Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[Derideo_Te]

In other words you can't substantiate your Libertarian Utopia alternative welfare with anything credible.

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Now let's use that data to address your question as to why 15% of the population would perish under a Libertarian economy.

In the article above it explains that a lack of access to healthcare is the primary reason for there being a much higher infant mortality rate in the USA. In a purely Libertarian economy the only access to any healthcare would be for those who could afford it since there would only be private healthcare and nothing else for anybody who can't afford it.

So who can't afford healthcare? The poor and the elderly without incomes. There is your 15% who would perish.

.

Your graph shows a cumulative probability of .5%. You are off by a factor of 30.

If your argument was that this carries through...please show how you can make that claim.

Assuming that based on average lifespan of 75 years...about 1.3% of the population dies each year...you should be able to find some kind of dramatic cause and effect.

Unless your timeframe is longer....at which point you'll need to specify it. If it gets to long..you approach 1.3% and the claim has no meaning.

The links were to illustrate the point of what happens to the most vulnerable without any social services. 3rd world nations without social services have high mortality rates for the most vulnerable members of those societies. Scrapping the current government together with all of those services would result in the deaths of 15% of the population who are either elderly or living in poverty. The data proves it.

The same can be said for liberal and conservative values.

You only get them in their purity if you all believe the same way.

The libertarians are making strides in becoming more relevant.

Free State Project - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Free State Project (FSP) is a political migration, founded in 2001, to recruit at least 20,000 libertarians to move to a single low-population state (New Hampshire, selected in 2003) in order to make the state a stronghold for libertarian ideas.[2] The project seeks to overcome the historical ineffectiveness of limited-government activism which they believe was caused by the small number and diffuse population of libertarian activists across the 50 United States and around the world.

Participants sign a statement of intent declaring that they intend to move to New Hampshire within five years of the drive reaching 20,000 participants. This statement of intent is intended to function as a form of assurance contract. As of March 13th 2015, 16,523 people have signed this statement of intent[3] and 1,702 people are listed as "early movers" to New Hampshire on the FSP website, saying they have made their move prior to the 20,000-participant trigger.[4]

People aligned with the Free State Project have been elected to two-year terms in the 400-member New Hampshire House of Representatives since 2006.[5] Approximately a dozen Free Staters were elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in the 2012 election,[6] and about 18 in the 2014 election.

The Free State Project is a social movement generally based upon decentralized decision making. The group hosts various events, but most of FSP's activities depend upon volunteers, and no formal plan dictates to participants or movers what their actions should be in New Hampshire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In December 2012, state representative Cynthia Chase (D-Keene) said "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny how those who like to think of themselves as open minded find those with different opinions to suddenly be a "threat".

Anyone who is gullible enough to believe that Libertarianism is benign hasn't studied history.

You could say the same thing about religion.

However, I don't put the stupidity of humans in the place of a viable ideology.

Are you claiming that Libertarianism is a "viable ideology"?

You bet.

Please don't take that to mean I am an adherent. However, there are parts of it that I do find useful to consider.

So you support the complete removal of all forms of government social welfare programs?

Yes or no?

Under what rule do I owe you an answer to this kind of question ?

Answer: I don't.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I do not see libertarians advocating a complete lack of government.

What they are advocating for is a 100% removal of all social services.

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

I am not a Libertarian.

And if you want to make stuff up to argue against...try somebody else.

Or else show me where I stated that.....or retract your comment.

Your logic only flows because it suites your POV. Shallow at best....more likely dishonest.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Libertarianiasm" is no more un-American than "Republicanism" or "Democratism".

Neither "Republicanism" or "Democratism" advocates eliminating all social programs.

The Libertarian party does!

Platform Libertarian Party

Progressive Democrats are pushing for the government to be involved in virtually every aspect of your life from birth to death. You think that's any better?

Repubs are trying to control the actions of adults within the confines of their own homes and bedrooms? You think that's any better?

Libertarianism is just another term for a 3rd world nation where only the wealthy have access to healthcare, justice, quality living standards, etc, etc. Even Communism is better than Libertarianism.

Now this a claim that is very interesting.

Yes, because communism is smart enough to understand that abject poverty breeds crime which ends up costing the state far more than social welfare programs.

Well, well....here we go again.

More projections.

Communism as a pure form of government does not exist.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

Unless you can offer an alternative, your first claim is bogus. Unless, of course, you can show us where that is written by someone who we all call an ultimate authority.

We always see the "selfishness" and "greed" card played when someone is trying to leverage an argument they can't win.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Now let's use that data to address your question as to why 15% of the population would perish under a Libertarian economy.

In the article above it explains that a lack of access to healthcare is the primary reason for there being a much higher infant mortality rate in the USA. In a purely Libertarian economy the only access to any healthcare would be for those who could afford it since there would only be private healthcare and nothing else for anybody who can't afford it.

So who can't afford healthcare? The poor and the elderly without incomes. There is your 15% who would perish.

.

Your graph shows a cumulative probability of .5%. You are off by a factor of 30.

If your argument was that this carries through...please show how you can make that claim.

Assuming that based on average lifespan of 75 years...about 1.3% of the population dies each year...you should be able to find some kind of dramatic cause and effect.

Unless your timeframe is longer....at which point you'll need to specify it. If it gets to long..you approach 1.3% and the claim has no meaning.

The links were to illustrate the point of what happens to the most vulnerable without any social services. 3rd world nations without social services have high mortality rates for the most vulnerable members of those societies. Scrapping the current government together with all of those services would result in the deaths of 15% of the population who are either elderly or living in poverty. The data proves it.

Anyone who is gullible enough to believe that Libertarianism is benign hasn't studied history.

You could say the same thing about religion.

However, I don't put the stupidity of humans in the place of a viable ideology.

Are you claiming that Libertarianism is a "viable ideology"?

You bet.

Please don't take that to mean I am an adherent. However, there are parts of it that I do find useful to consider.

So you support the complete removal of all forms of government social welfare programs?

Yes or no?

Under what rule do I owe you an answer to this kind of question ?

Answer: I don't.

You just tacitly gave the answer that you do support the removal of all government social programs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do not see libertarians advocating a complete lack of government.

What they are advocating for is a 100% removal of all social services.

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

I am not a Libertarian.

And if you want to make stuff up to argue against...try somebody else.

Or else show me where I stated that.....or retract your comment.

Your logic only flows because it suites your POV. Shallow at best....more likely dishonest.

Your posts are those of a Libertarian so you can deny it all you like but your posts are exposing what you are.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Neither "Republicanism" or "Democratism" advocates eliminating all social programs.

The Libertarian party does!

Platform Libertarian Party

Progressive Democrats are pushing for the government to be involved in virtually every aspect of your life from birth to death. You think that's any better?

Repubs are trying to control the actions of adults within the confines of their own homes and bedrooms? You think that's any better?

Libertarianism is just another term for a 3rd world nation where only the wealthy have access to healthcare, justice, quality living standards, etc, etc. Even Communism is better than Libertarianism.

Now this a claim that is very interesting.

Yes, because communism is smart enough to understand that abject poverty breeds crime which ends up costing the state far more than social welfare programs.

Well, well....here we go again.

More projections.

Communism as a pure form of government does not exist.

Non sequitur!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The libertarians play straight into the hands of the communists.

Yup!

There has never been a single successful private program that has ended poverty entirely.

There hasn't been a successful public sector program either but the government programs are a means to reduce the crime that is inevitable with poverty.

Eliminating all government social welfare programs means that there will be endemic poverty (just look at 3rd world nations) and rampant crime. The cost of dealing with that crime will exceed the cost of the social welfare programs. Libertarians put their ideology ahead of pragmatism which is why it will fail and America will be far worse off than it is now.

Liar.

The libertarians play straight into the hands of the communists.

Yup!

There has never been a single successful private program that has ended poverty entirely.

There hasn't been a successful public sector program either but the government programs are a means to reduce the crime that is inevitable with poverty.

Eliminating all government social welfare programs means that there will be endemic poverty (just look at 3rd world nations) and rampant crime. The cost of dealing with that crime will exceed the cost of the social welfare programs. Libertarians put their ideology ahead of pragmatism which is why it will fail and America will be far worse off than it is now.

Liar.

I hardly agree that the statement is a lie.

I it is nothing more than a thought experiment that the left uses to rail against things they don't agree with.

Kinda like the whole "Red states take more welfare than Blue states" argument. I've never fully understood that one. It appears to be true based on statistics. So why don't Blue States try to pull back. That would force red states to either pony up or turn into blue states.

Just never got it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

Unless you can offer an alternative, your first claim is bogus. Unless, of course, you can show us where that is written by someone who we all call an ultimate authority.

We always see the "selfishness" and "greed" card played when someone is trying to leverage an argument they can't win.

Spoken just like a Libertarian who cannot defend his support of the elimination of all government social welfare programs.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I do not see libertarians advocating a complete lack of government.

What they are advocating for is a 100% removal of all social services.

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

I am not a Libertarian.

And if you want to make stuff up to argue against...try somebody else.

Or else show me where I stated that.....or retract your comment.

Your logic only flows because it suites your POV. Shallow at best....more likely dishonest.

Your posts are those of a Libertarian so you can deny it all you like but your posts are exposing what you are.

Like most on the left, you fit right in line.

You think you've got it all figured out.

The arrogance of the left only continues to be fodder for those who really step back and take a look at how silly the world can be.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

Unless you can offer an alternative, your first claim is bogus. Unless, of course, you can show us where that is written by someone who we all call an ultimate authority.

We always see the "selfishness" and "greed" card played when someone is trying to leverage an argument they can't win.

Spoken just like a Libertarian who cannot defend his support of the elimination of all government social welfare programs.

It's great that you don't care that what you are posting is in direct contradiction to what has been posted earlier.

In some ways, I admire the person who can ignore reality.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Libertarianiasm" is no more un-American than "Republicanism" or "Democratism".

Neither "Republicanism" or "Democratism" advocates eliminating all social programs.

The Libertarian party does!

Platform Libertarian Party

What is un-American about that.

I don't agree with removing all social services, but I don't see how you can classify libertarians as un-American.

Post #33.

Not sure why I bothered...you are simply not worth it.

You can't even define what un-American is...because then you'd have to define what "American" is.

I'd like to laugh at that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

Unless you can offer an alternative, your first claim is bogus. Unless, of course, you can show us where that is written by someone who we all call an ultimate authority.

We always see the "selfishness" and "greed" card played when someone is trying to leverage an argument they can't win.

Spoken just like a Libertarian who cannot defend his support of the elimination of all government social welfare programs.

It's great that you don't care that what you are posting is in direct contradiction to what has been posted earlier.

In some ways, I admire the person who can ignore reality.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

Unless you can offer an alternative, your first claim is bogus. Unless, of course, you can show us where that is written by someone who we all call an ultimate authority.

We always see the "selfishness" and "greed" card played when someone is trying to leverage an argument they can't win.

Spoken just like a Libertarian who cannot defend his support of the elimination of all government social welfare programs.

It's great that you don't care that what you are posting is in direct contradiction to what has been posted earlier.

In some ways, I admire the person who can ignore reality.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

What part of post #33 did you not understand ?

You've been shown to be incorrect.

Don't let it bother you...I know your programming can't deal with the conflict of being wrong and being from the left.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

Unless you can offer an alternative, your first claim is bogus. Unless, of course, you can show us where that is written by someone who we all call an ultimate authority.

We always see the "selfishness" and "greed" card played when someone is trying to leverage an argument they can't win.

Spoken just like a Libertarian who cannot defend his support of the elimination of all government social welfare programs.

It's great that you don't care that what you are posting is in direct contradiction to what has been posted earlier.

In some ways, I admire the person who can ignore reality.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

What part of post #33 did you not understand ?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

He means that if we don't steal money from peter to hand it over to poor little paul, then we are allowing paul to wallow in misery as he sits around doing absolutely nothing with his life that is of value to anyone, including himself.

I don't fully agree with this.

As in most cases, there is a continuum. There are a certain number of poor little paul's that would greatly benefit from a helping hand. Not everyone stays in poverty (in this, I don't claim to be an expert...but I have read that most people on welfare get off of it pretty quickly).

The right tends to rail against those who scam the system. And those people do exist.

It's not a one size fits all and one ideaology does not fit all.

However, I am still at a loss as to how something is un-American. Don't get that one.

Under what authority are we "required" to throw in to help others and to what extent. I am not saying we are not....I am asking a legitimate question.

Any appeal to moral authority only admits that somehow people are trying to uitlize government to achieve moral ends (and what kind of duststorm does that kick up ?).

If it is simply an economic formula...then someone has to consider taking steps that many today would consider unthinkable.

 

[dblack]

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

I'll try to steer clear of the petty personal attacks, but the stereotype of libertarians as selfish and greedy is laughably off base. We just see the purpose of government differently than you do. We don't think government exists to take care of us. That is the relationship of the king to the serf, the plantation owner to the slave, and sacrifices fundamental freedom for temporary security.

We can take care of ourselves, as a responsible society, without resorting to violence. I realize you think this isn't the case, that without state coercion, most people will be too short-sighted and selfish to see the wisdom of taking care of those in need. But if that's really your conviction, why would a government steered by democracy - by the votes of the very same people you apparently have no faith in - produce better results?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Under what authority are we "required" to throw in to help others and to what extent. I am not saying we are not....I am asking a legitimate question.

Try reading the preamble to the constitution.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Under what authority are we "required" to throw in to help others and to what extent. I am not saying we are not....I am asking a legitimate question.

Try reading the preamble to the constitution.

You first.

I noticed you glazed right over the fact that you blew it in your assertions.

Understandable given that both sides have their fair share of people who just accept that they've made a mistake.

I'll also consider this a deflection to other things you can't or won't answer.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

I'll try to steer clear of the petty personal attacks, but the stereotype of libertarians as selfish and greedy is laughably off base. We just see the purpose of government differently than you do. We don't think government exists to take care of us. That is the relationship of the king to the serf, the plantation owner to the slave, and sacrifices fundamental freedom for temporary security.

We can take care of ourselves, as a responsible society, without resorting to violence. I realize you think this isn't the case, that without state coercion, most people will be too short-sighted and selfish to see the wisdom of taking care of those in need. But if that's really your conviction, why would a government steered by democracy - by the votes of the very same people you apparently have no faith in - produce better results?

I'll try to steer clear of the petty personal attacks,

It is a violation of SDF OP Rules to resort to ad homs.

but the stereotype of libertarians as selfish and greedy is laughably off base.

The LP website says otherwise.

I realize you think this isn't the case, that without state coercion, most people will be too short-sighted and selfish to see the wisdom of taking care of those in need.

There has never been any successful private program that has ever made any significant reduction in the poverty rate. Compare that to the government social welfare programs that reduced poverty in the 1990's.

But if that's really your conviction, why would a government steered by democracy - by the votes of the very same people you apparently have no faith in - produce better results?

Because the evidence shows that it does actually produce better results than those in the private sector.