You know what is total nonsense? Child neglect laws. It is simply criminal that the government be allowed to punish parents who didn't actually do anything wrong! If they shake a baby to death, OK that's obviously an act of violence, but just letting the baby starve isn't actually doing anything at all so what is the big deal?
I really don't see the parallel here. There's a difference between a dependent child and an independent adult. One would certainly expect someone to give to the poor out of the kindness of their heart, and in empathy for a fellow human being. But they should not be required by law to do so. (though I don't know if that was your overall point)
Personally I think the needs of the poor are better served through charity than through redistribution of wealth.
It is outrageous that a person could be held responsible for something which they haven't done! How could that possibly justify the use of violence? People are only responsible for themselves, and nothing else. The very concept of neglect is anathema to the foundation of personal freedom and responsibility. Parents should be allowed to care for a child out of the kindness of their hearts, but not forced to do so.
Seriously though, what there is no functional difference between a child, who cannot support themselves, and a quadriplegic, who can also not support his or her self. If violence is justified to compel people to support a defenseless child, then it is also justified in compelling people to support any dependent individual. There is no ethical distinction.
A person who has their basic requirements met, such as food, shelter, basic medical care, and who lives in a place with inexpensive services such as transportation and libraries, is much more free to do and work as they please. A person who lives in a place with no kind of social support will be forced to work at whatever job they can find in the area they happen to be in. They will be able to travel only if they have the money to do so, rather than being able to move freely for free or at a negligible charge. That is not a more free life.
Personally I think the needs of the poor are better served through charity than through redistribution of wealth.
You're entirely missing the point. Children are dependents, and as such they should not be expected to take care of themselves. This is why we have laws which protect them against neglect. And exactly how are our laws which protect them "violent?"
A quadriplegic is just an extreme example of an adult who is not independent. Other examples are those who are temporarily or permanently disabled by injuries, etc. etc. These people cannot help themselves, and are therefore dependent on aid. It is morally imperative to assist these people, and the only way to guarantee they don't simply starve to death is with a legal assurance of aid. Yeah, it would be super if charity could handle everything, but it doesn't, and never has. Without a regulatory body to audit the charities they would be riddled with corruption, anyway. Libertarianism offers no solution to the need of those who cannot support themselves.Not all poor are quadriplegic, there are people who can support themselves but choose not to. Furthermore, your argument wasn't that society should find a way to support quadriplegics, it was that society should find a way to support the 'poor', was it not?
Alright, let's let the drunk die. What about his kids? Who will support them? Charity isn't enough in practice to do so. Libertarians are too quick to wave away the problems of neglected and orphaned children by just mumbling something about charity, when there already isn't anything stopping the wealthy from giving loads to charity, but they don't, and it isn't enough. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of children and elderly who would not eat if it weren't for the millions of dollars in government aid they receive. If libertarians took over overnight, not only would they starve, but there would be no one to clean up the bodies, among other public health disasters that would ensue.I have no moral obligation to support the man who drinks himself into the gutter, and continues to do so despite repeated attempts to help him. I desire to see him change his ways for his own sake, but I see no reason why I should enable his lifestyle. And who are you to tell me that I should?
Government programs exist for everything mentioned above, and thank god. Perhaps that is part of the confusion, that libertarians take for granted those services which they rely on daily but are paid for by taxes.But we do have public transportation and we do have libraries, and the cost of using them is negligible. Now we want the government to provide not only medical care, but shelter too?
If you are only concerned with your own personal chances of advancing your career, of jumping up to a higher tax bracket, then you should consider moving to a country which is more socialistic like France or Sweden, since they have better economic mobility. This is a statistical fact, it is how the world actually works. Statistically, even if the only person in the world you care about is yourself and your money, you have a better chance of getting richer in a nation with more social support. Look at those stats I linked, go find other studies, they're out there. Let that fact sink in: your libertarian theories do not support the way the world actually work.Sorry, I'd rather handle my own finances than to have some nanny government do it for me. At least then have the freedom of advancement, however difficult it may be, at least there is the possibility. I've got to live a life that's a little more dignified than that.
The alternative to libertarianism isn't socialism, there is a wide range of systems under which to operate. Sweden, Norway, Germany, Finland, none of these countries had epidemics of murdering the wealthy. They merely transitioned to a state of welfare capitalism. People still get very rich on those countries, and some people are still very poor, but they all have additional social support that keeps slums and other public health issues from becoming problems.And have you ever stopped to think what it would look like if America changed to socialism, if that is what you are proposing here? What would you hunt down all the richest people in America and tell them their money now belongs to the "community?" Of course they would all want to leave immediately, and you could tell them that they could go but their money must stay. Or you could just go the typical communist route, and put armed guards at the borders, with guns pointed in. Force people to participate in your perfect society. And this is probably what you would have to do, because all your skilled laborers would want to leave and go somewhere where they get paid better for their skills and talents.
So then why isn't Charity pulling nearly the power it needs to address the issues? It's all well and good to say "let charity handle it," but why is it so far from being up to the task? It can't be because of taxes, as charitable donations are write offs.
Alright, let's let the drunk die. What about his kids? Who will support them?
Charity isn't enough in practice to do so. Libertarians are too quick to wave away the problems of neglected and orphaned children by just mumbling something about charity, when there already isn't anything stopping the wealthy from giving loads to charity, but they don't, and it isn't enough. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of children and elderly who would not eat if it weren't for the millions of dollars in government aid they receive.
Can you imagine if there way no public land at all, and you had to pay a fee to drive or even walk on roads? If the police only protected those who could pay? If the fire department only fought fires for those who could pay?
If you are only concerned with your own personal chances of advancing your career, of jumping up to a higher tax bracket, then you should consider moving to a country which is more socialistic like France or Sweden, since they have better economic mobility. This is a statistical fact, it is how the world actually works. Statistically, even if the only person in the world you care about is yourself and your money, you have a better chance of getting richer in a nation with more social support.
And have you ever stopped to think what it would look like if America changed to socialism, if that is what you are proposing here? What would you hunt down all the richest people in America and tell them their money now belongs to the "community?" Of course they would all want to leave immediately, and you could tell them that they could go but their money must stay. Or you could just go the typical communist route, and put armed guards at the borders, with guns pointed in. Force people to participate in your perfect society. And this is probably what you would have to do, because all your skilled laborers would want to leave and go somewhere where they get paid better for their skills and talents.
If you are only concerned with your own personal chances of advancing your career, of jumping up to a higher tax bracket, then you should consider moving to a country which is more socialistic like France or Sweden, since they have better economic mobility. This is a statistical fact, it is how the world actually works. Statistically, even if the only person in the world you care about is yourself and your money, you have a better chance of getting richer in a nation with more social support. Look at those stats I linked, go find other studies, they're out there. Let that fact sink in: your libertarian theories do not support the way the world actually work.
People still get very rich on those countries, and some people are still very poor, but they all have additional social support that keeps slums and other public health issues from becoming problems.
So let's get this straight - you're arguing that society should support alcohol and drug addicts indefinitely?
Also, I'm not advocating that we "let him die," and I don't much appeciate the accusations. Before you go pointing fingers, maybe you should take a look at yourself, and if you're so concerned about the drunk you could go find one and take him into your house and support him indefinitely.
If you support government aid then you aren't a libertarian and you and I probably don't have much to disagree about in this particular thread.But that's just it - we do have government aid. And I'm not advocating that we take it away. But I do think we need tougher regulations where some of these programs are concerned. In the past couple months I've had several people brag to me that they were on unemployment for over 2 years. If you live where I live, this is not right. The job market is not that horrible in my area, and if you can't find a job within a year you're doing something wrong. And if pulling the carpet out from underneath some of these people is the only way to get them off their bum, then so be it.
If you took that as a personal attack, then you certainly aren't a libertarian. But actually it wasn't an attack, I was just assuming an extreme position on your part for the sake of making the point even if you only cared about yourself, libertarianism isn't the best way to improve your odds of becoming more wealthy. Libertarianism is often sold as a method for people to get rich easily, when the reality is just the opposite.Again, I don't much appreciate the personal attacks, but that's a typical move for a leftist isn't it?
Also, I I love how liberals always chalk up any statistical advantages which one country has over another to social welfare programs. Life expectancy, for example, is always used to try to show that socialized medicine is better. There must be a hundred other factors that wiegh in as far as life expectancy is concerned. Yet somehow that 2 year advantage which Canadians have over Americans is entirely due to the fact that they have socialized medicine, and we don't.
As far as the artilce you posted, it looks interesting. Maybe I'll get to comment on it some other time.
That might be the single most absurd analogy I have ever heard. I get that you have a problem with libertarians, but that stems almost exclusively from your complete lack of understanding of what a libertarian is. You could at least make an effort at legitimate debate rather than put forth this sort of nonsense.It is outrageous that a person could be held responsible for something which they haven't done! How could that possibly justify the use of violence? People are only responsible for themselves, and nothing else. The very concept of neglect is anathema to the foundation of personal freedom and responsibility. Parents should be allowed to care for a child out of the kindness of their hearts, but not forced to do so.
Seriously though, what there is no functional difference between a child, who cannot support themselves, and a quadriplegic, who can also not support his or her self. If violence is justified to compel people to support a defenseless child, then it is also justified in compelling people to support any dependent individual. There is no ethical distinction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?