Is there a libertarian approach to poverty that *doesn't* come down to "just stop being poor"?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

One libertarian approach to alleviating poverty would be to end economic regulation that prevents the poor from making money. Apple Annie's unlicensed apple cart is illegal because the owners of grocery stores don't like competition. Not because she sells rotten apples.

What economic regulation is that exactly? Requiring a business license?

Do you read the silliness that rolls off your keyboard?
Companies produce that which will sell in the marketplace ... be it the "cheapest shit" or the good stuff. If it is of no value to consumers the biz will fail and paying more than the market requires for labor is just another way to fail. Businesses must find the balance between satisfying their employees and their customers while paying owners and investors a suitable ROI.

That's the capitalist ideal. That isn't the capitalist reality. There's a reason manufacturers haven't suddenly returned their factories from China. Their goods are risky at best but they're so much cheaper to create and hence buy. I mean, do you really think the working poor can even afford to buy only American?

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

In addition to stop being poor, there's alway GET A JOB. Never thought of that, eh?

I did, as I underlined in what you quoted. Telling poor people that they're only poor because they're too lazy to find a job doesn't really help when they already have two or three jobs.

 

[Rshermr]

These people could not be more out of touch with reality. I mean, who even thinks that? What reasonable person even suspects that the average welfare recipient can afford to live like a fucking multimillionaire?

Who? People who have been lucky enough to have a steady well paying job. They think that everybody could be just like them if they only tried, even though there is a limited number of those well paying jobs. If their well paying job suddenly turns to crap, they think they are being singled out for mistreatment. I've seen it more than once.

Not everyone has the marketable skills to work a "well paying job."
A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) that most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.

So nice for her that jobs have always been available for her.

That's what you found most significant about my friend's story? Woo.

Millions of everyday Americans make the same sacrifices she has in order to provide without direct gov't aid ... no welfare, no unemployment comp, no food stamps. As a reward she has for years been required to help pay for those who don't (or won't) make those sacrifices. It seems the idiotlogical left is determined to maintain a dependent class willing to sell their votes to the party that gives them the most freebies.

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Jesus, another from the I believe pro wrestling is real crowd.
Have a point, logic that can be proven?? Or just an opinion. Did you notice opinions are everywhere?? So, experts say income disparity is extremely high and getting worse, and you have no concern and no cogent argument? Maybe there is some pro wrestling on TV, eh??

 

[Rshermr]

Distibutist is interesting, I hadn't heard of it before. It reminds me of the old quip that if we redistributed all the wealth in America evenly amongst everyone, it would end up back in the same hands within a generation. Guys like me would hustle like heck to accumulate wealth and others would buy lotto tickets and smokes.

As a libertarian leaning person, no, there is probably not a better Libertarian answer which is a shortcoming in libertarianism - it doesn't accommodate nuance, even in the face of failure. Sure, if we cut out all govt benis more people would work. And some would starve and some would steal and end up in jail or shot.
Libertarian leaning?? Why, did you find a country with a successful Libertarian economy?? Of course not. So, if you are either a dreamer or just stupid.

The whole conversation misses the goal; is our goal to provide a minimal standard of living in America or to force people to work and not freeload? I love the latter but have accepted leaches and bums as part of the human experience. When I was younger I spent time and energy getting wound up about the dependent class but as I age I've realize that I'm better served taking my limited time and energy and working harder and smarted, not worrying about the freeloaders.

Your opinion AGAIN. And you know how much I love your opinion.
Any economic plan to help the issue?? Or are you incapable?

 

[koshergrl]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a distributist. The easiest way to understand my views is to picture a really cranky traditionalist Catholic but without the whole God bit.

Oh. A commie.

 

[Rshermr]

it didn't work when they called it communism, so now this idiot is trying it under another name, distributionism!

Communism and distributism are two different things. Did you even read the website I linked you to, or the definition I pulled from it for you? Communism is an explicitly atheist command economy system where the state controls the means of production in the name of the people. Distributism is a technically Catholic small scale capitalist system. Under Communism, the state owns your labor and puts you to work on its collectivized farm for the good of the nation. Under Distributism, you own your labor and your farm just like your neighbor owns his own. Under Communism, the state provides you with a living. Under Distributism, you provide your own living.

If you won't read our resources then at least read the document the idea was inspired by: Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891) | LEO XIII. Note that I agree with much of that as an atheist. Belief in Catholic theology isn't required to accept particular social ideals espoused by the Roman Church.

Do not expect Ed to read. He does not because he is incapable. Ed just copies and pastes. If you look at the bat sit crazy con web sites, you will find Ed's quotes word for word. Ed is simply paid to post libertarian dogma, and end conversation. But to his credit, being capable of cut and paste is an accomplishment for a congenital idiot, like ed.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a distributist. The easiest way to understand my views is to picture a really cranky traditionalist Catholic but without the whole God bit.

Oh. A commie.

How did you get Communism out of that? Distributism is: Let me google that for you

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a distributist. The easiest way to understand my views is to picture a really cranky traditionalist Catholic but without the whole God bit.

Oh. A commie.

How did you get Communism out of that? Distributism is: Let me google that for you

dear, you want a violent lib Nazi communist govt to enslave us all back to a pre-industrial age!! Do you enjoy being stupid and liberal!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Genius, he didn't say anything about pre-Industrial economics. I did. .

ok so you're a lib Nazi who wants to enslave us back to a pre-industrial age. You must be 100% stupid? what other conclusion is possible?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

dear, you want a violent lib Nazi communist govt to enslave us all back to a pre-industrial age!! Do you enjoy being stupid and liberal!!

Why should I continue bothering to read what you have to say? Honestly, why? You've yet to say anything, in any thread, that was actually worth my time.

I'm not a liberal. I'm anti-Communist. I consider capitalism a good thing. That said, I'm also a staunch pro-life Communitarian. The rights to life and freedom, in that order, are sacred, as are our obligations to one another.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I want is a system based on widespread, small scale capitalism

and how would a small scale, say, auto manufacturer compete with a huge scale manufacturer in Europe and Mexico???

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, you want a violent lib Nazi communist govt to enslave us all back to a pre-industrial age!! Do you enjoy being stupid and liberal!!

Why should I continue bothering to read what you have to say? Honestly, why? You've yet to say anything, in any thread, that was actually worth my time.

I'm not a liberal. I'm anti-Communist. I consider capitalism a good thing. That said, I'm also a staunch pro-life Communitarian. The rights to life and freedom, in that order, are sacred, as are our obligations to one another.

dear, China just instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty and saved another 60 million from slowly starving to death, with large scale capitalism.

Do you have the IQ to understand??

 

[Uncensored2008]

How did you get Communism out of that? Distributism is: Let me google that for you

Distributism is an oxymoron wrapped in a conundrum. It is sophomoric mental masturbation with no foundation in reality

"I want" without any sort of plan to actually get.

Reality is that those with greater ability need incentives to leverage those abilities on behalf of society. Socialism in all forms fail because of the inability to come to grips with this simple truth.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

What I want is a system based on widespread, small scale capitalism

and how would a small scale, say, auto manufacturer compete with a huge scale manufacturer in Europe and Mexico???

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

This is what I was talking about. You scan a post, find a point or two in it, address that, and completely ignore the rest. You couldn't be any more blatantly intellectually dishonest. What you're going to do right now is make a choice. You can explain to me why discussing things with you is worth my time, or can keep doing what you're doing now to no reply. You're going to need to make a very strong case for the former. I hope you're up to it.

 

[koshergrl]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a distributist. The easiest way to understand my views is to picture a really cranky traditionalist Catholic but without the whole God bit.

Oh. A commie.

How did you get Communism out of that? Distributism is: Let me google that for you

Yes, I was right. Commie.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it didn't work when they called it communism, so now this idiot is trying it under another name, distributionism!

Communism and distributism are two different things. Did you even read the website I linked you to, or the definition I pulled from it for you? Communism is an explicitly atheist command economy system where the state controls the means of production in the name of the people. Distributism is a technically Catholic small scale capitalist system. Under Communism, the state owns your labor and puts you to work on its collectivized farm for the good of the nation. Under Distributism, you own your labor and your farm just like your neighbor owns his own. Under Communism, the state provides you with a living. Under Distributism, you provide your own living.

If you won't read our resources then at least read the document the idea was inspired by: Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891) | LEO XIII. Note that I agree with much of that as an atheist. Belief in Catholic theology isn't required to accept particular social ideals espoused by the Roman Church.

Do not expect Ed to read. He does not because he is incapable. Ed just copies and pastes. If you look at the bat sit crazy con web sites, you will find Ed's quotes word for word. Ed is simply paid to post libertarian dogma, and end conversation. But to his credit, being capable of cut and paste is an accomplishment for a congenital idiot, like ed.

if as a liberal you find something in conservatism not rational please say what or admit with your silence, personal attacks, or lame attempts to change the subject that you lack the IQ to be here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I want is a system based on widespread, small scale capitalism

and how would a small scale, say, auto manufacturer compete with a huge scale manufacturer in Europe and Mexico???

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

This is what I was talking about. You scan a post, find a point or two in it, address that, and completely ignore the rest. You couldn't be any more blatantly intellectually dishonest. What you're going to do right now is make a choice. You can explain to me why discussing things with you is worth my time, or can keep doing what you're doing now to no reply. You're going to need to make a very strong case for the former. I hope you're up to it.

and how would a small scale, say, auto manufacturer compete with a huge scale manufacturer in Europe and Mexico???

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[koshergrl]

Ok, so you're not a commie,you're more like a Mennonite. Which is sort of like an olden days commie, or a modern day commune hippie, with the one positive difference..they aren't atheists.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a distributist. The easiest way to understand my views is to picture a really cranky traditionalist Catholic but without the whole God bit.

Oh. A commie.

How did you get Communism out of that? Distributism is: Let me google that for you

Yes, I was right. Commie.

Yes he's a commie dupe or useful idiot who has no idea whatsoever that he's doing their bidding

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Ok, so you're not a commie,you're more like a Mennonite. Which is sort of like an olden days commie, or a modern day commune hippie, with the one positive difference..they aren't atheists.

Communism has historically persecuted the religious. Distributism was technically created by Catholics in accordance with that church's social views.
Communism enshrines the state as the highest authority. Distributism is wrapped up with Communitarianism, which gives that honor to the community.
Under Communism, the state owns your labor. Under Distributism, you own your labor.
Under Communism, you are employed and paid by the state. Under Distributism, you may choose to work for yourself or another as you see fit.
Under Communism, the economy is controlled by the state's central planning committees. Under Distributism, the economy is allowed to run organically within protective regulations.
Under Communism, the state rules every aspect of society. Under Distributism, subsidiary is one of the most important concepts.

For what it's worth, I get along exceptionally well with Mennonites, as well as traditionalist Mormons and Catholics/Eastern Orthodox. It's always been a sad fact of history to me that the United Order didn't work out for the Mormons.

 

[koshergrl]

Ok, so you're not a commie,you're more like a Mennonite. Which is sort of like an olden days commie, or a modern day commune hippie, with the one positive difference..they aren't atheists.

Communism has historically persecuted the religious. Distributism was technically created by Catholics in accordance with that church's social views.
Communism enshrines the state as the highest authority. Distributism is wrapped up with Communitarianism, which gives that honor to the community.
Under Communism, the state owns your labor. Under Distributism, you own your labor.
Under Communism, you are employed and paid by the state. Under Distributism, you may choose to work for yourself or another as you see fit.
Under Communism, the economy is controlled by the state's central planning committees. Under Distributism, the economy is allowed to run organically within protective regulations.
Under Communism, the state rules every aspect of society. Under Distributism, subsidiary is one of the most important concepts.

For what it's worth, I get along exceptionally well with Mennonites, as well as traditionalist Mormons and Catholics/Eastern Orthodox. It's always been a sad fact of history to me that the United Order didn't work out for the Mormons.

Yes well it's not likely to work out as a world order thing, so it's pretty much just a pipe dream. We are all obliged to take a stand against tyranny in all its forms.

I love Mormons, have no problem with them, my dad's whole family is Mormon.