that it requires that one person/one family support another person/family whereas current safety nets get an entire society to support a small portion of that society. The “pain” (such as it is) is reduced to a small annoyance.
The historical record say this is as much the ideological wishful thinking as the Communists social forecasts for their system.
Von Bismarck helped bring the modern social democratic state for the clear and cold eyed understanding of the limits of the voluntary action versus the need to secure the social stability for the capital development.
the american libertarians, they are nothing but the photo negative of the old bolsheviks.
It is not a full joke.
It is indeed the rationale of the continental conservative politics of the late 19th century to the early 20th century, in the face of the rising radicalism like the Communists and the various radical socialist movements.
[The following is an explanation from a libertarian perspective, not the poster himself]
To really see how a libertarian government helps the poor, you have to go back to the causes of poverty:
Someone is able, but unwilling to work, who we will call the Lazy.
Someone is willing, but unable to work, who we will call the Unfortunate.
Someone is will and able to work, but unable to find employment, who we will call the Repressed.
So how does the modern welfare state support these? Well, they give money to them all and so they stay fed, clothed, and housed, but not much more than that - they are shackled by the meager rations handed out. But how to fix this?
Well, the Lazy have always been around, but when starvation is around the corner and work is available, it’s amazing how someone will become willing to work if the alternative is death. So remove welfare and some amount of the poor will find employment, because there is no alternative.
The Repressed on the other hand, can’t find work because there isn’t enough capital (due to theft from taxes) or enough return on investment (due to onerous regulations) for employers to start or expand a business to provide work for the available labor. Stripping the theft of taxes that go to welfare from the system, and stripping the unnecessary regulations, will mean a booming economy that will allowed the Repressed to find work.
The Unfortunate seem to be a kink in this plan at first glance, but it is not so. With the extra money flowing through the economy and fewer people in need of assistance (both due to the Lazy and the Repressed rejoining the workforce), support from the community will be able to handle caring for the Unfortunate, done at a local level as it always should have been.
[The above is an explanation from a libertarian perspective, not the poster himself]
The real problem with the liberation plan though, is threefold:
Unless you do this slowly and carefully, the transition in the economy to no social safety net and no regulation will leave a lot of people out in the cold even if the economic gains are actually realized. (although with the advent of automation, this might happen anyway).
The boost in economic activity is probably not as large as libertarians hope.
The proportions of the poor that Libertarians believe is probably like 70-10-20, but it’s actually probably more like 10-40-50, which could not be absorbed by the new system.
What is this community of which you speak, what are its parameters, its limits? Once upon a time, it was pretty much everyone that you knew and strangers were fair game. That is so impractical now that it only sounds good if you keep “friends, church, community” vaguely defined
The goal is not the elimination of poverty. The goal is to remake the world to match ideology.
There is a difference between saying ‘I think doing XYZ would be a good policy idea to solve this particular problem’ and saying ‘I want to remake the world to match my beliefs, whether that solves problems or makes them worse means nothing. However I’m going to pretend it makes things better to improve my ideologies PR, but I don’t really care about policy or problem solving’. Libertarians do the latter.
Supposedly that is one of the criticisms communists have against social democrats. They feel social democrats offer enough benefits to the poor to prevent them from uprising against the rich.
But sadly, there are lots and lots of nations where people are dirt poor but they don’t rise up. As long as the police, military and media keep the public oppressed and divided you can exploit the hell out of them.
Yes, because when making a fairly substantial claim, “It’s just obvious” is the best cite one can provide. Scott Alexander addressed this argument (and many, many more - seriously, this thing is pretty much a comprehensive tour-de-force rebuttal to libertarianism as a whole) in his Non-Libertarian FAQ - this is point 13.7. Also, relevant quote:
And then I look up at the quote from the article above, and… oh, it’s just obvious. Almost everything on that “Libertarian Viewpoint” blog is an irrational and wrong mess of bullshit with no consideration of the tradeoffs and issues involved. If you’re looking for someone to make a rational case for this argument, they clearly aren’t going to (try to find a blog that doesn’t cite demotivational memes and obnoxiously terrible political cartoons). That said, I don’t know that anyone else could, because it’s a phenomenally bad argument to begin with.
This, especially the last sentence, encapsulate ideas I’ve come to on my own.
I think I can expand on them to some extent. I view political ideologies as being, among many other things, either teleological or pragmatic, where “teleological” means “aimed at a specific, foreseen end goal” and “pragmatic” means “attempting immediate reforms to solve specific problems, but largely not attempting to control major social change”; a pragmatic system allows major social change, but doesn’t try to stand in its way or force it down a specific channel.
The most obviously teleological systems are Christianity and Marxism, both aimed at a Millennium of complete equality and justice, arrived at by implementation of a text which will, if followed, perfect mankind out of a current fallen state into one which is capable of accepting the Millennium and living in the paradisaical end-state, either the Saved or some variant of the New Soviet Man.
Their mortal enemies are the people who pick and choose good ideas, without buying into the whole philosophy. They are the Cafeteria Christians and the Liberals, respectively, which is why Internet Marxists are so fucking enraged when you call them Liberals. No! To them, the Liberals are the ones postponing paradise, the ones who are making this world, this flawed system, palatable, to the point of preventing people from being starved into Socialism.
There are other examples of teleological political philosophies, including, yes, Anarcho-Capitalism* and Libertarianism. They both want to create a society populated by Homo economicus, the mathematical/theoretical model of a human used in over-simplified first-year economics models before people learn about cognitive biases and prejudices which affect economics.
*(To anyone who wants to ‘correct’ me: Engaging me in a slap-fight over who gets to use the Hallowed Term “Anarchism” isn’t going to make Anarchism look better to anyone who hasn’t already bought into it.)
The worst part of teleological philosophies is that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good, and they destroy any margin of error for people who fall short of being perfect. For example, in the Christian teleological philosophy, it is morally wrong to have sex before marriage. Therefore, the perfect solution is to not only never have sex before marriage, but to demand that nobody does, and to make no allowances for anyone who does and gets into trouble thereby. Because making allowances for the behavior is encouraging it, and that isn’t acceptable if you believe that all humans must be perfected or destroyed. Being a counter-revolutionary or class traitor was punished harshly as well, once the Communists got into power. Women have nothing on a political philosophy scorned.
There is no perfect system. So what do you do about the unforseen consequences when it becomes clear that the system has some big flaws? Blame it on foreign saboteurs, recidivists, criminals, a minority an underclass? The more firmly held the dogma, the more severe the solution. Jails, camps, exile and worse.
I shall stick to my cafeteria, pick out the best ideas.
You have to have a larger perspective. Generally speaking, oppressed people do rise up, even if takes a few decades. Most regimes that try to keep them down are living on borrowed time.
And it wouldn’t be a lot of time in Libertopia, where they want to treat the poor like dirt and also want to save money by not paying for the government forces that repress the poor.
Implicitly, this Conservative/Libertarian argument says that there’s an immense amount of labor that needs to be done, and we can’t have any humans being lazy freeloaders. Even if those freeloaders really only need a room in a housing project building and a modest supply of food and basic consumer goods like large, cheap tvs. This feels bad…I mean they sit on their cheap couch watching TV! They have enough money for beer on special occasions! They have power and a fridge, maybe even a phone! We can’t afford to just “give” people all that.
With the rapid rise of automation, this isn’t true. It cost very little labor from other people to provide all that, and the better automation becomes and the higher productivity per worker gets, the less labor it will require. So it won’t matter if 30% of the population just sit around. So long as their effective income remains modest, such that those who *do *work get greater rewards, this would be just fine.
It also means that with greater automation, if those who are less talented than the best of us don’t work, it won’t mean any loss in national GDP.
There’s a big hole in the idea of a universal basic income, though, and that is, how you define the limits of entitlement. You might no longer have a complicated means test to access the benefit, but where do you draw the line so as to command the optimum level of support/acquiescence from the community at large - citizenship? defined period of prior residence? evidence of some form of contribution to society?
Whether you approach the question from a libertarian, conservative, liberal or socialist viewpoint, it can’t be “universal” in the sense of giving it to just anybody who walks in and asks for it. All social benefit/welfare programmes need to achieve some degree of buy-in from rich people, middle class people and the working poor alike - they will all need to feel they’re not being taken for a ride.
I don’t know how to do UBI, either, nor am I convinced it is the optimal way forwards.
However, the simper proposals I have seen are just that :
a. It’s citizenship
b. Kids don’t count. (this is to economically disincentive large families with no other means of support but UBI)
c. It’s Federal in the USA, meaning that prior residence does not matter. You had to be a resident in the USA for a long time to get citizenship if you weren’t native-born.
d. The whole reason UBI is touted as better as it’s just a simple set of bank transfers every month. It would have less than 1% overhead. Everyone gets it, it’s the same amount for everyone, regardless of need or income.
The distribution part is as simple as you can imagine. There’s a list of living adult citizens, and a government bank account that has all the money. A computer program just iterates through the list and queues transfers to all citizens that have a recorded account.
Actually funding it is far more complex. The reason is where the money would actually be sourced. Because of wealth and income inequality, you actually have to get nearly all the money for this…or any government program…from mostly the wealthy. Simply because that’s where the money is at.
And the problem is the wealthy hide their money where it’s hard to even determine how much they have. They also are currently allowed to bribe the government, so the Congress would not pass laws giving the government the power to actually implement UBI.
That is indeed what is on the dark side of the modern American fascist’s moon. If the current regime succeeds in eliminating the safety net and creating the kind of plutonomy that it desires, there’s going to be a massive backlash, and what the conservatives haven’t considered is that a lot of the so-called middle class or even the upper middle-class bordering on rich will join them – because they too will either be poor or in perpetual fear of becoming poor. When governments remove stability and security, you have fear. Markets don’t work well on fear. And we don’t get political stability either.
