Mr. Zambezi: Excellent post! Maximally offensive while making a obvious point! We’ve got 'em on the run!
Stress the creation of wealth (it’s obviously not a zero-sum game) but don’t talk about differential distribution. Whatever you do, don’t point out that economics is about winners and losers. To have any meaning at all, losing must hurt. Wealth should accumulate to the winners, and we should always make sure we have plenty of losers around; who else would accept subsistence wages for cleaning our toilets? I’m a winner, cleaning toilets is not in my future!
I am not sure how to take that, SD. I earn a little over $100k per year, plus my wife’s salary. I employ house cleaners, I spend money at restaurants, I disperse my wealth. If I made $20k, I would pay less taxess, less retaurant fees, less money in general,
Bill Gates * creates jobs* he * creates wealth*. he does not take money away, he * gives it*.
were it the case that wealth were a zero sum game, as you propose, then anyone making money would drive others into poverty. that is not the case. Look at the welth, ,the medecine, the standard of living that we have in the US, and tell me, are we better off than we were 300 years ago?
Here’s the fundamental problem I have with the libertarian idea that “decent, honest people will take care of each other through private charity.” I’ve read a lot of the posts on this subject in the many months I’ve been a member of Straight Dope. In every single one, although everyone professes that they’d gladly, voluntarily contribute to their church and/or various other charities (which is, of course, commendable), I have never, ever, ever read one single libertarian that didn’t show utter scorn and contempt towards anyone who has ever taken advantage of government assistance when they’ve needed it. Never.
I was even told once that, rather than use the free clinic when I was uninsured while trying to start my own business (having been laid off from my former job due to budget cuts at my company), after having paid into the system for 20 years, that I should have just died because I had no business “taking” something that wasn’t mine. Yes, they really said it was preferable to them that I be dead rather than collect back something I’d contributed to for over half my life.
So, in a libertarian society, if I contribute to my church for 20 years and then find myself in need of medical assistance because I can’t afford to pay for expensive, private insurance, and the church does offer free medical care to those in need, am I not entitled to take advantage of it in return for my 20 years of contributions?
And if those people who are struggling to hold down 3 jobs while they’re feeding their family and going to school at night to improve themselves are < gasp! > getting a scholarship or government grant for their education and perhaps taking advantage of a school breakfast program for their children, are so disdainful to you, why on earth would I believe that you would voluntarily help them if those government programs didn’t exist?
And what if you had been contributing to your church because you liked how they were distributing your money only to causes you believed in (like cancer research or animal rights), but somewhere down the line somebody said, “let’s start a soup kitchen here and feed the poor?” But you don’t like the poor. They’re nothing but lazy slobs who aren’t deserving of a hand out. I mean, like matt said in the OP, they’re not entitled to it if they didn’t work for it, right? So now what do you do? Quit your church because they’re not spending your money the way you see fit? Should churches not be in the charity business at all, then, so that you only have to contribute directly to people you find worthy?
If I had ever read a compassionate word from a libertarian on this board I might feel differently about your idea of a utopian society where “decent, honest people take care of each other.” Unfortunately, what I read in all of this blather is so selfish and mean-spirited that it not only frightens me, it disgusts me. I thank GOD I don’t live in your world.
I could understand how freeloaders think it is mean spirited when someone doesn't want to give their money away. After all they are entitled to something that doesn't belong to them by virtue of their existence alone. If you try to keep what you earn then they'll get irate and take it with a knife. Thank GOD we live in that kind of world.
I’m a freeloader now? Oh. My. Gawd! I love the way you completely avoided any of my direct questions. Not that repeating it again will get through to you, but I CONTRIBUTED FOR TWENTY YEARS. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I DIDN’T EARN IT? I DID. I AM MAKING A WITHDRAWAL FROM MY OWN DEPOSIT. But I’m a freeloader. Jesus H. Christ. You utterly amaze me.
Look, Gibson, have you ever bothered to read a post you’ve responded to?
I will now summarize what Shayna said: inasmuch as no post by any libertarian on this board has shown anything other than scorn for the poor and disadvantaged, she seriously doubts the blithe assertion that in a libertarian society, private charity would be sufficient to ward off starvation.
You’ve pulled this trick on me already; I’d appreciate your not pulling it on others as well. Either refute Shayna’s position or accept it, but do not simply build a straw man in order to ignore what she said while pretending to respond.
Thank you, matt. You may notice that I don’t often make my way into the GD forum. I came here, and to this particular thread, because Kricket directed me to what I thought was a discussion about the accident her son suffered. As I read through this thread, and eventually got to the couple of posts she made about her family’s plight, my blood began to boil over.
My heart is absolutely breaking for Kricket and what her family is suffering right now. I would do anything if I had it in my power to take their pain away. If things continue to go the way they are for her family, eventually they will find themselves in need of government assistance again. Yet in spite of the fact that everyone here can clearly see that this has been by no fault of their own, the libertarians of this world would deny her and her children fulfillment of their basic needs, like food and money to pay the rent or mortgage. But we’re expected to believe that these same people would gladly fork it over if they weren’t being “coerced” into it by an oppressive government. To that I say, hogwarsh!
May God bless Kricket and her family. They are going to need everything they can get as they go through the trials that the next year (and more) will bring them.
Mr. Z: OK, so maybe my reasoning wasn’t exactly rock-solid. That’s why I threw the argument up for debate. (Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor, not an economist.) I don’t think it invalidates my point, though–in our current system, I think it would be impossible (or at least damn near difficult) for everyone to rise out of poverty. The newly-created wealth just doesn’t spread that far.
Matt: I didn’t know that about the Marx quote, but it never made a lot of sense to me. That’s why I put it in quotes.
Shayna: The argument that I’ve heard over and over from the Libertarian side is that if the government didn’t take 1/3 of everyone’s income, they’d be more inclined to give to private charities. I think this is a crock, because even with that 1/3 taken out, most people have more than they really “need”, yet injustices remain. If you believe the stories about the booming economy, we should all be millionaires by now, yet there are still 45 million people who don’t have health insurance. Are people more concerned about helping that 15% of the country that can’t afford medical care, or adding a few options to the SUV?
At the same time, it’s a double-edged sword–most people aren’t concerned about that fact, because they think that the government provides adequate medical care for the poor. It’s a good example of the people expecting the government to solve a problem, when they haven’t.
(Note that I’m not particularly slamming Libertarianism; as you’ll see in the thread I started earlier, I think it’s about as good as anything else, in the long haul.)
DoctorJ: "The argument that I’ve heard over and over from the Libertarian side is that if the government didn’t take 1/3 of everyone’s income, they’d be more inclined to give to private charities."
I don’t dispute that that’s entirely likely or that libertarians really do mean it when they say that. My point isn’t that they would be so greedy as to keep every penny they make in their own pockets, but that they would never contribute to the truly poor, sick and destitute. I come by this conclusion based on everything I’ve ever read by them here, that no one who isn’t working and paying their own way is entitled to one penny from anyone else. Ever. So in spite of how generous the libertarians might be with their money for causes such as medical research (because cancer or heart disease just might affect them) or environmental concerns or animal rights, I don’t believe they’ll ever give to the poor. I find that disturbing. That was my point.
Of course you’re right, Shayna. Libertarianism is about the strong and smart accumulating as much as they can, and allowing the weak, stupid and improvident to die. Plus we’ll execute some criminals to speed things up. Best to get 'em while they’re young; If we fry 'em at 11, they won’t grow up to be efficient criminals.
Private charity is a red herring. Those who give a third of their income to charity will be economically disadvantaged by those who do not; the practice will be uncompetitive and the invisible hand will correct it quickly.
You should have died. You were too improvident to plan for adverse circumstances. Tough shit, bite harder.
Human decency and compassion are weaknesses. Social obligation is slavery. Economic exploitation is the natural condition of humankind. The strong will survive, the weak will perish.
Gee, a guy turns his back on the board to sleep for awhile and you Mountain Time people have a fistfight… And the bad part is, both the arguments and the ridicule are much more entertaining than mine have been. Dammit.
BTW, SingleDad, you’re now my hero. (I read the entire “US is Already a Socialist society” thread yesterday.) (My head still hurts.) I thought I might be missing something about Libertarianism but your summary pretty much nails the philosophy as I’ve been interpreting it. Perhaps Smartass or Libertarian will adjust your analysis wherever it doesn’t quite fit the party line. --Or maybe Lib will give us another series of fables from the Evil Liberal Nation we have become.
“Competition: An event in which there are more losers than winners. Otherwise it’s not a competition. A society based on competition is therefore primarily a society of losers.” - John Ralston Saul, The Doubter’s Companion
Actually I didn't call you a freeloader I just said that I could see how freeloaders would call someone meanspirted for not wanting to donate to their cause. Actually I agree that since you put into the system for 20 years that you are entitled to take something out of it. I on the other hand would like the option of donating to the system or not.
You obviously have in mind that certain causes are “necessary” and “vital”. This is an opinion. You position that it is okay to force others to contribute to causes that you think are necessary, whether they agree or not, is placing your opinion over theirs. Do you not see this?
Why? What is the “common good”? Do you mean the kind of “common good” where you take something away from one person to give it to another? Isn’t that good for one and bad for another? What is the “common” part? Is it the fact that many people commonly agree that it is immoral not to help others?
Do you really think that “common good” is something that can be calculated or derived? It’s an opinion. Every person will have a different notion of “common good”. For a libertarian, you’re definition of “common good” is no more, or less, valid than anyone else’s. Therefore, you should be allowed to act according to your definition, and everyone else should be allowed to act according to theirs.
I assume by “your world”, you mean “your opinion”. I’ll say again, “common good” is determined by each individual. Some care more about the common good than others, as is obvious just on this message board. I believe that every person should be free to contribute to the common good as much as little as they please. The market has no notion of “common good”. The beauty of the market it that, when people have a want or a need, the market attempts to fill that want or need, if not impeded by governmental intrusion. Thus, if there are a lot of people (which, apparently there are) who would like to see poverty ended, the market will allow various potential solutions to come forward and compete for your dollars.
If there are enough people thinking this way, and they feel strongly enough to pay their money to see a solution, then solutions will be offered. If there are not enough people, or the concerned people don’t want to part with enough money, then solutions may be partial or may not exist. It is a fair system: The more strongly you feel about, say, helping the poor, the more money you are likely to give. In this way, you are expected to pay the price of your convictions. In an unfair system, the more strongly you feel about helping the poor, the more of my money you are able to take in order to accomplish this. In this way, I am expected to pay the price for your convictions, and it does not matter whether I would rather spend my money on abandoned animals or saving for my daughter’s education. After all, it is for the “common good”.
Obviously, I don’t have time to write a dissertation here, and I can’t predict the future. The key to libertarianism is not trying to control outcomes. However, a few notes:
global economics: In a libertarian society you are free to buy and sell from whomever you choose, if you have the means. Thus, no trade bans or punitive tariffs. No price fixing.
foreign policy: A libertarian government exists to protect the rights of its citizens. A national defense falls within this scope. A national offense does not (no playing world policemen, sending US forces all over the world, etc.).
scientific research: Medical and technological advances are profitable. If you invent a cure for AIDS, you can make a lot of money selling it. In other words, these things would work basically the way the do now, minus the government grants, which tend to be arbitrary and bizarre anyway.
industry standards: That would depend on the industry, don’t you think?
The more people want something, the more “common” the desire is. The more people want something badly enough to pay for it, the more likely it is to be achieved. And I would say that, the more people want something, the more closely it matches the “common good”.
Freedom is not self-sustaining. There was more freedom in this country 20 years ago than today. Several Congressman are trying to pass bills right now that allow for “secret” searches by police. If passed, there will be evenly less freedom in the future. By not objecting to laws and federal programs that violate my rights (or anyone else’s) you are saying it is okay for those rights to be violated. By extension, you are saying that it’s okay for your rights to be violated. If it’s okay for my house to invaded and searched, based on an anonymous drug tip, then it’s okay for your house to be invaded and searched in the same way. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but, in general, legislators don’t give freedoms back, once they’ve taken them. Instead, the list of freedoms no longer available just gets longer and longer. And it will continue to do so until we, collectively, put our feet down, assuming we will still be able to do so.
I’m not a politician, dude. You want policy prescriptions, go here:
Also, you can see the entire Libertarian Party platform here:
I doubt I could improve significantly on the information you can find at those two sites.
I don’t know what “popular thinking” is. Are you saying that if a couple hundred legislators can’t come up with solutions, then a couple hundred million people have no chance?
We’re going to have to get straight whether we are discussing libertarian philosophy or political aims. The only change I am proposing is reigning the federal government in to its Constitutional limits. I have proposed no revolution.
Pre-engineered? What the hell does that mean? Is that like saying government programs are pre-disastered?
What are these broad-based sociological phenomena? Hungry people? Unemployed people? I wouldn’t compare them with consumer products, but I’ll bet that most of their problems are related to a need for consumer products.
If you meet a hungry person, which do you think he would prefer:
-a determination of many causative factors of the conditions for which amelioration is being sought, or prevention pursued?
-food?
Or, you could just offer some food to someone who is hungry. Send a couple hundred bucks to Kricket and her family to help out. If enough people care as much as you and other posters here claim to, then there’s no need in all these wasteful policy determinations and iterative processes. How many of these policy determinations, so far, have managed to solve more problems than they cause?
Please don’t waste my time with polysyllabic claptrap.
You mean, “yet”, right? Like, it’s a lot closer to totalitarianism now than it ever has been, and moving more in that direction. And you approve of government moves that take away my resources and my freedom. You know, Hitler didn’t achieve totalitarianism all at once–in fact, he was popularly elected. Do I predict catastrophe any day? No. But your line of thinking is the same kind of thinking that allows such things to happen. This thinking that the government knows best, and people can’t be depended on to make the right decisions–this is the kind of thinking that allows people to feel comfortable with socialist and fascist governments. Which was my point. You can read more into it if you wish.
-The government forcibly extracts almost half of the earnings of the citizens, by force if necessary, and spends it whatever way it pleases.
-The armed forces invade foreign countries at the whim of one man, with no formal declaration of war.
-Elections are increasingly controlled by an elite group of politicians who every year increase the requirements for other parties to field candidates.
-Those who have displeased the state are deprived of many of their rights for life.
-Nonviolent citizens are imprisoned for years at a time for behavior that has harmed no one.
-Agents of the federal government are allowed to break into private residences, search the premises and confiscate private property, on no further evidence than an anonymous tip.
I can list more, if you like.
Actually, I think the OP was about whether you have a right to what you haven’t earned. Libertarians do not think of “market forces” as being government. We see a purpose for central government which is outside of the effects of the market. However, for solving social problems, we see central government as ineffective at best, needlessly oppressive at worst. Saying you are represented through “market forces” is just another way of saying that you represent yourself.
Maybe I have a different reading of it than you, but last I checked, SingleDad had abandoned that debate in the middle, right after defining his terms. Did you see a page that I didn’t? SingleDad:
I guess you have abandoned the debate we were having in the Socialism thread. I also see that you are no longer referring to yourself as 90% libertarian.
Just as well. I did not realize you were itching so badly to speak for us. Just another of your forays into “reasoned debate”, I suppose?
For someone who obviously thinks of himself as a mature and reasoned thinkers, I find your posts increasingly childish and petulant.
Just for kicks, though:
Please explain to me your plan for a society in which losing doesn’t hurt, you can get rich cleaning toilets, and wealth accumulates to the losers. I’m particularly interested in how many people are going to have food at all.
And for future reference:
When you find my posts to be equally as vicious, unfair, and downright wrong about you or your beliefs, you won’t need to ask why.
I like this logic. Those who buy nice things will be economically disadvantaged by those who do not; the invisible hand will correct it. Those who gamble will be economically disadvantaged; the invisible hand will collect it. Those who sleep 8 hours a night…watch Sesame Street…exercise…buy books.
Is your understanding of economic systems involving humans really this surreal?
So, am I to take it that you have run away from the debate we had going in order to launch unsolicited attacks? I gotta tell you, I really admire that in you. Shayna:
Excuse me, but when did I do this? As I recall, in this thread, I commented on the fact that our current system cannot distinguish between offering temporary, necessary help (as it seems Kricket’s case was) and providing long-term free rides. At what point did I address her with scorn?
Libertarians do not have any problem with contributions or with people benefitting from their contributions. After all, contributions are voluntary. What libertarians object to are forced contributions, like taxes. If someone has been telling you otherwise, they were not representing libertarian views.
As for people who are currently on welfare, I do not view them with scorn and I do not generally resent them. I do view with scorn a system forces citizens to contribute to a program that teaches dependency.
The whole purpose of libertarianism is that no person is “disdainful”; rather, all are equal before the law, and equally deserving of having their rights protected.
Then you decide whether or not to continue contributing, based on your values. The point is, you have a choice whether or not to contribute, before and after any changes.
It’s not about how you make contributions. Libertarians have no objection to organized charity or large-scale charitable programs. The only objection we have is when the program is such that you are not free to choose whether or not you contribute.
One of us is really confused. Have my posts in these various threads been so cold and heartless? Please give me examples of what you mean, as relates to me, one married libertarian. Also, are you sure you know who the libertarians are here?
As a start, the libertarians would hold the person who hit her son responsible for the damage.
This is true. It’s that word, “entitlement”. However, to say someone isn’t “entitled” to something does not mean that they are undeserving. I think every human is deserving of a happy comfortable life, but they are not entitled to it–that is, they are not owed it by someone else. I think that people who are doing okay should feel morally compelled to help those less fortunate. However, I do not think they should be legally compelled.
I have a pretty simple question. In what way, shape, or form would I deny them their basic needs? I have no control over her and I certainly can't deny her or her family anything.
I'll be honest with you about your second point. I don't make enough money to do a lot of the things I want to do let alone donate it to the needy. As such I only donate to one charity and I pretty much ignore the rest.
If you know something is inappropriate for this forum, don’t apologize in advance, just don’t do it, please. It’s only a short hop to The Pit if you feel you must directly insult a poster; try to keep such things out of Great Debates.
Sheesh matt_mcl, a definition from a book which is clearly Biercian in intent is hardly helpful. I understand that you don’t have a lot of time for libertarians (I really hope you don’t think I’m one), but accusing them of advocating a society where most are losers is a bit tough (unless they are of the Ayn Rand variety).
Competition reduces costs, which means more stuff that people like for the same resources. This means the “pie” is bigger. Libertarians are of the view that any evening of the slices is (i) unjustified and (ii) will cause the “pie” to shrink rapidly.
You seem to suppose that the rich do not contribute at all to the pie. Surely this is a bit steep. It is nonetheless possible to argue that some equalisation of the “slices” is possible and desireable without reducing the size of the pie much (or at all).
It ill behoves you to suggest that there could never be a trade off between equality and general standards of living because it undermines your perfectly defensible position that some protection can be given to all at a pretty low cost (or no cost) to overall wealth.
Interestingly, when you describe things in that way, I find nothing that I disagree with. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with “some protection can be given to all at a pretty low cost (or no cost) to overall wealth”. I just don’t think you can accomplish this with government, and certainly not at low cost.
I cannot logically overcome the Libertarian assumption of the intrinsic truth of the non-coercion principle. Every “logical” argument I’ve seen from a Libertarian starts with the assumption of this principle. All the arguments boil down to “Since the Libertarian principle is intrinsically true and forms the definition of “good”, any consequence of that principle must be good. Any consequence that is generally seen as “bad” will magically be excluded by the invisible hand.”
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the conflict between Liberalism and Libertarianism is a conflict of values and not of ideas. Values cannot be debated as such; there is no objective basis on which to differentiate them. Value conflicts have to be fought, either with guns or on the battleground of emotional appeal.
Dry refutations of the assumptions of the Libertarian premise are not particularly entertaining. Heavy-handed satire is much more humorous. It strikes directly at the heart of the matter and bypasses the rationalizations that are an unfortunate consequence of human evolution. The other nice thing about satire is that it’s self-regulating. If its on target, it’s well received; if not, it just makes the author look ridiculous. Of course I’m not trying to appeal to Libertarians; you’re already completely convinced of your own moral superiority. Rather, I’m trying to appeal to moderates to liberalize their views rather than appear heartless, and to motivate liberals to strengthen their propagation of their values.
I’ll debate Libertarians on logical principles when they stop self-righteously asserting their moral superiority, stop whining about how they’re being oppressed and stolen from, and start assuming responsibility for the obligations incurred in a hyper-complex interdependent technologically advanced society of very fallible human beings.