I’m listening to Nick Lee and Dale McGowan this morning, and they’re talking about the importance of expanding free thought movements to include the best of what religious organizations offer: community, giving, and social support networks. I like the ideas, but I’m bothered by one thing: I think government should be providing the social safety net, not atheist communities. But then I had an odd thought.
What about the libertarian contingent in atheism?
They take a different view. They generally want to gut government and get them out of the business of the public welfare. Shouldn’t that mean libertarian atheists should be most enthusiastic about seeing the atheist movement becoming more liberal and socially progressive? I’ve seen the opposite, though.
So this is the question for libertarians: do you endorse the liberalization of organized atheism?
I am not a libertarian, but I’ve known a few. My personal experience leads me to believe they don’t want the government to help people, nor anyone else.
I would suggest that sociopathy is not a viable political philosphy.
Far be it from me to speak on behalf of libertarians, but wouldn’t the average exemplar of that group simply fear that such a scenario would result in the replacement of ‘teh ebil gummermint conspiracy’ to take their money and ‘waste’ it on social welfare programmes, with ‘teh ebil atheist conspiracy’ to try to guilt-trip them out of money and spend that on charitable equivilants of social welfare programmes?
Pretty much any attempt to provide for the less fortunate seems to bother libertarians in my experience, so atheists doing it rather than central government is unlikely to appease them.
Atheism seems to appeal to libertarians because it gets religion out of their lives, and thus removes another impediment on their freedom to do what they want. Should atheism become too ‘preachy’ in their eyes, for instance by pursuing a greater degree of social progressivism, then atheism becomes the problem, because it is seen as pressuring them to spend their time/cash on helping others, and for some reason this is, to libertarians, a very bad thing. Why that should be the case is still a mystery to me. No libertarian has ever explained their position cogently enough for me to hazard a guess.
I’ve begun identifying as an atheist progressive (as opposed to a progressive atheist.) Basically, I disagree with libertarians much more than with progressive theists.
Not that I’m an accomodationist- progressive theists should be called out when their theism shows. BUT, I would rather, generally, by allied with them than with libertarian atheists, who I have nothing in common with except a nonbelief in God.
I’m not a libertarian, but I have to say I doubt it. Every libertarian I’ve ever met has disapproved of all varieties of safety nets, not just those provided by the government.
I should also add that my own opinion is that atheism should NOT be particularly interested in creating a community or social support network. Many of the worst aspects of religion are much more closely related to the tribalism it creates than to the false beliefs it entails.
Gregory:
I’ve heard the argument that “charity should help the poor, not government”*, but that always struck me as an easy way out for those that don’t want to help the less fortunate.
I would think that supporting welfare programs would be more palatable to the libertarian set if it was presented as a choice, rather than force (taxes). Of course, the libertarians I know are always quick to point out how much they give to charity– they’re not the bad guys! They give to worthy causes! (And that’s not to say that they wouldn’t just pay the idea lip-service without actually doing anything or giving any money.)
*Like that’s worked so well in the past. *eyeroll*
I’m not a libertarian, however from what I’ve read of their writings here, the base attitude seems to be fuck no, you can’t have anything of mine. So I doubt they’d be in favour of helping, let alone being part of a social net.
While I agree with libertarians on a lot of subjects, I don’t know enough about it to call myself one. So here’s what a google search comes up with on libertarians and donations:
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/should-libertarians-donate-to-haiti-relief
“Should Libertarians Donate To Haiti Relief?”
“While in my mind the best reason to not be generous with our own money is the fact that the federal government is already forcing us, through our tax dollars (or at least borrowed Chinese dollars) to send our money to Haiti, as libertarians we should still be as generous as we can. After all, whether in Haiti, New Orleans, or anywhere else, do we not want to show that the free market and private sector charity can outperform government? How can we as libertarians maintain that private sector charity can do what government does, only better, if we are sitting on our wallets when we could be helping? I will not make a moral case for or against donations, but just from a practical and philosophical standpoint if we are going to try to convince Americans (or Haitians, for that matter) that government is not necessary to cure this or that societal ill, how can we sit out such a catastrophic tragedy as the earthquake in Haiti?
In short, if you believe that free market charity is the best charity, prove it. Donate what you can to the Haiti relief effort. Give to established and reputable charities like the Red Cross or Salvation Army, or to local churches. The Red Cross and the Salvation Army have both made it easy to give quick $10 donations by texting HAITI to 90999 (Red Cross) or to 52000 (Salvation Army). Please give what you can.”
#7 Ben:
But then that donation is going to vanish abruptly if libertarians ever get their way, isn’t it? The whole point of making such a donation, according to the author of the quote, is to prove to the ignorant masses that the free market is the best charity.
Which means that if the majority of people ever become stupid enough to believe that, then there is no longer any need to donate.
Seems to me that you’d be a lot more likely to get actual responses from actual libertarians in threads where you aren’t slamming them.
I am a libertarian and absolutely agree that atheist groups should be picking up the slack and getting involved in charity and social progressivism. It is precisely my vision for the world that all kinds of groups voluntarily come together to help those who are less fortunate in their communities. Maybe I just don’t fully understand the term, but I am hesitant to say I am enthusiastic about the “liberalization” of atheism, as that term seems to imply a political stance. If anything, I feel that the political liberalization of atheism (as opposed to it’s increasing philanthropy) is actually harmful, as it simply puts up another wall between us and those who disagree with us. If atheism can break down its political affiliations and become more socially active, rather than politically active, I think that’s a great thing!
subbie,
Are you new here? Libertarians are always quick to respond with how freaking awesome they are. I seriously doubt that it will take long for one (or more) to show up.
Dr. Audley, perhaps I’m wrong. I guess we’ll see.
Liberalization of organized atheism is 100% compatible with libertarianism, the core of which is, unless I am mistaken, the preservation and promotion of individual freedom. If the people involved with organized atheism see fit to provide community and social support networks, and to give to charity, who can reasonably object? No atheists are being forced to participate in or contribute to organized atheism, right?
It’s absurd to make blanket statements about libertarians being against any kind of social safety net, however easy it is to find vocal, anti-safety-net libertarians, as the uncharitable among us don’t represent us all. The problem with governmental safety nets isn’t the safety net part, it’s the government part. More to the point, it’s the combination of coercion, inefficiency, and lack of accountability.
If individuals, or organized groups individuals, want to gather together to attempt to persuade me (or anyone else) to donate time, money, or effort to a worthy cause, that is, and should be, well within their rights. Just as it is, or at least should be, well within our rights to choose whether or not to donate and who to donate to.
If you read what I wrote, this is one of the few articles where I’ve mentioned libertarians without slamming them.
As with just about everything, the ideal & the applied reality of said ideal aren’t the same thing. Libertarians always use private, non “forced” charity as their response to the very valid question of, “if not the government, then who?”, but the basic principal they claim to be “liberty” says they don’t have to do squat if they don’t want to. And that’s the problem. Society needs to have basic welfare systems for those that fall through the cracks which is compulsory becau
How long did it take you to become as ignorant as you are ?
The basic libertarian idea of leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone is pretty good. But it doesn’t work everywhere. For example it’s probably best for the government to pay for treatment of serious medical conditions like birth defects and cancer.
Also many card carrying Libertarians were brought into the party by Glenn Beck. I’m pretty sure they neither understand, nor agree with the philosophy.
Subbie,
Sorry to jump on you. I saw this thread and my first reaction was, “Well, shit. I’ve got better things to do than argue with libertarians all day” ‘cos that’s what these topics inevitably turn into.
Speaking of which, we’ve got noahpoah @ 13, who doesn’t seem to realize that private charity can’t (and never has been able to) accommodate everyone who is needy.
noahpoah also should brush up on early 20th century history. It really sucked to be poor back then.
You are mistaken. For example liberals will say there is no right for people to deny employment, housing or services to others based on race, religion, sexuality, sex and so on. libertarians will not say that. They will contend that to prevent such discrimination is a worse form of discrimination, since it impinges on property rights.
PZ, I wasn’t suggesting that you were slamming libertarians, obviously you didn’t. I was referring the the first few comments.
I’m a libertarian. For a while I was one of those screw-em types, I guess because that attitude had such a “pureness” about it. Fortunately, I have enough lefty friends that I am no longer so sure of everything. You Pharyngulites have also helped me evolve. Thanks.
My main thing is that I distrust government and want to keep it as constrained as possible. But I see some valid uses for government. Being the gigantic Nanny State is not one of those uses, however because it diminishes everyone’s freedom.
So who takes up the slack? I think that those of us who spew libertarianism the loudest should be the first ones to step up with the assistance to our fellow man. Double that for atheist libertarians.
Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel @ 5;
Also, once you take government out of the equation with its taxes and its tendency to spend the money on just anybody, then the libertatrian can be more… discriminating as to where the money (they may or may not give) goes. Now, not all libertarians are bigots, but let us just imagine that a given libertarian didn’t want to spend money on the less fortunate of a slightly darker hue? With government out of the picture, you can make sure that your money only goes to the suitably pale of skin. Don’t want to contribute to development aid for the poorer nations of the world? No problem, so long as goverment isn’t able to grab your taxes and spend them on dirty ‘furreners’. Got a problem with teh ghey? If government can’t get hold of your money, then they can’t spend it on people whose sexuality you find squicky.
If government can be excised from such matters, it makes being both bigted and self-righteous about the less fortunate that much easier…
Naturally, libertarians are the greatest benefactors of the human race ever to grace the planet – just so long as they are never actually called upon to demonstrate their philanthropy…
The usual libertarian stance on charity is that those that wish to give will not be stopped. An individuals right to do what they will with their property supersedes the other rule of libertarianism: wealth is distributed most morally through the exchange of goods and services in “free” markets.
Charity ends up being like a black market for people who don’t quite have the stomach to be real libertarians.
Liberalization doesn’t mean having a nanny-state as it is usually portrayed. It means, in its Lockean roots, that people should own everything that their labor produced (even the damage to the environment that their job creating oil spills cause) and ensure that everyone has equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.
Libertarians always get this wrong. It is as though they never bother to study any history. Not one of them ever stops to ask why developed countries have introduced welfare and healthcare programs. I suppose deep down they know they will not like the answer, and rather than have to live with the fact they are cold-hearted bastards, prefer to remain in ignorance.
Dr A, no worries. It just seemed an odd way to start off soliciting libertarian input is all. Personally, I’d be quite loathe to come into a hostile environment and express a minority view were I a libertarian. But maybe that’s just me.
Nope. That is not what you said. It may have been what you meant, but if you are crap at writing that is not our fault.
I have read Kraken. Goss does all of the talking. Subbie does not say a thing.
It’s well-known that statistics show that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals. I don’t know the reason for this, but it at least makes sense given that they value charity. But come to think of it, I’ve never seen similar statistics for libertarians. I would be interested to see that.
I love how the first few comments consist of, “I am not a libertarian but…” and then proceed to employ some kind of ignorant ad hominem. Why even bother to post if you aren’t going to contribute?
Despite what others have said, from what I have seen, these threads degenerate into libertarian-bashing threads with the couple of libertarians who are trying to stand up for their beliefs being vilified and accused of being heartless. It’s ugly.
I am a libertarian? No, but I am very sympathetic to their beliefs. The government has become a terrifying and monstrous entity. I find it discomforting that the same entity that provides the nation’s social safety net is the SAME entity that wages wars and ruins and kills thousands of innocent lives – abroad AND at home. Would people be more likely to resist government actions if so many people weren’t getting money from it? Is the government safety net a pacifying agent? I don’t know, but I think it’s an interesting question that stems from a libertarian point of view.
You’re right, subbie. So far in this thread, people have called me (“libertarians”) ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, and selfish. I don’t feel in any way that I’m being given the benefit of the doubt on this forum, and have instead been met with outright hostility. The two libertarians that have posted in this thread, though not a good sample size, have supported charity in atheism, yet the commenters here continue to fervently shout their caricatures.
The level of ignorance about libertarianism is stupendous. What about the followers of left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism? Or geolibertarianism, which is slightly closer to my own views?
As to the question – the atheist movement should not, as its core function, move to create a safety net. The atheist movement has a set of goals that it should focus on. However, should a group of atheists wish to pick up the slack then that would be fantastic, but it should not be the price of entry to the atheist movement that you have to fund whatever social hobby-horse the leaders of the atheist movement have a hard-on for at any given time.
I think you have confused an insult with a logical fallacy. Not sure how you did that, since the two things are very different. It would take a pretty large amount of stupidity to achieve.
Yeap, libertarianism is ugly. It is also heartless and deserves to be vilified. Odd you should see that as a problem.
Gregory:
Oh, good point! I hadn’t thought of that. It does seem like the perfect recipe to keep certain classes of people downtrodden.
My other thought is that if we were to rely solely on private charity for the social safety net, it would be so much easier to take advantage of the working poor. Charity is not going to be able to give them nearly as much for food/housing/etc and with the libertarian love of “free markets” (read: no regulations on businesses), we might as well go back to the bad old days of the industrial revolution. We need to find cheap labor somewhere, after all, so the more desperate, the better.
Well, I don’t know. Source?
Stupid ideas get a hostile reception around here. That you espouse stupid ideas is your fault. You can either stop being stupid, or learn to live with having your ideas treated with hostility. Your choice.
Or you could fuck off.
And please ensure any data is not confined to the US.
One of my good friends who’s libertarian happens to be online in IM right now, and we’ve had a few good arguments. I asked him if he’d give a quick response to PZ’s question. Here is our conversation from IM:
Why so hostile, Matt? Someone has a small misunderstanding of the ad hominem fallacy and you claim that the person must be a tremendous fool? Would you say that to someone’s face in this situation? Your rudeness is appalling.
Yeap, they are a fool. You were trying to use big words you do not understand. How is that anything other than foolish ?
And as for me being rude, has it not crossed your mind that you inflicting your ignorance and stupidity on us is rude ? So who the fuck are you to call me rude ? What a fucking hypocrit you are!
I note you cannot even apologise!
I don’t get PZ’s question. Is the premise that social progressives are likely to make atheist groups into stronger charitable organizations? Because over and over I seem to see that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. An interesting bit of this link:
So if the goal is turning atheist organizations into being more like churches in their many charitable functions, then we should want a solid mix of conservatives and progressives–the progressives to give somewhat more money, the conservatives to give more of what they have (time is a factor too, not just money).
So I think a bit of clarification of the question is in order.
Also, I realize that it’s difficult for some people to see that “I don’t want the government to give welfare to citizens and ginormous aid and privileges to corporations” isn’t the same as “I am a stingy bastard who doesn’t want anyone to help anyone else ever” but the two aren’t the same. Certainly some libertarians do adopt the latter, but there’s nothing fundamentally sociopathic or whatever you want to call libertarians about libertarianism. Some people are libertarians because *gasp* they like people and want to see them happy.
it’s all about aesthetics
some think (me included) that a government doing nothing is more “beautiful” than any other non-perfect government
but more elegant does not mean (or even imply) better
in a world of dreams and ideals they would be right, that’s why i can’t bring myself disliking them as much as other idiots
maybe I’m a dreamer too
In the US “libertarianism” almost always means right-libertarianism, which favors capitalism, private property, etc. The complaints by commenters here are usually just towards right-libertarianism.
Moewicus,
What part of “And please ensure any data is not confined to the US” did you not understand ?
I am one of these Linuxtarian atheists and I do think that for organisations which are voluntary, there is nothing wrong with them offering secular “religious” benefits like the sense of community. If people do not like it, they can fork the movement. We cannot however fork the state.
Moewicus
I was looking for the data that supposedly says that conservatives give more money to charity than liberals and I found a book by Artuhur C Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters was cited most often. While googling info about it, I also found a blog analyzing precisely the op-ed you cited, linky
Moewicus,
You also seem to have chosen to ignore the examples from Europe. What is important is not the amount given, it is outcomes.
The US performs poorly on nearly every measure that is used to work out the well-being of a countries population. The countries that do best are far from being libertarian. Far from it, they have Government funded welfare and healthcare programs and a fairly high rate of taxation.
This suggests that charity performs poorly.
Matt Penfold-
I had not read your comment when I wrote mine. I wasn’t even responding to it, so it’s not terribly relevant. Since you want some, though, here’s some data not confined to the US, from the article I linked to:
As a libertarian, I want atheist organization to be filled with homosexuals.
Matt Penfold,
The blogger criticizing Kristof’s article came up with the same point, mentioning France:
A bit of an aside, but if one of the goals of those in the atheist movement is to dispel the negative images atheists have then charity would seem like a good way to accomplish this. Often we’re told only the religious can be altruistic and are pointed to religious charities as a sign that religion makes people good. Of course, we should be helping others regardless, because it’s the right thing to do. However, we can also use it as an opportunity to dispel nasty stereotypes.
Fine. Howver it still does not explain why you only offered data for the US. You made a broader claim than that, since you did not qualify your original comment.
So I ask, why ignore the rest of the world ? Arrogance, ignorance, laziness, stupidity ?
The following quote was not relevant.
Hi. I’m moderately libertarian on some stuff. Not gonna claim I’m some hard-core Rand nut, though. (Objectivists weird me out.)
Social liberalism and civil libertarianism are totally cool by me. The more personal freedom people have in their everyday lives, the better.
Now, as for charity? Depends on implementation, to be honest. If that “charity” is supporting local institutions, like soup kitchens, public schools, police and fire departments in impoverished areas, fine. If it’s used to help the government do its regulatory jobs, like pollution controls, fine. If by “charity” you mean welfare checks, not fine. The difference is that those which are “fine” benefit everyone, and those which are “not fine” pick favorites.
But honestly? With how much Charity the government’s given to businesses and the rich in the past few years, welfare to the poor’s only fair at this point. So go nuts with it; and when it reaches the level of injustice of funding Halliburton and bailing out corrupt lenders, let me know, and I’ll start getting ticked. ‘Til then, fund and give away, I say.
In the interest of clarity, I’ve tried to strip the original post down to the bare ideas. Correct me if I have misunderstood what you were asking.
Original idea: “Expand free thought movements to provide community, giving, and social support networks”
Counterpoint: “Government should provide the social safety net, not atheist communities”
Statement about Libertarians: They want to reduce government’s role in social support networks.
Assumption: Libertarian atheists should want the atheist movement to provide social support networks
Question: Why is there evidence the assumption is false?
The problem with your counter point is that both groups can provide the same role at the same time. If athiest communities become active in those areas it won’t prevent government from doing so as well. The original idea had nothing to do with government so the counter point derails the topic.
The problem with your question is essentially the same. Just becuase a person is libertarian and has an opinion on government’s role doesn’t mean that as an atheist they automatically want that role to be transferred to atheist groups. A person could support any of the following 4 polarized ideas:
– Yes government and yes atheist social support activity
– No government and no atheist social support activity
– Yes government and no atheist social support activity
– No government and yes atheist social support activity
I could find logical support for all four positions.
You say you’ve even seen evidence that your assumption isn’t true. Did they really not say why they took that position? It seems like your question has already been answered elsewhere – I’m confused why you would ask it again.
Also, there are a lot of people in here speaking for Libertarians. Many straw men. It always confuses me when I see a group demonized like that, especially by professed free-thinkers. I thought we were the type to discuss ideas based on merit rather than affiliation or source?
Because more of them belong to the kinds of churches that strongly guilt/require their members to donate to the church. I’m on my way out the door for the day, but I remember reading that when donating to church to support the church is taken out, the differential in giving almost totally vanishes.
As a long-time follower of these posts concerning libertarianism and as a libertarian-leaning person myself, I have to say this is the most constructive dialogues between libertarian-Pharyngulites and non-libertarian Pharyngulites I think I have seen yet.
There seems to be less of the didatic, highly-theoretical, and highly-defensive posturing from the libertarian contributors and less of the false straw-man “Libertarians are all Ayn Rand zealouts” arguments from the non-libertarians.
I’m just happy to see ideas presented instead of walls built up.
Shucks, I have to take kitty litter to the dump.
Have I seen anti-caturday yet? Oh. Sea pig. Cool!
Oh yeah, I’m sure those in need of welfare checks feel like they are someone’s favorites… favorite scapegoats maybe.
And that’s giving specifically to support the structure and function of the churches themselves, not that the churches then turn around and donate to actual charity, which goes right along with what I’ve seen. I remember very well all of the special giving campaigns at the churches I’ve been at, and how careful the pastors were to remind everyone that those campaigns were supposed to be extra on top of your normal tithe, because if you substituted one for the other then they wouldn’t be able to pay the utility bills that month.
While I identify myself as a Libertarian I am not happy with the feverish “I got mine and you can drop dead” first premise that seems to pervade any conversation about Libertarianism. PZ is right, there is inherent compatibility with the two strains. Lee, Noahpoah and Ike allude to the challenge: private charity is nearly always more efficient at the task but that does not mean this is the one true path to curing all ills. The problem of scale is immediately obvious.
I take a practical approach to my politics and taxes. I get a pretty good deal on my kids’ education (and later, with postsecondary community colleges and universities) versus the property tax bill. But I get the shit end of the stick on most everything else. I recognize that public infrastructure makes it possible for me to do business with others, so paying my fair share of the bill makes sense. Where I have a problem is in being forced to subsidize businesses (churches) and massively inefficient programs that I have no choice but to support because that comes with the territory. I am certain there will never be consensus on what falls into the black versus the red side of the register, hence the trend toward the extremes and idiotic statements like “things were better at the turn of the 19th century to the 20th”. They weren’t.
Perhaps the only less efficient system than government is religious “charity”. At least on this point we should have common ground. Given the opportunity to help my community directly or indirectly with some choice, I take it. On a self-interest basis alone this makes sense. Given the opportunity to pool my contributions with others who have common cause, I champion it.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes.
Gluttony is only a sin and gluttony for punishment is, well, a perverse pleasure. So the thinking behind this requires brief ideas of what libertarianism means to me.
I like limited government, but I endorse the government being actively involved in infrastructure like the Eerie canal, without which we would not be having the “Occupy Wall St.” campaign in the Mecca of capitalism. And the space program (not the shuttle program specifically) that led to most advances in today’s communications. And the Internet without which we would be stuck with proprietary Netware solutions.
And something to be done about AGW, because no one else will or can. Private companies cannot do it, they lack the authority or the motive. The candidate of my party has the wrong view on this.
Repeal of the Patriot act, end of subsidies to the dinosaurs, and end to generational wealth. You do not produce anything when you inherit a copper mine, and if “self” is the only interest society should serve, let “son of self” earn his own copper mine.
I am also fine with welfare programs for the unfortunate, as long as the able ones in those ranks do not remain there permanently.
I am all for programs by the government that invest for all of us, but only when they are the only solution. For example, the space shuttle program was a waste, and went on too long, given that private companies can do so.
Guard individual liberty against corporations, which means remove the curbs on suing corporations. Capping damages, for example, makes it a cost proposition which is being exploited.
Eliminate hate laws by implementing existing ones. Bashing a gay kid should be punishable, and that punishment enforced, instead of a new law that the same community will again not enforce. Solve that problem.
Corporations should be stripped of their unearned rights as a super-individual. This is the same measure I want against religious establishments.
Drug use should be decriminalized. No womb control. No state-sponsored marriage. Full adherence to the Bill of Rights (emphasis over the rest of the constitution). No bailout of banks, automobile industry, savings and loans, airlines, railways, farmers, oil industry.
Catastrophes: No govt. aid for expected calamities of nature. You live in California, you are to fend for yourself for an earthquake. Likewise in Texas and Florida for your hurricanes. Not so the case for 9/11 or Katrina like tragedies.
Religion: Some day we’ll change the First Amendment. Till then, live and let live.
Oh, do cut down the largest socialistic blood-sucker in the country — the military. We do not need that many of the brave men and women defending our country by bombing brown people in stone age lands. If you disagree, have a tour of duty for every citizen like they do in Israel.
Less illegal immigration, and more legal immigration.
Ideal libertarianism cannot work because of the flawed premise it starts from, that humans are born equal.
Phasers on “stun”, please.
Hey Aetre,
Would you then be fine with universal healthcare, or say a universal stipend given to everyone regardless of income in lieu of welfare/food aid? The well-off wouldn’t really need it, and the rich would barely notice…
Speaking of which, we’ve got noahpoah @ 13, who doesn’t seem to realize that private charity can’t (and never has been able to) accommodate everyone who is needy.
I never claimed that private charity could accommodate everyone who is needy. Government-based welfare can’t either. None of this is relevant to the question about libertarianism and the liberalization of organized atheism, but the questions of who should provide a safety net and how it should be provided are not questions about accommodating everyone who is needy, they are questions about doing the best that we can with the resources we have.
A lot of charitable people with good intentions and divergent political viewpoints disagree on what counts as ‘the best we can’ and how best to balance that against the resources we have, and I would never claim to have The Answer. I’m a libertarian because I am extremely skeptical that the government is likely to do a good job with a social safety net, given that it’s the same government that (bipartisanly) conducts a disastrous war on drugs, is engaged in two foreign occupations/nation-building projects, and seems intent on instituting a security-theater-based police state.
noahpoah also should brush up on early 20th century history. It really sucked to be poor back then.
As above, I never claimed anything to the contrary, and, again, I’m not sure what this has to do with the relationships between safety nets, organized atheism, and libertarianism.
You are mistaken. For example liberals will say there is no right for people to deny employment, housing or services to others based on race, religion, sexuality, sex and so on. libertarians will not say that. They will contend that to prevent such discrimination is a worse form of discrimination, since it impinges on property rights.
The freedom to do what you want with your own property is, in fact, an individual freedom. Hence, any particular position on the relative importance of anti-discrimination law vs. property rights – and the tendency of libertarians favor the latter – does not invalidate my claim that the core of libertarianism is individual freedom.
Just to reiterate (because I’m not likely to continue commenting in this thread), with respect to the question posed in PZ’s post, I find it hard to imagine how a libertarian could be against the people involved in organized atheism making a decision to voluntarily provide “community, giving, and social support networks.” If you don’t want to participate in organized atheism’s social safety net, don’t participate. If you want organized atheism to do something else, convince the other organized atheists that it’s a good idea.
That’s an interesting and noble sentiment. However, it has already happened. The result was the collective entity today called Democratic Government.
As a follow-up, can ask PZ Myers has he ever read the work of Radley Balko? Just curious. I know PZ strongly disagrees with the libertarian philosophy, and I can respect that. But, with all of the insulting attacks, I get the impression that he’s never met a libertarian that he ever liked.
Historically this is simply not true.
Try asking yourself why so many countries in Western Europe have government funded welfare and healthcare programs. The answer is that charity proved unequal to the task. How can not actually meeting demand be considered efficient ?
That is also the core of Democratic Government. It’s just that democratic government realizes that, in the real world, if you want to preserve and promote anything at all, you need at least a small amount of coercive power.
@Beatrice, anormalement indécente
Those are solid criticisms. I would certainly like to see the question hashed out with a look at better data.
@Matt Penfold
Matt, in most of the world “libertarian” does not mean what PZ means it to mean. If someone in the US is talking about libertarians about liberals, it’s a pretty safe bet they’re talking to Usonians about Usonians. Maybe he’s not–then my mistake. The point of my comment was to clarify the unstated premises of PZ’s question. Does it include the idea that social progressives and liberals are more generous? If that is the case, it has not been shown to my knowledge, and seems to be disputed. If you know of a better analysis, by all means provide it. My only claim is that the notion contradicts what I have heard for a long time about the issue, and that what I already know leads me to a different conclusion than the one PZ’s (rhetorical?) question would apparently like me to.
Beatrice (in response to Aetre):
Seriously. It is so glam to receive food stamps!
I mean, the government does so much for the poor &/or unemployed that it’s amazing that we haven’t all quit our jobs just so we can be the government’s “favorite” citizens.
I’m an atheist who describes himself as a “Progressive Libertarian” (as if that gives you any sense of where I stand,) but this: (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz) assures me that I’m still a libertarian. If desired, I’ve just typed out exactly what I do and don’t believe, but the post got shamefully long (it still is) and I’ve removed it. I will post it here if a clarification of what I believe would help the discussion.
I am all for the liberalization of atheism. The marketing benefits to both atheism and libertarianism aside, I think it’s fundamentally the “right” thing to do.
As has been lamented before, one of the greatest strengths of Christian churches is their infrastructure which provides them the opportunity to help others. (I’m talking primarily about churches like the one my parents still attend, which practices a sort of lame-duck Christianity whose main tenets are “Be nice, join a committee, donate to UNICEF, and drink this grape juice.” In such churches, theology rarely tends to muddy the motivations of charity work.) Many atheists would happily donate money (I hope) if only given the right combination of three things: 1) The knowledge that one’s money wouldn’t be used to buy Bibles or other textbooks for Woo Class. 2) The presentation of the opportunity to donate on a regular basis. (Who can remember that there are people dying in other countries unless they’re reminded?) and 3) One or two of those knowing glances from the people around us that say “I’m watching how much money you put in that bowl, and your actions will influence my judgement of your personal worth.” (There’s no better way to get a social ape to do what you want than giving it a disapproving look in a room full of conspecifics.)
As has been pointed out in this thread already, the thing that most irks libertarians (well, libertarians that aren’t assholes,) isn’t the giving of money to the poor. Personally, I’m all for that. The problem libertarians have with social safety nets is the fact that support for them is mandatory. I, and I think many other libertarians, have no problem with society trying to tell me what I should do with my resources, but I have a huge problem with society trying to force me to do it. I need to always have the ability to say “NO!”, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t force me to say it often and judge me harshly whenever I say it if I can’t justify my resistance.
Libertarian atheists should be able to make up their own minds about whether or not to give, but there’s no justifiable reason to support a liberalization in atheism that promotes and facilitates charity. I only ask that the progressive atheists don’t bite our heads off if we don’t donate to every cause every time, and that you try to understand that we’re approaching this from a different angle.
PZ – I know how much you like internet polls. What if we 1) Take a poll to see what percentage of your readers identify as “libertarians” then 2) you pick a charity (one that even libertarians should support) and then 3) you set up “libertarian” and “non-libertarian” donation windows and we see if the libertarian contingent donates more or less than our fair monetary share towards helping others.
It’s non-scientific, but at least it supports charity and would give us more fodder for debate. Come on, we’re biologists – we live for big piles of messy, likely biased, and ambiguous data.
Aaaaaaand you would get to Pharyngulate yourself, which I’m sure would feel great.
Since Libertarianism is in essence a search for a moral justification for selfishness, I think neither would be agreeable.
I’m a recently (in the last year) an ex-libertarian. It went like this: the more invested I became in the atheist community, the more people-positive I became (since, honestly, we’re all we really have in the world). The more people-positive I became, the more I realized that helping others isn’t simply a kindness but an obligation, and the easiest way to make sure we all participate is to enact the needed help is through our government — I agree that it needs a gutting, but only long enough to actually install people who care and change the rules to make it less profitable for those who DON’T care to become the lawmakers and enforcers.
Without meaning to make normative statements, I would be highly suspect of one who didn’t gradually embrace more of the humanist aspect of atheism over time, and “every man for himself” is not a humanist position, in my view. I don’t believe that liberty-at-any-cost works for most people; a homeless man with no possessions or responsibilities may be a paradigm of liberty, but his needs aren’t being met, and I daresay he is not happy or healthy (recognizing, of course, that a few exceptions to this exist). I think you trade a marginal amount of liberty when you choose to or continue to be party of a society — usually in the form of taxation and the agreement to obey certain sets of laws. Adjusting these to a mutually comfortable level is normal; attempting to almost completely abolish them is not.
The atheist libertarians I personally still know are a lot less concerned with social matters than they are with fiscal matters; they may support progressive social policies, but that support is almost deathly silent compared to their very vocal opposition to any sort of “economic slavery”. Conversely, when *I* was a libertarian, most of my focus was on social policy — I think that’s why I eventually grew to find libertarianism unpalatable. I simply wasn’t nearly as concerned with my wallet as I was with the treatment of my fellow man.
Honestly, I think most are simply conservatives who have managed not to hate women and minorities. This is a simplistic summation, but it’s purposefully so in tribute to their simplistic appraisal of the role of government.
If this means there’s a Libertarian strip calendar contest involved, I’m all for it.
Libertarians forget their history.
The reason government welfare arose and evolved at all (and government existed for thousands of years without doing hardly any of it) is because private charity FAILED. And failed SPECTACULARLY.
Private charity had its chance as the only game in town to get the job done. And it could not. It was the “market” (for charity) that spoke, that rejected private charity, that DEMANDED government welfare. And enlightened governments responded to that demand, as is their moral obligation.
Government welfare was not imposed top down. It was requested, bottom up, by the enormous masses of suffering people whom private charity completely failed to properly take care of.
Because there are some things that are simply too big for any individual or private group of individuals to do. Which only something as big and powerful as a government can do.
Governments, as with all big things, tend towards bloat and inefficiency, but that is just a function of size. Closely examine the inner workings of any corporation large enough to rank as an equivalent among governments, and you will find just as much inefficiency, waste, corruption, and bloat, if not more.
So the actions of government will have the inefficiencies associated with organizations as big as a government. But to alternative to government action is not some fairy utopia where the needed action gets magically done by some private entity, magically better than government can do, the alternative to government action is NO ACTION AT ALL.
noahpoah:
Bullshit. We have enough resources to accommodate all of the needy, we just choose not to spend our money that way.
I do, however, think it’s extremely cute that you think a bunch of scatter-shot organizations who are have zero accountability to anyone and varying goals will be more efficient than government assistance.
Okay, @ 13 you said:
How do you think social safety nets were handled a century ago? I’ll give you a hint: it was private charity that couldn’t (or wouldn’t) help enough people out. It wasn’t until the government intervened that we saw less extreme cases of poverty.
I’ve always felt that some self-described libertarians have no problems giving to the poor, but that the most vocal and politically active libertarians became that way because they hated being forced to give their money to the Great Unwashed.
It is worth noting, as some have stated, that the framing of the question is wrong. Creating social services to give money to the poor isn’t “liberalizing.” Making a system that forces the unwilling to do so is. As the statistics show, PLENTY of conservatives give freely of their own money and time to help the poor. (Even if that fact is America-specific, it still shows that there’s no rule that liberals are more generous.)
I’m not a libertarian myself, but I’m a strong federalist–government should be largely local, in my view, and I don’t like a faceless national government deciding everything.
If I had an Internetz to award, Amphiox would now be in proud possession of one I had given a polish to.
#73 just nails it.
Atheist issues are moot. Having once been a Libertarian – and ran for state assembly on the LP ticket, I’ve thought it through as my thinking has evolved. There are three simple things that libertarians can not answer. I eagerly await their comments.
Environment. We all know this one. I’ve never heard a reasonable lib answer that wasn’t a shuck and jive.
Corporations? Yes or no? Why? They’re there now. What do you do about them.
Money. Who issues it, who controls the rules? Private banks? Fractional reserve or not? Who watches the reserves?
— TWZ
Show me a conservative who would give as much of their money without the corresponding tax deduction, and I’ll show you . . . a liberal.
Incidentally, a great blog on left-libertarianism, i.e. people who sincerely believe that a big government is an impediment to helping the poor:
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
I wouldn’t go as far as they do myself, but it’s pretty darn close to my philosophy.
I just typed “welfare” into the search engine on Reason’s website, and most of the results were concerned with “corporate welfare”.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/05/a-great-recession-silver-linin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdYkdTcSox8
If there’s one thing libertarians and liberals can agree on, it’s probably that billionaire team owners should NEVER be subsidized.
I’m going to echo those who are weary of the numbers people are throwing around to indicate that the USA is more charitable than other countries.
Let’s say I want to make sure that everyone in my country is provided with healthcare, so I vote for taxes that will take X% of my income (or whatever) so as to provide healthcare for everyone in my country. This would not be counted as charitable.
Now let’s say that I wanted to make sure that everyone in my country is provided with healthcare, so I donate 1/2X% of my income (or whatever) to charity so as to provide healthcare for everyone in my country. This would be counted as charitable. However, I am only giving half the money as I would in the situation above.
How much of this is going on when people compare the USA to other countries? How much giving in other countries has been institutionalized compared to our deinstitutionalized giving?
I’m definitely not a libertarian, and I have little more than contempt for the “fuck you, I’ve got mine,” sort that seem to make up the majority of libertarians I’ve met. However, I’ve also read some insightful left-libertarian arguments in favor of genuinely progressive policies. See here: http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/06/so_you_want_to__1.html
and here: http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/06/reasonable-resolution.html
These people, and those like them, would likely be far more supportive of left-wing policies than right-libertarian ones. I just don’t know how influential they are within libertarianism.
Lyra, @81: Counter-example:
I pay a very small fraction of my income in taxes, because I have fairly low income and I get a lot of services from the government. Therefore, I vote for nationalized health care, because I am almost certain to gain more from the health care than I will pay in taxes.
In other words, unless you have a voting breakdown for those other countries, I would be skeptical that what is going on in those other countries is charity and not mere rent-seeking, i.e. voting other people’s money to accrue to my benefit.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who read that and heard in my head “… a ragtag, fugitive fleet…”
@AJKamper
Certainly not all people who vote for natioanlized healthcare would be doing so out of a desire to help others. It isn’t my intention to imply that it is so. I’m simply saying that it doesn’t make any sense to say that Americans are more charitable for giving to support something if other countries also give to support that thing but in a different manner. It’s an unfair setup that BEGINS with the assumption that giving without the government is better than giving with the government. It wouldn’t be unexpected that such a setup would portray non-governmental giving in a more positive light because that’s one of the premises.
Oh, and also, I’m not sure why you would assume that this “rent-seeking” would be higher in other countries than it is in the USA. In other words, if you say that nationalized healthcare is rent seeking, not a desire for a healthy citizenry, then why aren’t people rent seeking in the same way? Or why do other countries not rebel against this rent seeking if they are no more inclined to be helpful than anyone else? Would you care to elaborate?
@Lyra:
I see your point, and it’s a good one. Still, aren’t you framing it in just the opposite way? That is, there’s no reason to think that the fact that these other countries provide these services is a form of generosity. It might well be a function of greed–the poor voting themselves advantages. If that were the case, then the fact that Americans choose to give voluntarily is more noble than the better-off of the social democracies being forced to give.
I really don’t know what’s more accurate here. I’d certainly prefer to believe that you’re right, and that the people who give up the most for these social programs do so willingly and out of enlightened self-interest. But I don’t know if that’s the case or not.
Sorry, I meant
*then why aren’t people in the USA “rent seeking” in the same way.
If there are any libertarians that think that their philosophical/political orientation gives them an excuse to not care about societal issues, then they should seriously look at the work of Radley Balko –
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/cory-maye-freed-after-10-years_n_890456.html
@Lyra
The same reason that it’s okay for people to carry guns here and not there. That is, there are significant cultural differences between the U.S. and those social democracies. I’d look to the unholy partnership between fundamentalist religion and conservatism as the likely answer: people who think that only the Republican party supports their religious morals thereby get led into believing that there’s “class warfare” and wars against Christmas and blah blah blah until they perceive that their socially conservative agenda is somehow tied to economic conservatism. But that’s just a guess,
Personally, I like the work Radley does on civil rights issues. I just don’t like a lot of the crazy that goes on in the comments over at his blog- even mention the free-rider problem, public infrastructure, etc. and within moments you’ll be referred to as a “state fellator” or some variation thereof. (for some reason it’s always related to fellatio.)
@87
I have to go to work now, but before I do, I’ll tell you something that’s impacted my thinking about the whole thing. Several years ago I went to England for a bit as a study abroad student. One of the professors there gave a short discussion during one of the lectures about why England had decided to go with a national healthcare system.
He said that during World War II, the Britain had been losing rather badly to Germany (as you probably know). One of the things that they found out during this time was that a chunk of their population was too sick or too damaged by long term illness to serve in the military. Some of this could be fixed given enough time and resources, while some of it couldn’t be fixed at all. But it didn’t matter in the end, because they didn’t have time or resources to spare. Their past negligence of public health had led to a situation where they simply were not physically capable of standing up to the opposing army. This HORRIFIED the British. They were suddenly in the position where they were going to LOOSE THEIR COUNTRY because their population wasn’t healthy enough to do what was needed to keep it safe and functioning.
He said that after the war was over (with Britain being saved by an outside force, aka the USA), the people of Britain said, “We will never let this happen again,” and institutionalized a nationalized health care system.
In the end, it was “greed” and self-interest, but not in the “I want to make other people support my healthcare” way. It was self interest in the “My wellbeing depends on the wellbeing of my countrymen” way.
It’s something to think about.
Anyway, off to work!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK9vw7cy350
Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie, editors of what is probably the most popular libertarian magazine Reason, both say that they expect a social safety net and environmental regulations from the government.
Bullshit. We have enough resources to accommodate all of the needy, we just choose not to spend our money that way.
I do, however, think it’s extremely cute that you think a bunch of scatter-shot organizations who are have zero accountability to anyone and varying goals will be more efficient than government assistance.
There are many different ways for people to be needy. The set of needy people and the reasons for their neediness change over time. Some of them, probably a pretty small minority (I certainly don’t know what proportion), are needy because they have made bad decisions, and some of them will continue to be needy even if given assistance because they will continue to make bad decisions. All of which is to say (a) that it is at least extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, to keep track of every single needy person, (b) that not every needy person is deserving of help, and (c) the appropriate help for the deserving needy that we can keep track of will be as variable as the needs themselves.
It seems to me that a charity with a narrow focus is more likely to be able to both track those with a particular need and actually help them. To pick one fairly obvious example, Doctors Without Borders is a very specialized charity that is, to the best of my understanding, very efficient at accommodating a very specific kind of need, a need which, almost by definition, is not being met by any government programs.
And I would argue that private charities are far more accountable to donors than the government is to individual citizens. If I donate to Doctors Without Borders and they do things that I don’t like, they won’t get any more of my money. If the government does something that I don’t like (e.g., wages an incredibly destructive and un-winnable war on drugs), I still have to pay taxes, and I get very little say in whether or not the policies in question persist.
How do you think social safety nets were handled a century ago? I’ll give you a hint: it was private charity that couldn’t (or wouldn’t) help enough people out. It wasn’t until the government intervened that we saw less extreme cases of poverty.
The origin of government-based safety nets is largely irrelevant to whether or not they are better than private charity today. The point I was trying to make in my first post was not that government has never had a relevant safety net role to play, nor even that it doesn’t have a relevant role to play currently. I was just pointing out that the libertarian arguments against governmental safety nets are based on coercion, inefficiency, and lack of accountability. There’s a consistent position to take that allows for the historical necessity of a governmental safety net while denying that the current form of such things should be reformed or abolished.
That [individual freedom] is also the core of Democratic Government. It’s just that democratic government realizes that, in the real world, if you want to preserve and promote anything at all, you need at least a small amount of coercive power.
Nonsense. Democratic government can, and has in plenty of cases, gone horribly awry with respect to individual freedoms. The majority of people can be very, very wrong about any number of things, and, through entirely democratic processes, the majority can enforce its misguided will on the disagreeing minority
Libertarians realize that if you want to preserve and promote individual freedom, you need a government with a small amount of coercive power. We just argue that this amount should, in fact, be small.
@noahpoah,
And non-libertarians, realize that if you give government coercive power, you have to fight hard to limit that power from growing. When you give people the power to use force (read guns, batons, etc), don’t expect them to always use it wisely.
The problem with libertarians is that they tend to ignore or downplay the fact that businesses and corporations can be just as tyrannical as any government. Many people today spend 40+ hours a week having to follow the orders of their work place. And before you say they can just leave, it’s pretty much like that in every other job and the alternative would be to starve.
The problem with getting rid of government is what will fill in the power vacuum. If history is any guide it could be warlords, the church, gangsters, businesses, etc. Unlike all those others, a democratic government at least lets the people have their voices heard in the decision-making and is directly accountable to them. Of course, it is far, far from perfect in practice. However, it seems to be better than the alternatives.
(a) If that was the case, what difference would it make whether the organization providing help is governmental or not?
(b) How would you decide who is deserving and who is not? Government should (not that it always does) offer help without discrimination or deciding who is “deserving”, I would love to hear how do you think it should be determined who is deserving help.
(c) Ok, of course it would. That’s what different branches of social services would be for. There’s health insurance, there are food stamps.. Those things could of course be organized better, but I don’t see how excluding the government would improve that.
PZ: I think your formulation of the question is odd. It’s not my understanding that those, like Dale and myself, who want Humanist groups to become more like real communities, actually want them to provide a social safety net the likes of which the state might provide. There are lots of human needs which states are terrible at providing or that we wouldn’t want them to provide (like existential services such as funral services or pastoral care). Therefore I see no necessary link between state provided services and those people seek in a moral community.
But, but.. they wouldn’t! :scandalized:
You can vote and fund candidates you agree with. Sure a single individual isn’t going to have much say (unless they’re extremely wealthy), but an entire population does make an effect. Democratic governments are accountable to the voters.
Yes it is. It’s real world data about how effective private charities are versus government programs.
First, an interesting parallel: A religious colleague once exclaimed, upon learning that I’m an atheist, “But you’re so nice!” Not long after, a fellow atheist said the same after learning that I am a Libertarian.
Some things just make me grin.
As for the question itself, my answer does not rely on my Libertarian views. Rather, as a contributing member of an activist group, Atheists of Florida, I see the value of having institutions that are clearly focused on their core, defining issues.
For Atheists of Florida (with its mission to unite a community of activists to support the complete and absolute separation of church and state), the emphasis is squarely on keeping government and religion from being or becoming entangled. And that is a great purpose. There are also secondary benefits to belonging to this group which include social support and networking. However, I feel it is vital that the central goal not be diluted by taking on too many other subsidiary purposes at the same highly-dedicated level of directed activism.
This does not mean my answer to the question is no. Just because one atheist organization does not focus on “providing a social safety net” places no constraints on other, perhaps complementary atheist organizations doing so.
What I endorse is the specialization of organized atheist institutions.
Not because I’m a Libertarian. That has nothing to do with it. Because it makes sense to give people options, to choose to volunteer their time and resources where they feel it will do the most good, or be the most meaningful to them. Yes, Libertarians volunteer. That’s the essence of this political perspective, as I see it: the idea that we are free to choose how we make a difference.
Organized atheism certainly needs big-tent groups, like Atheists of Florida (on a state level), that bring us all together on core issues that transcend petty political bickering. But we can also use more specialized atheist organizations as needs are identified–and of course we may also work hand-in-hand with existing secular groups like the Red Cross, or with new ones like the Foundation Beyond Belief, to offer other elements of well-rounded social and civic engagement.
And non-libertarians, realize that if you give government coercive power, you have to fight hard to limit that power from growing.
As do libertarians.
(a) If that was the case, what difference would it make whether the organization providing help is governmental or not?
The government collects taxes and spends them on any number of things any one of us may or may not support, and we have very little say in it. If private charities can track specific groups of needy people more efficiently without using coercion to fund the process, then private charities are preferable to government programs, in my opinion.
(b) How would you decide who is deserving and who is not? Government should (not that it always does) offer help without discrimination or deciding who is “deserving”, I would love to hear how do you think it should be determined who is deserving help.
I don’t know how to determine, in any absolute or general sense, who is deserving or not. My point was to argue against the idea that safety nets are, or should be, about helping every needy person.
I’ve known people who were needy by any reasonable definition of the word but who I would argue didn’t deserve help, at least after the Nth time they screwed over their family members and friends in the service of self-destructive behavior. Any charity will provide assistance to some folks who are undeserving, and will fail to assist some folks who are deserving. I believe that, on the whole, private, non-centralized charities can, today, do this more efficiently than the government can, and without forcing anyone to do anything they don’t want to do.
With regard to who is deserving relatively speaking, I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I only have so much money that I can give to charity, so I have to choose who is more or less deserving. This doesn’t mean that I think that the people served by charities I don’t donate to are undeserving, of course.
(c) Ok, of course it would. That’s what different branches of social services would be for. There’s health insurance, there are food stamps.. Those things could of course be organized better, but I don’t see how excluding the government would improve that.
My guess is that they could be organized better by private charities, for the reasons mentioned above.
I haven’t seen the liberalization of the atheist community as being an embracing of a non-government support system. Rather, the demands raised on, for instance, the SGU boards is that the state take over the support system provided by churches, etc. So the liberalization of atheism leads to a statist atheism. Naturally, as a libertarian, that worries me.
I suspect also that we are all vulnerable to Confirmation Bias – when something sticks out and annoys us, we notice it and complain about it. So a survey would really be necessary to see if a liberalization of atheism is going on, and what effects that has.
Something like that.
But if you don’t think that every needy person should be helped, only those deserving help, than you obviously think someone should determine who is deserving and who is not. I think I asked a fair question.
Example: You have a part of a country where there a lot of racist people. Most of those white, wealthy people think that black people in need don’t deserve help simply because of the color of their skin. Following your example, they wouldn’t donate money to charities that provide food for poor black people. Do you think that would end well for those people?
I’m doing a lousy job not participating in this thread… Okay, one more for now, then I have to go to the grocery store…
You can vote and fund candidates you agree with. Sure a single individual isn’t going to have much say (unless they’re extremely wealthy), but an entire population does make an effect. Democratic governments are accountable to the voters.
All that democratic accountability must be why we have the drug war, two foreign occupations, and invasive, ineffective security theater.
I didn’t say that democratic governments aren’t accountable at all, I said that private charities are more accountable to donors than the government is to citizens.
[me:]The origin of government-based safety nets is largely irrelevant to whether or not they are better than private charity today.
Yes it is. It’s real world data about how effective private charities are versus government programs.
It’s real world data about how effective private charities were vs. government programs. Circumstances have changed. You may be able to argue, perhaps persuasively, that they haven’t changed in any relevant sense, but that’s a case that needs to be made, not a fact that can be assumed. The degree and kinds of neediness today don’t seem to me to be all that much like the degree and kinds of neediness people suffered from a century ago.
I just can’t understand libertarians. I’ve tried, I really have, but it’s like they’ve never met real people or experienced real life. Amphiox at 73 put it better than I could.
Just a note: I have not read any of the preceding comments, and I won’t respond to any of the following. I just want to answer PZ’s question as a libertarian.
It depends what you mean by social safety net. The churchlike of helping deserving individuals in need, whose circumstances are beyond their fault, is fine by me and in my opinion it’s only a good thing when secular (and particularly atheist) social organizations step into that role. This includes people whose livelihoods or chances at earning a livelihood are ruined by natural disasters, medical issues or physical disability.
On the other hand, I believe that outside of the above circumstances, social welfare and foreign aid, regardless of the origin (private or government) generally do more harm than good.
In general, I would prefer that atheist organizations not participate in political causes that are unrelated to atheism (public display of the Ten Commandments, school prayer, etc).
But if you don’t think that every needy person should be helped, only those deserving help, than you obviously think someone should determine who is deserving and who is not. I think I asked a fair question.
Why does there have to be any one person (or one group of people) making this decision? I would argue that it should be a series of decisions made by individuals as they choose to donate when and where they see fit.
Example: You have a part of a country where there a lot of racist people. Most of those white, wealthy people think that black people in need don’t deserve help simply because of the color of their skin. Following your example, they wouldn’t donate money to charities that provide food for poor black people. Do you think that would end well for those people?
And you, and I, would be free to donate to charities that do. I assume we both agree that the racist non-donors should not be allowed to prevent charities from helping the people they find undeserving.
I should add “physical or mental disability” to the above comment.
I am a registered libertarian but I lean far to the left. I want personal freedom for myself but I also support a social safety net.
But if you don’t think that every needy person should be helped, only those deserving help, than you obviously think someone should determine who is deserving and who is not. I think I asked a fair question.
The more I think about, the less I think that it was a fair question. I challenge the notion that any person, or group of people, can or should make the decision for anyone else about who is deserving and who is not.
Private charities make the decision about who is (more) deserving every day, and any one of us can choose to donate or not. Safety-net program bureaucrats with little to no accountability make the same kinds of decisions, and individuals have little to no say in whether they agree.
@92(Lyra) – That may be what they teach in schools there these days, but I’m not sure that’s entirely historically accurate. Here’s the version I’ve always heard.
(1) The British Welfare State was a long time in coming, and in fact dates back to social reforms under David Lloyd George (a Liberal PM – the Liberal Party now defunct, the current Liberal Democratic Party being a successor, but not really the same party) in 1919. This is when unemployment insurance was made comprehensive, public housing was started in earnest, public sector salaries were harmonized, etc.
(2) At some point, Labour eclipsed the Liberals, and of course took over as the primar agitator for social reform. National healthcare was on their platform long before there was Hitler. And in fact this wasn’t really even controversial as early as 1938. The British Medical Association was advocating for it in 1938, and it was pretty much only the international situation (Hitler’s increasing beligerence) that kept it from being a major issue
(3) Soon after the war started, the Conservatives and Labour entered into a national unity coalition, and Labour pressed for social reforms. This was extremely unlikely to have been motivated by a sudden realization on the part of the Labour Party that Britain was falling behind Germany in social care. It was what they had always advocated, and they were finally in a position to really press for it. A famous study was undertaken – and recommendations based on this study were published in a document called the Beveridge Report. The Beveridge Report recommended a National Health Service, and when Labour won the first postwar election in a landslide, it was promptly implemented more or less in full.
Moral being: some people may have used the War as a further argument to promote an agenda they already had, but the National Health Service was coming with or without the war. If anything, in fact, Hitler provided a distraction that delayed its implementation.
Absolutely nothing wrong with people voluntarily coming together in groups to help out those less fortunate. Especially under an atheistic/humanist banner. That’s what liberals don’t get; libertarians aren’t necessarily opposed to helping the poor on their own or in groups, so long as THE HELP PROVIDED IS VOLUNTARILY GIVEN, INSTEAD OF EXTRACTED FROM THE INDIVIDUALS BY FORCE.
So there you go.
-A free market anarchist who’s often told he’s a libertarian
noahpoah:
This is exactly why I didn’t want to waste my day here.
How is a needy person not deserving of help? What could they possibly do that would warrant letting them starve instead of giving them SNAP benefits (for example)? Quite frankly, your attitude is disgusting and extremely dangerous.
Have some fucking compassion.
Well, it would certainly be more efficient, for one.
@Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel,
I don’t get your objection. I would like to help as many people as I can, but unfortunately, I don’t have the resources to undertake such a venture. Therefore, I have to evaluate people on the basis of how much help I can give to the people who are most deserving.
And I am arguing that, for so little faith that you have in the government, you have too much fate in the benevolence of individuals. (Individuals make the government, after all. Corrupted people in the government will hardly turn into benevolent donors in private.)
I am assuming that you and I don’t have unlimited resources and there might not be enough people like you and I. I am also assuming that you and I don’t know about issues of every community in every part of the world. In communities where a group of people is generally thought of as undeserving, without unbiased governmental support (I wish, but that is an argument for improvement of government social net , not abolishment of it), there might be no one to help them.
@Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel,
I’ll add that this is a a decision government also often has to make: With limited resources, what is the best way we can use these resources to bring about the best results.
Er, sorry, I didn’t quite get what you were referring to?
Because, Caleb, government assistance programs help everyone who falls under a particular income threshold. Unless noahpoah’s argument is “we should make sure that rich people aren’t getting food stamps”*, xe’s perfectly willing to cut people off if they don’t meet some ambiguous standard set by some unaccountable organization.
Sorry, but it’s immoral to let someone suffer because you don’t agree with how they live their life.
*Pro-tip: it’s not. noahpoah was talking about people making “bad decisions”.
I can haz ‘I got mine; fuck you’?
Beatrice:
I was responding specifically to:
It seems to me that having one group* assessing need based on income and what services are required would be a hell of a lot more efficient than having a hodge-podge group of private charities trying to fill in all of the gaps.
*You know, the government.
Citation needed that private charities can do a better job than the government for seeing to the needs of ALL poor people. And your inane morally bankrupt opinion isn’t worth electrons used to post it. Libertarians and facts seem to be strangers to each other, and that has been proven here time and time again.
Dr. Audley,
Sorry, I should have realized that. With noahpoah making everything about deserving help, I got stuck on that part.
That’s nice.
That’s what liberals don’t get; libertarians aren’t necessarily opposed to helping the poor on their own or in groups, so long as THE HELP PROVIDED IS VOLUNTARILY GIVEN, INSTEAD OF EXTRACTED FROM THE INDIVIDUALS BY FORCE.
Can’t speak for other lefty-types, but I get this perfectly well. I just think it’s bullshit. As has been noted above, government requires a small amount of coercive force. Rational people can quibble about how much force the government should be entitled to use, and for what purposes, and what checks should be put in place. Irrational people stamp their feet and scream about “extraction by force from the individual.”
Whoops! Screwed up my tags.
That’s nice.
Can’t speak for other lefty-types, but I get this perfectly well. I just think it’s bullshit. As has been noted above, government requires a small amount of coercive force. Rational people can quibble about how much force the government should be entitled to use, and for what purposes, and what checks should be put in place. Irrational people stamp their feet and scream about “extraction by force from the individual.”
It’s really frustrating when libertarians show their economic and historical ignorance.
As has been noted above, the reason why governments got into the welfare business was that private charities couldn’t handle the load. There were all sorts of private charities giving aid to the Irish during the Great Famine (1845-1852) and the government went out of its way not to do anything. As a result, a conservative estimate has one million fatalities (including disease, mainly cholera) and over one million Irish emigrated to Great Britain, U.S., Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. See how successful private charities are?
During the Great Depression, starvation was a concern in Western countries. It wasn’t private charities which prevented starvation but government welfare. However, as Lyra noted in #92, physical defects caused Britain (and other countries as well) to reject thousands of men for military service. Many of these defects were caused by malnutrition during the Depression.
Stop shouting. We get it. What we don’t get is the irrational, psychopathic reaction your type has to what it calls “force.” Taxation—that which enables a society to be a society, however imperfect—is, for you, akin to real, honest-to-god rape. Something’s deeply wrong with your psyche.
There’s a lot of noise out there about how private enterprise is so much more efficient than government. I don’t buy it. If you’re one of those people who’s promoting this idea as being true, please provide some research to back it up. Frankly, I think it’s just a result of the fact that government is forced to open up its records and be transparent; if corporations were obliged to be as transparent as governments were, we’d see that they are just as capable of waste, fraud, and corruption as government is. Governments, corporations, and religious organizations are all just people, after all. The only difference between them is which incentives, checks, and balances are driving the system.
Beatrice:
It’s all good. I’m stuck on the whole “deserving of help” statement too. It’s just so fucking cruel.
@65 mattpenfold
Way to quote mine. The next sentence I wrote is exactly the point you think you are making about scale. …except for the part where private charity is in fact far more efficient on the whole, your version of history notwithstanding. Churches are one of the biggest exceptions here lest anyone think I have changed my tune.
If we all suddenly decided that every person had a right to, say, hair implants, I am sure the government would be far more capable of administering that program than any single charity which could not offer the national or global coverage needed. It will be wasteful, inefficient and slow but they could do it. I want the government to be the referee and not a player for this very reason.
Since I am supposed to be enjoying a weekend with the family I am keeping up with this thread less well than Noahpoah, who is doing a fine job on my behalf even as he is between errands. ;)
I wonder what the point of threads like this are. You start with a false dichotomy (Libertarians should either endorse or fail to endorse wholesale the liberalization of organized atheism, as though the option of choosing which aspects of the liberalization of atheism to endorse were somehow off the table?), and then the commentariat spends most of its time arguing a straw man version of Libertarianism (it’s all selfishness, caring for the poor is incompatible with Libertarian concerns). How is this of benefit to anyone? Wouldn’t it be more productive to start by NOT simplifying this complex issue and then arguing about real-life Libertarianism, rather than your fantasy version?
A couple of commenters here (noahpoah, to name one) have asked some serious questions and been repaid in character assaults. For a blog run by a scientist, this feels an awful lot like a witch hunt.
You ever think what makes it inefficient and slow is folks like you who are afraid of being taken advantage of in some fashion? Mostly because you don’t like the people receiving help it appears. And still no citations showing that private charities can handle the load better than the government, and that the charities won’t discriminate in some fashion.
He was also asked some serious questions in return, but didn’t provide reality supported answers. I didn’t know that disagreeing with someone is now character assault.
Your hyperbolic concern is noted.
@134(Beatrice)
Disagreeing with someone is not character assault. But the many assertions that noahpoah is heartless and immoral are. Go back up and scroll through the comments. It will not be difficult to find examples of what I am talking about, nor will it be difficult to distinguish the reasoned responses to noahpoah from the ones that I am complaining about.
I.E. You’re an asshole.
Go ahead and start doing that then. I’m not a “real-life Libertarian,” so it’s not like I could fucking do it. The libertarians I know in real life are all so far removed from reality that it is sometimes hard to get a handle on what they actually think. That isn’t actually my problem, but theirs. Put up or shut up.
Burn the witch! Kill it with fire! Oh, wait we aren’t doing that. Never mind.
Implicitly meaning that there are people who he would allow suffer because they deserve it.
I.E. he’s a heartless and immoral ass hat.
Asserting that not all needy people deserve help is pretty fucking immoral.
As I said, I’d really like to see some evidence for this assertion. Especially since the evidence from history contradicts it.
To help self-identified libertarians realize that they are subscribing to an intellectually bankrupt ideology. Libertarians who countenance government aid to the starving and the sick don’t actually have any significant differences with liberals. Libertarians who don’t are selfish and short-sighted and needn’t be listened to anyway.
No, I don’t think this qualifies as a false dichotomy, since the idea that libertarians must endorse a WHOLESALE liberalization of the atheist movement came from your mind, not PZ’s. Of course you can choose which aspects of liberalization to endorse or not. Where did anyone say otherwise?
Every single version of libertarianism I’ve encountered has been called a strawman version of libertarianism by another libertarian. That’s the funny thing about libertarianism. It’s always morphing. But yeah, it is all selfishness. What else can you call an ideology that makes a fetish out of personal property?
Well, I’m amused. And I’ve already learned something: I did not know that Britain had a problem with the health of its populace prior to WWII, and I was unaware of the connection between that problem and the formation of the NHS. Someone has said that this connection is spurious; now I need to find out more. I’m sure many more interesting history lessons will be forthcoming before the thread dies.
Well, it’s clear that you think so, champ. So why don’t you make the case for your position then?
Ing:
It sounds very Christian, doesn’t it?
Seriously, what is up with Libertarians expecting they can cheer “LET THEM DIE!” and then claim “character assassination” and act surprised and upset when people call them heartless assholes.
No, he’s preached his morally bankrupt theology. He keeps failing to answer the serious questions put back to him with real data, just answers with jingoism, which, at the end of the day, is all libertarianism is. Jingos.
peterkraatz #313
Citation requested.
And frankly scary. What does “deserve it” mean? Drug addicts, who we could help with treatment but apparently will choose to let them act as a festering wound on the state because they made the decision themselves? People who were fired or laid off, who we should let starve because they screwed up their own career? Large families, because it’s their own fault they’ve had so many kids that they’ve basically fucked themselves into poverty? Felons, who can’t get jobs and are thus pretty much told to either go back to crime or fuck themselves in the ear?
Joshua Herring,
Hir suggestions are immoral and imply that (s)he might be deficient in empathy department, if not completely heartless. It’s not character assault if accusation fits the character.
The people who yelled “YEAH!” in this video–are they TRUE libertarians?
As a libertarian, I assure you that I can see no reason why a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be for the people. I mean, where in “of the people, by the people, and for the people” does it say “for the people”? Nowhere!
(Just kidding. Actually, I can’t stand libertarians.)
By the way, are you using the word “liberalization” to mean “becoming more libertarian”? Even if that’s correct, and I don’t think it is, I would avoid using that word because most people would interpret it as meaning “becoming more liberal.”
In answer to your closing question, I don’t even like organized atheism, whether “liberalized” or not. I’m very sympathetic to movements defending the separation of church and state as required by the Bill of Rights, but the existence of atheist organizations tends to reinforce the annoying argument that atheism is just another religion, and that, just like members of an organized religion, atheists can speak of “what we believe” as if they were reading their beliefs out of a holy book. I prefer to speak of what I believe, and stress that I’m an atheist only due to the definition of the word.
Premise: Private charity is funded by the private spender
Addendum: Duh
Hypothetical: The job market goes down and people start making less money
Result: The amount of disposable dollars decreases and people spend less
Conclusion: In times when charity will have the greatest demand put on it it will have the lowest supply of funds.
Addendum: Duh.
The private sector will not prevent a death spiral like this.
A freemarket ‘charity only’ approach to social welfare has been tried all over the world at varying times, and has pretty much invariably resulted in utter, abject failure and widespread suffering. Just look at the UK prior to the creation of the welfare state, Victorian era London and its workhouses being a particularly good example. I seem to remember that some chap called Dickens wrote a few books about it…
Charitable provision is patchy, uncoordinated and wholly unaccountable – I fail to see how such a model can be held up as some paragon of efficiency.
In more general terms I just don’t understand why libertarians seem to have such unshakeable faith in what Adam Smith famously described as the ‘invisible hand’ of the free market. Recent economic events (such as the sub-prime crisis) are surely abject lessons that private enterprise is capable of every bit as much incompetence and corruption as government.
If libertarians are so afraid of unaccountable governmental power, why are they so in favour of sweeping de-regulation? How will shifting power to large, trans-national corporations improve the situation? This would amount to concentrating power in vast economic entities that often sport their own storied internal beaurocracies and cannot claim the democratic accountability of an elected government. All you would be doing is moving the levers of power even further away from the average citizen by weakening the one source of national authority they do have some direct influence over – the elected government – in favour of enhancing the powers of corporations who (in absence of regulation) are answerable primarily to their shareholders.
Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel @ 34;
Pretty much. If government does not provide a social saftey net for all, and charity is the alternative, then it is likely that all too soon certain groups will be indentified as ‘undeserving’ of help. Noahpoah says as much @ 94;
(emphasis added)
Once you start blaming some of the less fortunate for their circumstances such that no help is forthcoming, you entrench that disadvantage for them and likley also for their children. Social mobility becomes a privilege afforded to those that the better off feel ‘deserve’ it. This could easily become a mode of social exclusion where it is not really the individual’s notional ‘bad’ decisions that result in their access to opportunity being curtailed, but rather a wall of prejudice and assumption raised against them because of their community of origin/nationality/ethnicity/politics/whatever else the powers-that-be have decided to devalue this week – a perfect source of cover for bigots.
Good point. With no social welfare net to speak of, or one applied capriciously at the whim of the rich, the working poor wouldn’t dare take a stand against exploitation in the workplace. There would always be plenty of others looking to take their job, after all, and the penalties for unemployment would likely be severe indeed (not least of which would be being labelled as ‘undeserving’ of help). With a government weakened to the point of irrelevance, labour relations and employment laws would be utterly toothless as well. Employers would have a free hand and the term ‘wage slavery’ would adopt a new and disturbingly literal ring.
SPOILERS
This is pretty much the hypothesized outcome of Libertopia presented in Bio-Shock. A con man was able to use “charity” to whip the downtrodden and desperate of the Galtian society into an army so he could claim control.
Many, if not most, libertarians appear to have the mindset of six year olds: “When I’m all grown up nobody’s going to tell me what to do.” When they grow up they discover there’s someone who tells them to
eat their spinachpay their taxes and do other things they don’t want to do. Too many libertarians ignore the real coercive factor in their lives:Other than the various historical criticisms of libertarianism already mentioned (I just taught a unit on the Industrial Revolution and how reactions to industrialization created perceived helplessness and a greater need for institutional intervention in the family), I have the following criticisms:
Much of what I’ve read of libertarians seems to ignore criticisms of capitalism which point out that capitalism requires a class of persons who are living at subsistence or less, and that their labor and existence is essential to the market as it currently stands. The existence and plight of these persons are ignored by the idea of perfect competition (everyone can compete equally, which is obviously bullshit.) The assumption that reducing regulation would somehow fix equity problems because it causes them is really….. in ignorance of how capitalism works.
I sort of understand why libertarians think this; part of the narrative of capitalism is that it is a meritocracy and that those people just aren’t good enough to survive and thrive. A lot of libertarian arguments I read seem to take the tactic that competition is essentially and irreducibly Social Darwinism (and that there is something of a moral imperative to eliminate the competition.) I find that horrifying, but then I know about the eugenics movement in the early 20th century, and its ties to free market capitalism.
The argument about charity appears to be a subset of this, an exemption made in the arguments about competition; the idea that there can be a level playing field, and that people will participate in enough numbers, voluntarily, that whatever negligible (in this case, 30%+ of the population of the US) part of the population which needs help will be able to be compensated for by individuals.
Which is the same species of argument which states that businesses will, of course, regulate themselves in a way which tends toward the safety of workers and the environment. Typically, at this point in the argument, I start swearing, because what argument can you make with someone who won’t read history, won’t read criticisms of their system, and believe their advantages in the system are merit based, and that they have a moral imperative to eliminate the competition?
Ing:
Lately, there’s been quite a few local news stories about how food banks are suffering in exactly the same way you’ve described: more people who need food, coupled with fewer donations of food and money. It’s not pretty.
(The whole situation has been exacerbated by tropical storms Irene and Lee. We’ve had towns wiped out and the food banks in the area are pretty much running on empty as it is.)
So, to get back to Beatrice’s question, we now have several examples in the comments posted after mine.
#144 calls noahpoah’s comments “morally bankrupt theology,” without argument, presumably having chosen the word “theology” to imply that noahpoah hasn’t actually thought through his position but merely takes it on faith.
#143 calls Libertarians “heartless assholes” as a group.
#142 implicitly assumes that noahpoah is a Christian, though I have seen no evidence from his comments to suggest that he is. Sounds like lazy stereotyping to me.
#141 addresses me with the condescending “champ” in asking me to make a case for “my position.” “My position” was that the issue being debated here is a false one, as the options of (a) endorsing the liberalization of organized atheism and (b) declining to endorse same are two extreme ends of a much broader spectrum. The position is made by pointing out that there are other options on the table, which the commenter in question evidently understands since she acts baffled that I took PZ’s post to imply that there were only two! So, I am asked to make a case for a position that she describes as self-evident, and am condescended to in the process.
It should be clear from these examples that the tone around here is not what it could be. There are other examples in the comments above.
It’s not even intended to prevent death spirals. Whenever I hear right-wing pundits saying that “market forces” will improve some sector of the economy, they may well be right in their predictions (often not). But it isn’t like they did anything to accomplish that or to specifically help a sector that was in bad shape for some reason. It’s just the invisible hand jerking off some invisible hedge fund manager, and if no one does anything to manage the situation, that is the predicted outcome. That isn’t to say some sector doesn’t need or deserve more resources than what they were likely to get anyway, or that it wouldn’t be a better use of resources to actually have a fucking plan and the ability to implement it.
Definitely. Not a single porcupine was mentioned.
I usually mock their religion (what else is this “invisible hand”)?
They seem to hate having the faith basis of this called into question and anyone pointing out that you can empirically study and learn in economics. The man on the street view of it seems to be that economics is a field where anyone’s opinion is just as valid and anyone can/should argue for their view irregardless of what has worked in the past.
Btw. I didn’t ask a question, so don’t hang your tone trolling on me.
Joshua Herring:
Hang on a sec, I’m seeing if I can find the tiniest violin to play for you and your poor widdle hurt feewings.
For shit’s sake, read what I wrote. It was a comparision, jackass. Nowhere in my short statement did I call noahpoah a Christian.
But you know, whatevs. We can’t all read for comprehension, apparently.
noahpoah,
The United States isn’t the only democratic representative government in the world and is one of the least perfect. The majority of democratic countries aren’t invading countries left and right. The US is a very special case. But even here the people are holding the government back to some extent. As much as Bush and the other neocons wanted to invade Iran, they knew the American people wouldn’t go along with it.
You said it, but you didn’t really show it.
In any case, at least democratic governments are semi-egalitarian. One person, one vote. A person’s influence in a charity would be on how money they have to give. Of course the rich influence policy disproportionately in governments too, but at least there’s some mechanism for the people to have a say.
Actually, you can do better than just look a century ago. You can see how countries with strong social safety nets (e.g, European countries) compare with countries with weaker programs (e.g, United States). When you do, you see government programs create a better standard of living for the population.
Snookums. Honey. Shhhh, sweety. Just cry it all out. Daddy knows those people were real mean to candidly describe what those poor Libertarians actually believe. There, there. Daddy’s gonna get you some real nice tone for Christmas.
Ing @ 159: Yeah, and speaking of things which make me twitch: postmodern theory in language points out that words have contextual and differentiated meaning.
*growls* This does not mean that no meaning is available, and therefore there’s no criteria for evaluating meaning and content. Or, you know, what’s the point of science and falsification?
I agree, it is a species of faith in the capitalist narrative about merit and success which has to be made in ignorance.
Aw, poor champ. Can’t make his own case, and wants us to feel sorry for him because of it.
Exactly. Your position as you originally stated it:
So the question is: what’s the real-life version of libertarianism? You seem to have a pretty strong idea that this thing exists, and is substantially different from the version of libertarianism that PZ referred to, or the version that’s being criticized here in the comments.
It’s telling that you’ve chosen to whine about the unfairness of being asked to answer the questions you yourself posed, rather than simply answering them.
I like how Joshua Red Herring just cherry picks the insults and ignores the explanations of WHY people think that.
Cause it’s not like people have explained it.
Seriously, Nazis are assholes because their beliefs are assholish. (Godwin). I fail to see how anyone is shocked when “Let the scum die” is met with anything but disdain.
Especially when they might actually be talking to some of those ‘scum’ when they say that.
Huge surprise, some of us here are queer, minority, disabled, crippled, or dependent on some welfare or social security to live. We might be fucking offended when someone starts using flowery pretty talk to basically say “Why don’t you go die?”
I have repeatedly asked every libertarian, and now I include you, to show me a first world country that has used libertarian principles for thirty years, so we can actually see the results.
In this country, that would be post civil war to about 1900. Periods of boom and bust, starvation, lack of aid for the poor, sweatshop working conditions, if you get hurt, you get fired, etc. To say nothing of concentrations of power, monopolies, and trusts. That is the historical record.
So yes, noahpoah is preaching theology accepted on faith.
. <– There! I found the smallest violin just for you, Joshua!
I get your point. You don't like the tone here. Wonderful. Feel free to fuck off at any time now.
@ Josh, #163:
SOL! (Snort Out Loud)
Singapore!
Oh wait…it’s basically Disney Land with the death penalty and uses amazing amounts of social violence to promote the illusion of health
Hong Kong?
Oh wait…everyone leases their land from the government and they have strong institutionalized health care.
You’re just the bestest daddy ever!
To answer the original question: yes, absolutely we libertarians believe we should be donating to charity, and as long as we’re doing it we might as well be humanizing atheists by doing it under the color of atheism.
(If that sounds like a “selfish” take on it, it’s only because I’m baldly stating the implicit motivation behind what you’re suggesting.)
I’d make this post longer, but there isn’t actually anything more to say. It’s a great idea. Let’s do it.
Ing,
Don’t say Somalia. They HATE it when you talk about Somalia.
Nothin’s too good for my li’l pickled herring. It’s gonna be the best tone in the whole world, just you wait ‘n see.
Joshua Herring @ 156;
I would say that ‘your concern has been noted’, but I think that it has gone beyond that now.
Just remember, when people are calling you ‘cupcake’ and suggesting interesting uses for sadly deceased porcupines, you really did ask for it by wheeling out the mouldy old ‘tone’ complaint.
*gets popcorn, settles down in comfy chair*
So frankly it’s a “I don’t care if the suggested tax based method is best, I am against it…but I will donate and try to get the same result because *I* want to!”
Should have just closed the thread at 73 (the poster of which, I note, is conspicuously absent from the Order roll).
@Josh
For x-mas father Josh gives all his kids cat turds…but wrapped in the most beautiful tinsel imaginable!
Really the question of the libertarianism is that, given what we know about charity; why should we be less efficient and put some people’s human rights at risk in order to preserve the few assholes who don’t want to help’s property rights?
My fear with libertarianism is that they strive for freedom, but it’s only going to exacerbate inequality in wealth. There will be people who are dirt poor, and those who are filthy rich – and less opportunity for those who are dirt poor to succeed without government help. Charities cannot replace government in what they do, not by any stretch of imagination.
If a libertarian government cannot free people from being on the bottom of society (especially if they were born into it not by choices of their own) how are those people free? Therefore, I fear libertarianism will only mean freedom for people of means while the rest of us sit at the bottom.
Is that a ‘free’ society?
@165(Susan) Actually, I don’t have a very strong idea about what “real-life Libertarianism” is, so perhaps I worded my comment too strongly. I apologize. I have heard many different versions of Libertarianism from many different Libertarians. I don’t have the link now, but once about a year ago Distributed Republic had a taxonomy of no less than 10 strains of Libertarian thought, all of which seemed accurate about some subsection of the population of people who self-describe as Libertarian to me. What I have never in my life seen evidence for is the idea that all or even most or even a strong minority of Libertarians are primarily motivated by greed and are fundamentally uncaring. And yet, nearly everyone here seems to subscribe to precisely that caricature and bases their arguments on it. It is a straw man.
But now I think I will take Dr. Audrey’s kind advice and fuck off. But before I do I just wanted to say that I found your calling me a whiner and a jackass highly persuasive. I have now reconsidered all of my previously-held positions and am a new man for it. Thank you for your erudition and insightful analysis.
Hmm, I seem to have lost track of PZ’s question somewhere in the comments. Sorry about that.
Libertarians are perfectly happy with impulses to charity and helping the poor. These are positive traits and should be encouraged in all organizations, not just atheist groups.
Where we disagree with liberals is that they want to express those impulses through government-run welfare programs. We think that these sorts of programs are ridden with moral and practical problems, and so we would prefer other types of organizations—like atheist groups—to step up to the plate instead.
If you want a mental model of a libertarian, start with your beliefs about needing to care for the disadvantaged and less fortunate, but add a belief that governments cannot possibly get the job done properly. Then you may understand where we’re coming from on welfare programs, anti-discrimination laws, and a few other things that seem to horrify liberals.
Oh, I can answer this! I worked at my local Legal Aid for about 4 years. Based on comments I’ve received about my clients, I can present the hierarchy of deserving poor.
1. Children (at least until the age of about 12 or so. Maybe 9-10 if the child in question is a nonwhite boy.)
2. Individuals with disabilities (unless they are unable to work, in which case, who cares!)
3. Veterans (unless they have chemical dependency issues or are homeless.)
4. Seniors
5. People who got laid off (but get another job already! what are you, too proud to work at McDonald’s?)
6. people with more than two kids. Have you heard of birth control??
7. Single moms. Again with the birth control, and see also: keeping your legs closed. (If said mom is a woman of color, minus about 15 on the sympathy scale.)
8. Felons. If you want to vote/get a job/rent an apartment, don’t commit a felony!
9. Legal immigrants
10. Illegal immigrants
11. Individuals with chemical dependency. I mean, just stop drinking, amirite?
Hope that helps!
I’ll bite, Brent: care to address the discussion in some of the comments above about the tendencies of privately run organizations to treat charity like a reward system for people they find worthy (insert ism here)?
CITATION NEEDED
Yes because the government anti-discrimination failed to make things better for minorities.
Jesus fucking Christ, putting your fingers in your ears and insisting the programs don’t work and then going out of your way to make sure they don’t isn’t fucking reasonable.
You’re doing the same bullshit Christians do with with abstinence only. You’re shitting on people because of your faith.
Joshua Herring:
Sarcasm aside, it got you to fuck right off, didn’t it?
My work here is done.
Brent:
Enlighten me, please. How would a libertarian handle issues of discrimination? Keep in mind: You lose points if you mention any sort of “free market solutions”.
Emphasis mine.
I don’t give a shit about your beliefs. We should not fuck people over and shut down programs that are working because of your belief.
I have to assume that all of you calling me an immoral, dangerous, heartless, cruel asshole (Did I miss any?) spend all of your time helping every last person in need. All I did was point out that there exist people who do not deserve help, and that in the service of arguing that questions about implementing a social safety net should not focus on helping every single person in need.
Suppose, for example, that someone is addicted to some kind of hard drug, that this person loses his job and home as a result, that he steals from others to support his addiction, and that multiple stints in rehab have not stopped the addiction or the associated property crime. What should be done? I would guess that most, if not all, of us would say that this person should be put in prison.
Is this person needy? I have a hard time imagining how anyone could say ‘no’, despite the fact that his problems aren’t primarily monetary. Are his problems the result of bad decisions? Very much so. Is prison helpful? Not in any typical sense of the word ‘helpful’, at least not to the addict. Is it cruel to lock someone like this up? Maybe, but if so, it’s a cruelty that is necessary for society to function, I think, and so it is a cruelty that all of you share with me.
As unfortunate as it is, some deserving people will be missed, and some non-deserving people will be helped. The most efficient solution will minimize each of these. I don’t know what this solution is (and neither do you), but I am skeptical that it could be based entirely, or even in large part, on governmental programs.
. It is precisely my vision for the world that all kinds of groups voluntarily come together to help those who are less fortunate in their communities.
So stupid that it’s deluded.
Look, champ, we tried that. It was called the 19th century, and it fucking sucked for everyone except the very rich.
VOLUNTARY DOES NOT WORK!
How many times do we have to drill that into you gliberturdians’ heads?
VOLUNTARY DOES NOT WORK!
The only possible outcome other than institutionalized “Fuck you darky” is that certain groups are pushed out of society, forced to make their own self sufficient society that goes into competition with the original Libertarian Horde, and promotes tribalism and war.
Because we should totally do things less efficiently and promote strife just so the special princelings don’t have to be forced to give to a cause they claim they support anyway. Libertarianism is a social scale temper tantrum
I quoted you correctly. I note you have taken to outright lies now, instead of just ignoring history.
One major problem with libertarianism is that the vast majority of libertarians feel they’re at the top, they got to the top by their own efforts and merit, and that everyone else can get to the top as well. A corollary of this is that people on the bottom are there due to conscious decisions on their part and so don’t deserve to make it to the top.
Libertarians don’t want or like democracy.* What they really want is a plutocratic oligarchy. Sure, they give lip service to “helping others” and “liberty for all” but they don’t mean it. The basic libertarian manifesto is summed up as “I’ve got mine, fuck you!”
*Witness the large number of American libertarians who argue vehemently that the US isn’t a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic. If you yell at them long enough they’ll admit the country’s a constitutional republican representative democracy but they’re not really happy about the last two words in that description.
Or you could HELP HIM. You’re such an asshole you don’t even care to THINK if there is some way to help.
There’s a difference between trying and failing and failing to try.
You failure.
noahpoah: That assertion right there, “some people don’t deserve help” is one that keeps coming up. The commenters here respond with the idea that this sort of resignation is used to get rid of people based on spurious criteria like skin color, orientation and various other types of discrimination.
If you want to have a conversation, you could respond to the objections addressed to you. If your response is too bad, it’s probably not going to go over well, since it resigns people to collateral damage.
Also, it’s not necessary nor possible to help ALL of one’s time, because sleep, food and the need for spare time, so that is a spurious objection.
I’m sorry but when you’re in the hypothetical of “I could lift a finger to help someone, but they don’t deserve it” FUCK YOU.
$25,000/year, plus welfare for family. Total outlay, probably $50,000. Not thinking very much, are you.
Now for the 2 cent question. Who the fuck are you to make value judgement like that? You need show why you should even be listened to, and why you aren’t morally bankrupt, compared to helping everybody.
Exactly. That you don’t notice the vileness of your statement just supports the notion that you are in fact immoral and heartless.
@Joshua Herring
It’s Sally. Cut-and-paste: it works.
Well done.
I have heard many different versions of Libertarianism from many different Libertarians.
Personally, I take this as a sign that it is not a well-developed, consistent ideology. Much like AGW denialism, the sheer proliferation of half-baked theories is an indication that it is being driven by emotion and entitlement, rather than rational thought and careful consideration.
This does not address greed, but here is the peer-reviewed research showing that self-described libertarians are, in aggregate, less empathetic than the general population. So you see, it is not a straw man to describe libertarians as generally motivated by selfishness. Even if that were not true, the assessment of selfishness is based on the content of libertarian policies and the obvious, foreseeable results of putting such policies into practice. Some people say, “I’m not selfish!” but when they care more about their money than they do about the welfare of their fellow citizens, well, you have to make a decision: take them at their word, or look at their actions. I tend to weight actions heavier than words.
Great. See you around. Pro-tip: don’t whine, and then people won’t tell you to fuck off.
@Brent Royal-Gordon
Can you provide evidence that government welfare programs are inherently more prone to moral and practical problems than private charity programs? Historical evidence does not bear out this assertion. Also, what’s wrong with trying to fix the problems, rather than scrapping the system?
A belief that runs contrary to evidence.
As I said before: we understand perfectly. You’re coming from the Land of No Evidence, where all opinions are equal, regardless of presence or absence of supporting facts. We understand. We just think it’s evidence-free bullshit.
Also, because I say this when I deal with Libertarians, dystopian future sci-fi is fiction, not intended to be a road map to awesome. If it did happen, you could not be guaranteed to be the hero of the story, no matter how awesome you think you are, n’cest pas?
Pay attention to the body count in the background of those stories.
So kill them.
No seriously. You’ve said they don’t deserve help and they’re just going to be a drain and blight on society. Why not just kill them and solve the problem? You’ve already decided you’d be fine with letting them die, why not just take the more efficient step?
Nerd of Redhead,
No welfare in a libertarian paradise. That stupid bint shouldn’t have married a loser. She should have known better than making herself undeserving of help. Oh, and the brats are her responsibility. No help for them either.
/channeling libertarian reasoning
With a libertarian view isn’t it almost by definition anyone who needs help doesn’t deserve it because they didn’t prevent themselves from fucking up their life?
noahpoah #188
Sounds just like an evangelist condemning the heathens to Hell. And this asshole whines when people call him an uncaring, selfish asshole.
“If [the poor] would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” -Ebenezer Scrooge
Libertarians are perfectly happy with impulses to charity and helping the poor. These are positive traits and should be encouraged in all organizations, not just atheist groups.
If they were serious about it, then they’d support using the best means to alleviate that problem: Government social programs, rather than supporting what centuries established as being harmful: Voluntary charity.
Libertarianism (the American corruption, anyway) is exactly like religion. It doesn’t care about evidence. The ideology has to be right, so they repeat the same tired mantras and saying things that just ain’t so–and are repeatedly demonstrated to them not to be so.
That’s why they don’t belong in the skeptical movement, any more than their closest ideological cousins, the fundies, anti-vaxxers, astrologers and other occultists.
Fuck it I’m gonna Godwin
Attention Libertarians: The Mantra “Work Will Set You Free” is not uplifting.
Since it’s probably not clear, this:
is Joshua Herring’s words, not mine.
I seem to recall that in the C19th there was a lot of talk amongst those who funded schemes to alleviate poverty and ill-health of the “deserving” and “undeserving”. Or, to use an expression a libertarian who has less morals than a shaved chimp used, they thought not every needy person deserved help.
It was such blinkered, ignorant and amoral thinking that ensured that charity was unequal to the task.
Why is it that libertarians know so little of C19th and C20th social history ? Do they start off ignorant, and become libertarian as a result, or do they just pretend the history does not exist in order to salve their conscience ? Or are there really people so fucked in the head they can know the history, not ignore it, and still be libertarian ?
Ing @ 206: I just threw up in my mouth a little. I’d forgotten that little historical gem.
*storing for future use*
Ing:
Probably. With the possible exception of libertarian variant of “The only moral abortion is my abortion”.
Matt @ 208: They won’t typically learn about it until they hit college, and they tend to be highly resistant to it by then, since the Libertarian philosophy so echoes the general consensus about success in the American Dream. They’re supersaturated with the idea of bootstraps, and tend to stay that way unless they are motivated to change by experience, or by studying history and valuing accuracy.
/ex-Libertarian
Another indication of the psychopathy of the SimonPur Libertarian: it is more important to him/her to determine which small minority of people isn’t worthy of help than it is to accept that there will always be “waste” in a system and that it it is a greater good to overlook that in favor of helping the vast majority. Perverse.
noahpoah
And yet, they are still people.
Well it depends on where you are.
In civilised countries, I very much doubt that most people would say the person should be put in prison, but rather given access to treatment for the drug addiction along with access to training programs to allow him to gain employment.
It really depends of whether you are a callous unthinking bastard or not. I like to think most here are not, although clearly that is an identity you are happy to embrace.
How do people not notice that even the damn metaphor “Pull yourself up by the bootstraps” is a physical impossibility. The whole thing is a joke right out of the gate.
It should be clear from these examples that the tone around here is not what it could be. There are other examples in the comments above.
We care about substance, not about tone. Whinging about tone is the fastest way short of blatant bigotry and death threats to be despised instantly on this blog. It will get you reviled faster than being a creationist.
Everybody hates whiners and passive-aggressive losers. And you’re one or both of those things if you’re arguing about tone.
Fuck off, and shove your fucking concerns about tone up your ass.
How’s that for tone, fuckface?
Someone skipped the kindergarten where they told the starfish story.
Either that or he was the kid who said “There’s no way we can help all the starfish…so I’m going to spend my time cutting their legs off”
Well apart from the suggestion of cruelty to an animal (what did the ass do to deserve a libertarian being shoved up it’s backside ?) it seems fine.
In response to Pteryxx, #72:
Universal healthcare’s fine in theory, and there are some countries that have implemented it well. I’ll say I really don’t like the idea of Obama’s “You must buy healthcare” clause, but the devil’s going to be in the details no matter what system you pick.
My point was that ideally, everyone should be equal under the law. Period. Nobody should be entitled to benefits that another person wouldn’t get. (I’ll make an exception for disabilities/handicaps.) But that’s in what I’d call an “ideal” world. As it is, we don’t live in anything close to that; we live in a world where the rich get government funding at will and the poor are called greedy for wanting a small fraction of the same monetary attention. IF the government is going to subsidize and bail out the wealthy, by the same above logic of equality, I’d say it should do so for the poor. Give to everyone or give to no one.
To the other commenter who said that the poor are “scapegoats.” I’d agree; they are, and unfairly so. The Daily Show put it excellently in its piece on Fox News’s Class Warfare a month or two ago: it’s not that there’s a class warfare going on, it’s that the liberals are supposedly on the wrong side of the war. Given what’s happened over the past two decades economically, I’d say the liberals aren’t on the wrong side here. What they’re fighting for may not be what I call “ideal,” but it’d sure as hell be better than what we’ve got. If that makes sense.
Ing: Because the conversation is moral, not practical. The American Dream thing (thanks to Locke and the Puritans) is that success is a moral state.
Narratives of shame, blame and inadequacy apply here, and of the idea that one is on a stage and performing before a preemptively hostile crowd, and that the performance indicates worth in a personal and a financial sense.
How is saying that there are people who don’t deserve help equivalent, or even remotely in the same moral region, as exterminating people? Is there no line that someone could cross such that you would be unwilling to help him?
Ing: Od Wet Rust #206
The sign over the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp gate.
I suspect most libertarians don’t know enough history or enough German to recognize what Ing’s point is.
My bad, that was in response to #61, not 72.
noahpoah,
If someone is considered not deserving of help and no one helps them, what do you think is going to happen to them? Hint: If you don’t eat, you die.
Maybe you don’t deserve even being responded to. See, deserving can be defined as anything Lets make you persona non compos for a while and see how you feel. Do you like being on the receiving end of being called a fuckwitted morally bankrupt idjit? Then stop being one. People are still people, and they still need help. Your “deserving” is a smoke screen for discrimination, and you know it.
Again with the obsessing over how to make sure one doesn’t accidentally help someone who doesn’t deserve it. Sociopathic. Yes, you, Noahpoah.
I am just going to toss my two cents into this and say that the issue here is, ironically, control and corruption. Right now, the “government’s” concern has become too heavily invested in imaginary prosperity, from giving corporations everything they want, while making the processes of helping anyone else so complicated, inefficient, and often intentionally useless, that it in fact “doesn’t” do what it is supposed to.
The principle idea behind taking such safety nets out of their hands is that, somehow, the result will be less corrupt. This simply isn’t true. One of the clowns in the “libertarian” thread, twitter, or what ever it was, talks about donating the Salvation Army. Talk to Apostate’s Chapel about how great an idea donating to that religiously motivated group actually is… The rest they are talking about are not much better, because the people that “want” to open those things have agendas. The agenda isn’t to help anyone, primarily, it to help people as promoting of their “faith”, if you are lucky. But, you also, every once in a while, run into cases of, “promoting this great thing I am doing, in order to con/scam people.” The problem with the latter being that its a *lot* harder to catch them out at it, or, in some cases, especially if their is a strong religious backing, detect/stop it. Why? Because the scam happens behind the closed doors of the “faith”, not out in the open, in the soup kitchen.
That is what I mean by control. If you have the government under the control of people that misrepresent the people, don’t want to help them, refuse to acknowledge what the real problems are, and intentionally rob the soup pot, to give gold plated trophies to people that fired the guy asking for soup, then hell no they are not going to do shit for people that is useful. But, the alternative is thousands (if not millions) of uncontrollable, unwatchable, sometimes untouchable, and 1,000 times less effective, “charities”, who can’t help people where the charity doesn’t exist, or isn’t big enough, or the economy has taken a bad enough nose dive, and where you can be absolutely sure that some percentage of them are screwing people over, as part of the supposed “charity”, or trying to convert them to a religion, or scamming them into something.
The government, if you elect assholes, can screw up government charity. The only benefit to have non-government charity is ignorance. Ignorance about what is actually being done with the money, ignorance of their real motives, etc. The cost, in both cases, is that you can’t do a damn thing about it, if you either allow the government to slide so far out of your control that you can’t make it do its job, or you flat out just give up all control, on some libertarian idea that you shouldn’t either care, or have any way to do anything about, the real reason someone created the soup kitchen, and what other things they are trying to con people with, or out of, by doing so.
The problem with thinking that the government can only be a problem, never a solution, is that you won’t fix the problem at all, just abandon one solution, for a worse one. And, the real problem here is ignorance, misinformation, and the, ironically, right of people to be ignorant, misinformed, and other people to do every single damn thing they can to make sure we stay that way. The solution is, what? Let everyone pick the schools they want, instead of fixing the schools, when everyone going to the one good school will just turn it into the worst one?
I don’t get “choice” as a solution to these problems. Its like being offered 4 covered plates, three of them with dog shit on them, along side a bowl of gruel. To make a clear choice between them, you need to a) know enough to be able to at least predict what is there, which like almost no one would, especially if we a relying on the same sort of “choices” for schooling, b) know that the choices are available, which without someone making sure you are legally told, some people *will* hide from you, or c) someone, someplace, making sure that its illegal to offer dog shit on a plate, or 4 identical bowls of gruel, instead of real options.
Now.. C means a government that you can control, and does what it is supposed to, not “no” government. The problem is, neither A, or B are possible without ***the same thing***, making sure everyone has equal access to knowledge, and equal access to their options. Neither of which are possible without one, or with one that isn’t doing its job. And, by definition, serving the free market, rather than the people living in that market, is the *exact opposite* of “doing its job”. Its job should be the stop people cheating, while offering the widest choices, that exclude the former. But, it also has to, to do that successfully, provide some means to balance the scales, when bad actors take actions that “do” deny choices, or provide false ones, or try to hide what is really happening. I.e., a safety net.
The problem with the existing net is, its rigged to catch people, but not get them back on the damn boat after. That would cost money, it would require not letting the people that fall in “choose” to stay there, or otherwise infringing on a) people’s right to hoard their money, or b) tell everyone else in society to kiss their ass and leave them alone.
The solution to this is supposed to be “charity”, which, pretty much, by definition, feeds people, maybe, clothes them, maybe, but a) can’t make them do anything, b) doesn’t train them for new jobs, or c) help them get out of the soup kitchen, and back into society? No, what the government does, in this case, isn’t supposed to be charity. Its not enough to be a net, to catch people, it has to help them out of the net. But, the very same people that insist that we need to throw out the net entirely, and rely on “personal charity”, seem to be the ones most apposed to spending yet more money on turning the net into a solution, to get people out of poverty, instead of a baby sitter.
Why exactly is that?
Because, you uncaring, selfish asshole, if you don’t help people who need it then they start dying of starvation, hypothermia, or easily preventable/curable diseases quite quickly.
No. You got a problem with that, you fucking selfish asshole?
Aetre
Think of it as a transitory step, easier to do a little at a time than all at once.
noahpoah,
Let’s suppose they go to prison. After they get out and start taking drugs again, you would consider them undeserving of help. Right? Tell me, does this person deserve to die? Because if they don’t obtain necessities trough theft or some sort of help, they are going to die. Did this person actually cross the line after which you would leave them to die?
You might not be actually be willing to kill people as deliberate act, but it is very clear you see no reason to intervene to stop their deaths. Not a sin of commission maybe, but certainly one of omission. There is not a lot of difference in moral positions.
I get the impression such comparisons make you uncomfortable, or that you want to deny the lack of much difference. Well sorry, if being an amoral arsehole makes you uncomfortable I have no sympathy. It was your choice, even after the problems with your position must have been apparent to you.
noahpoah:
All you did…?
I called it! Immoral asshole.
And yes, I think that drug addicted thief you mentioned most certainly needs our help– far more than you or I do. I do not agree with our prison system. I feel that most problems with crime can and should be addressed by social programs: education/job training, alleviating poverty, help with substance abuse, etc. etc.
Okay, these fajitas ain’t gonna cook themselves. Back in a bit.
If someone actually crossed the line wouldn’t you be willing to kill them?
Neither do most liberals. Obamacare was a bare minimum joke that provided some needed reforms but is no where near enough. And even that was treated like institutionalized baby rape.
Does not follow. Libertarians would put more power into the hands of the wealthy. They would put lives of the poor directly into the hands of the wealthy, making the poor dependent of their benevolence, this time without any kind of barrier that the government safety net provides.
There is every likelihood they will continue using drugs in prison as well, unless they are lucky enough to be put into a prison-based treatment program. Such programs are expensive to run, and so there are nothing like enough places.
Kagehi, that was a fabulous post.
Matt @ 208: They won’t typically learn about it until they hit college
Untrue.
They can get very good ideas from it from your average English class, or even from movies like Oliver Twist, which may have had a cute musical facade, but was about the very serious limits of private charity in an apathetic government.
Dickens is probably the greatest and most effective destroyer of libertardian “ideals’ that reaches the most people every year. He made a career of skewering the arrogance and penury of private charity, over 100 years ago. He didn’t let people feel comfortable about their motives for helping the poor, instead shining a light on how most of them were in it to make themselves look better at the expense of people who needed their help. Some of his self-proclaimed do-gooders are the most vicious characters in all of his books.
However, his real takedown of liberturdianism came from putting a human face on the poor and ignored in society. He made the haves of society realize that private charity wasn’t enough to help the less fortunate, it never would be, and they started doing something about it. I don’t think we can even begin to estimate his influence in making societies start looking for more realistic solutions to helping the poor.
Upton Sinclair would probably come in second for making liberturdianism look like the fraud it is by exposing how a society with zero regulations on the “free” market was literally killing us and making us sick.
How is saying that there are people who don’t deserve help equivalent, or even remotely in the same moral region, as exterminating people?
Fucking incredible.
Because if people don’t get help to eat, or get shelter, or get medical care, they can die, and often unnecessarily, you fucking sociopath!
Jesus, are you really that fucking amoral and selfish and lacking in compassion for human beings that you cannot grasp that notion for even one fucking second?
Aquaria: That might have been me. I base this on my own experience teaching college. I get students exposed marginally to those ideas, but the injustice portion is glossed over.
*spoiler- I know the principal researcher* The Southern Poverty Law Center just released this study: http://images.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publication/TeachingtheMovement.pdf
Essentially, issues of civil rights (and, often issues of injustice in general) are not often taught, and treated like splinter issues, leading students to believe history outside the main narrative is unnecessary or even distracting to understanding ‘real’ history.
noahpoah,
Try thinking through a scenario. Realize that organizations (public and private) are run by people, people that are not you, and that those people will be implementing your ideas in accordance with their own values. You knowing that you won’t be racist (or whateverist) won’t stop the person in the next city over from being racist.
By the way, you really should define rigorously how you’re going to determine who doesn’t deserve help. That is, if you haven’t given up this rather inhumane argument yet. And keep in mind we don’t start equal at birth.
Aquaria #238
Bravo, madam. I’ve never read a more succinct description of Dickens.
@ Beatrice, #235
That’s true if you let the “market” be the only factor in deciding what happens in a society, and certainly that’s what some people who are more hell-bent libertarian than I am would like to see. I think if the government wants to regulate businesses or make laws entitling rights to, for an older example, unionize, then that’s fine by me. I have no problem with the government as a referee, so to speak. What I have a problem with is when the government picks favorites–Halliburton and other government-contracted companies, for example. I have a problem with Medicare’s dependency on Pfizer and others, too; it makes bad things happen–it makes companies become really too big to fail.
Let me put it this way: I don’t believe anyone should be allowed to be their own watchdog, or that of their friends. Does that make sense? Perhaps I’m saying it badly. I think it’s a terrible idea to let the market regulate itself, for example. I think police departments need more than just internal affairs departments to keep from being corrupt; I support the populace’s right to film them. I think if the government is going to make the rules regarding fair healthcare, or say something like “You cannot deny insurance just because of a pre-existing condition,” that’s great. Someone asked me if government-run healthcare is okay, and I said fine in theory… And my condition is that there be an independent, non-tax-supported agency–like the ACLU–to regulate and sue when something horrible happens. That’s quite the opposite of the government making rules that benefit insurance companies while insurance companies lobby politicians.
Sorry that this is a bit long-winded. I just believe that if the government wants to make the rules and laws that will make for a fairer society, that’s fine… But it’s not what I see happening.
Both seems as likely as one or the other.
we all start off ignorant, and they might lean towards libertarianism because of their parents, or peers.
but then, eventually, they DO get enough exposure to history that they should conclude libertarianism is untenable.
so, after that, if they then become well-off, it becomes a rationale to avoid guilt or to avoid contributing.
if they don’t become well off, it becomes a rationale for why they DIDN’T (“all those socialists prevent the working man from getting his due, etc.).
it’s essentially denialism as defense mechanism in any case.
If someone is considered not deserving of help and no one helps them, what do you think is going to happen to them? Hint: If you don’t eat, you die.
Again with the obsessing over how to make sure one doesn’t accidentally help someone who doesn’t deserve it. Sociopathic. Yes, you, Noahpoah.
Fucking incredible.
Because if people don’t get help to eat, or get shelter, or get medical care, they can die, and often unnecessarily, you fucking sociopath!
Jesus, are you really that fucking amoral and selfish and lacking in compassion for human beings that you cannot grasp that notion for even one fucking second?
Because, you uncaring, selfish asshole, if you don’t help people who need it then they start dying of starvation, hypothermia, or easily preventable/curable diseases quite quickly.
Who said anything about no one helping, or making sure help isn’t given? I was explicit in earlier comments that this kind of thing should be an individual decision. If I decide that someone doesn’t deserve help, that has, as it should, no bearing on whether or not you decide otherwise.
Did you folks read my hypothetical case? There have been quite a few wildly imaginative positions attributed to me, none with any merit or evidence, as far as I can tell.
No. You got a problem with that, you fucking selfish asshole?
Well, no, as should be obvious to anyone who has read what I’ve written here. Though, I should say that I don’t believe you.
You people are very, very silly.
As Aristotle stated in his Ethics, the point of the justice system is to **ignore** the obvious inequities that do exist between people, in an attempt to create a balance, even where there isn’t one. That is the principle of fairness and justice. To treat everyone as equal, whether they are or not, because otherwise there can be nothing “fair”, and no “justice”. This doesn’t deny someone getting benefits another doesn’t, as a direct result of mere happenstance of their situation, but it mandates that they shouldn’t get those, in such a manner that it causes harm to someone else in the process, intentionally or otherwise.
The problem, of course, is where you get people defining “harm” as, “I had to wait until the first of the month to buy a new yacht, because my damn taxes paid to feed 50 people in a half way house!”, not as, “My friend died of a treatable disease yesterday, because someone thought buying a yacht was more important than helping them get medical care.” The inability to distinguish between these is the reason for the idea that someone ought to be paid to make sure that kind of thing happens a bit less often. Its also the very, “equalization of benefits”, being apposed by very concept privatization of those things everyone needs as a “minimum requirement”, like health care, housing and food, and by the idea of “voluntary charity”, replacing any sort of Welfare.
What I have a problem with is when the government picks favorites–Halliburton and other government-contracted companies, for example.
guess what?
that doesn’t make you a libertarian.
that simply makes you anti-corruption.
big, BIG difference.
so, do yourself a favor?
don’t call yourself a libertarian, because it’s basically an insult to your own intelligence to do so.
You.
Are you really as fucking stupid as you seem ?
If I decide that someone doesn’t deserve help, that has, as it should, no bearing on whether or not you decide otherwise.
sorry, but no.
YOUR rationale for deciding not to help is what you want us all to agree with.
your chickenshit attempts to backslide and take responsibility for what you are actually arguing for are noted.
around here, we call that “intellectual dishonesty”
noahpoah,
You really haven’t put much thought into this.
Yes we did. It made you look like an amoral arsehole. Was not not your intent then ?
example:
if YOU decide not to vaccinate your kids, that has impacts on ALL of us, and it’s up to you to justify your rationale for that, TO ALL OF US.
you failed to do so, instead claiming you can legitimately excise yourself from all of society.
if that’s what you really want to do, I would suggest offing yourself as the most efficient way to accomplish such a goal.
Yep, and a non-morally bankrupt judgmental fuckwitted idjit would have never, ever, made it. Do you understand that? People need help. Period. Empathy requires you to help other people. Your moral bankruptcy makes you think some people are worthy? As far as I am concerned, you are unworthy of anything other than abuse, until you receive proper treatment and begin to understand empathy.
Am I the only one who can’t really follow that sentence?
It’s probably just a writing error (and I’m not one to talk,) but I think it’s fairly symbolic of how many unfounded assumptions and value judgments noahpoah is trying to sneak by as a single indivisible, axiomatic item.
Why would the prevention of “undeserved help” be the paramount concern when considering the form of the social safety net? Giving vital help to a hundred people who “deserve it” isn’t worth whatever harm is in giving help to one person who supposedly doesn’t? It’s a sleight of hand I’ve seen before.
Now it’s true that if you don’t help anyone, then you’re certainly not helping anyone who “doesn’t deserve it.” And if private charity helps less people, then it also might help less people who “don’t deserve it.”
But I don’t think that’s what “efficiency” means.
your chickenshit attempts to backslide and [NOT] take responsibility for what you are actually arguing for are noted.
rather important word left out there.
Aetre,
You sound like a different person now than you did in comment #52. I took issue with your
and read your other mentions of favorites and fairness in that light. That’s my main objection to your position, I can’t really find fault with what you said in #243.
If anyone wants to know why libertarianism doesn’t work, just look at this forum.
Then imagine you have just walked in to your neighborhood community center and are just introducing yourself to some neighbors when a wild-eyed maniac you’ve never met suddenly comes running in from the street, knocks you down, rips off your arms and beats you in the face with them, while repeatedly shoving a live porcupine up your anus and screaming about what a fucking idiot you are for trying to have a civilized conversation with other people.
No no no, even I know by now that the porcupine is offered for the recipient to insert.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I do think there should be a limited safety net. Poverty is a drag on productivity-a poor person isn’t a good consumer or producer, more likely to resort to crime-and for all the “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” rhetoric from conservatives and libertarians, poverty has a way of keeping the poor poor. While some extraordinary individuals can escape it by their sheer brilliance and willpower, the ordinary person does need some help, be it debt forgiveness, or something to break the self-perpetuating cycle of poverty (Eg: A person without a car can’t drive to job interviews or jobs out of walking distance/inaccessable by public transportation, but to acquire a car he needs the income of a job! So give them a cheap rental car, let them earn enough to buy their own, and let them pay off the rental period on low or zero interest; the state need not even directly run such a program-it could let rental car agencies and used car dealerships carry it out themselves, and deduct the costs from taxes as a charitable donation…it would have to regulate the terms of the agreement to make sure they’re equitable and achieve the objectives of the program, of course).
The ideal kind would be one designed as a temporary, last-resort system, one which only provides long-term sustenance to those completely unable to provide it themselves and without anyone able or willing to provide it for them (elderly or disabled with no living family), and which for all others acts as springboard back to self-sufficiency. I feel our current system doesn’t do enough when, and then encourages dependence, so as to create a constituency which will vote for whoever says they’ll maintain the benefits.
Voluntary, private systems should be encouraged-they’re more adaptable to needs of individuals and local communities than centralized, nation-wide bureaucracies, have lower operating costs, and community involvement and philanthropy should be encouraged by the state, as such lessens the state’s burden and, by consequence, the people’s burden. I’d be all for making all donations to charity completely deductible, as I feel such would encourage larger donations.
But that doesn’t mean that there are no need for government programs, just that they need to be restructured, streamlined, consolidated, and allowed greater local autonomy to meet the needs of specific individuals and communities. And, again, I speak for no “libertarians” but myself.
On a side note:
http://tentaclegrape.com/
Spotted that one as part of an ad for J-List, on an anime site and immediately thought PZ needed to see this. lol
noahpoah:
If you’re talking about the drug-addicted thief, then yeah I did. And I responded reasonably.
Why wouldn’t someone like that deserve our help?
And of course this would happen for no reason at all.
/sarcasm
The law of the land: Learn it or perish. That’s the rule for travellers everywhere – also on the intertubes.
You decide he doesn’t deserve help. Other people in the community also decide he doesn’t deserve help, because they happen to hold the same position as yourself. Some kind of government organization where he could turn to doesn’t exist. To put it explicitly : he’s fucked. And it was every individual’s decision not to help that put him in that position. Congratulations, you are a murderer.
@ Icthyic, #249
Okay. I’m a civil libertarian, and a political moderate with an admitted prejudice against, and general distrust of, politicians. How’s that for a label? :)
@noahpoah
Let’s put this really simply. In your libertarian fantasyworld there is no guarantee that there is someone willing to help any given hypothetical individual. What if all those who are wealthy enough to give find criminal hard-drug users undeserving? No problem to you I guess. People with compassion find this a grave problem.
There are strains of libertarianism that believe that returning to exactly the markets of the 19th century would be a good thing. I do not think that. I have never personally met a libertarian who thinks that, but I’ve read their books. There are many of us who believe instead that governmental oversight to protect competition and to protect workers is good. Libertarians want a small government; Anarchists want no government. We aren’t the same thing, and frankly many of us think those people are crazy. With carefully placed governmental checks to business in place, please don’t argue that libertarian-leaning economics would automatically and necessarily lead to robber-baron capitalism and the exploitation of the poor. We all learned from the 19th century. Libertarian economics didn’t produce the bloated and indebted government that we have today – should I ask progressive/statist politics to answer for that?
Try to understand how (some) libertarians like me think: We default to whichever policy promotes individual rights the most. If that will produce an outcome that will be unacceptably bad for society, we will then begrudgingly support a role for the government. We’re not monsters – we just think it’s more morally appropriate to enact policies that respect individual rights than policies that promote individual happiness. (…but it’s not like we’re against happiness.) A state without freedoms is just worse to us than a state without hardships.
It’s selfish if I think my individual rights trump society’s, but it’s not selfish if I think everyone’s individual rights trump society’s. (This, by the way, is why I’m actually against international free trade – its practice supports the violation of the rights of workers in countries without all those pesky “minimum wage” and “anti-slavery” laws. “Real libertarians” like me are, in fact, still against slavery – and we even think the government has a right to oppose it! Economically, even!)
You don’t have to agree with us, but try to understand that this is the disagreement. We don’t think hungry poor people shouldn’t be fed, but we think that if we can keep the government from telling the rich how much to pay and the poor what they can and can’t eat, BUT still address hunger, that would be best.
I want a libertarian President, and a progressive Congress. I want a libertarian Sheriff, and a progressive Mayor. Does that make sense? We know our policies won’t solve the problems, and we know that yours will. We’re trying to tell you that your policies will create different problems without us there to check them.
sylviamewburn
But but what if someone rents a car that doesn’t deserve it?
Read the thread yet? I like that bit about the state “encouraging” community involvement, though.
I suspect that, from the stand point of “civil”, most liberals are libertarian. And, in Europe, Libertarians tend to focus mainly on that too, and not on the economic angle. The problem is that, in the US, “libertarian” too often mains “economic libertarian”, and the end result of that mess has more in common with the Bioshock game series than it does with the inane sociopathitopia that Rand described.
Will the True Libertarian please stand up?
Beatrice,
No, no.
The Free Market is a murderer.
But since whatever outcome the Free Market selects is moral and/or efficient (synonyms!) it’s not really murder.
Hey, look at that, it almost sounds like God!
Sylviamewburn,
I’m not sure how that would work in a society where 100% employement (of employable people) has been deemed a mechanical impossibility? Indeed, in a society where, not so long ago, such a thing was derided as a sovietic fable.
I wonder, does this cast a realistic portrait of electoral politics in Western countries in general?
It sucks, completely.
“Civil libertarian” just means you’re against government abuses of power, and for preserving civil rights.
Liberals also care about these things.
Many libertarians make no bones about their lack of concern about preserving civil rights (protecting individual property rights takes precedence). So a concern about civil rights is not a distinguishing characteristic of libertarianism.
The main distinguishing characteristic of libertarianism, in the American context, is an irrational hostility towards government, and an evidence-free faith in free market mechanisms to fix societal problems.
Unless that describes you, then please stop describing yourself as a libertarian, lest you give cover to the assholes who DO think that way.
Another thing with charity, the donators get to decide who is needy. With a representative government, the needy themselves actually get to have a say.
noahpoah,
So locking up drug addicted thieves is necessary for society to function. How about getting the rich to pay their fair share of taxes for enjoying all the benefits of a functioning government? Why is one a necessary cruelty and the other is theft?
And yes, this person needs our help. The goal should be to try to rehabilitate them. The worst the person in your example has done was to steal. They haven’t even hurt anyone physically.
Some libertarians (not all) and liberal agree on what the problems within society are. The difference then is that the liberals are willing to pay taxes in order that the state can do its best to alleviate those problems, whereas the libertarian will shrug his (nearly always his) and ask why he should be expected to do anything about them.
@ Beatrice, #256
Yeah, my problem with welfare checks is a minor one compared to the injustices I’ve seen the government doing over the past decade, and that’s mainly my point. In a perfect world, I’d say nobody should be getting any checks–the society should have well-funded and supported institutions, such as schools and hospitals (public or private as society sees fit), with separate entities watching over them and ensuring fairness–defined as equal opportunity, not equal results. But I know that’s too utopian, and that playing fields aren’t level and never really will be. So given the realities of the situation, I have much less of a problem with giving $200/month to a single mother of four with a $30,000/year income than I have with GM getting free government money for making bad cars for thirty years. If the government’s going to do the latter, it should do… well, BETTER than the former. Significantly better.
QFT
Sounds incredibly childish. Why do we care about whether the government tells rich people how much to pay? Because their feelings will be hurt? Is there any evidence that things will work better if the government just says, “Well, it’d be nice if you paid your taxes, something in the neighborhood of $12,000 to $15,000, or maybe more if you prefer, or less, just so long as it doesn’t make you feel oppressed or nothing…”
If you’re providing people with food directly, you’re not telling them, “Eat this and nothing else,” you’re just giving them food. I will admit, the restrictions on buying prepared food with Food Stamps are a little annoying, but speaking as a currently poor person who’s been on Food Stamps, I’d much rather have the option of buying a few things than buying nothing at all.
Sorry, this paragraph, and the rest of your post, don’t make much sense at all.
Another data point for the “most libertarians are either assholes or stupid” hypothesis.
This only happens when you have 1 of 2 major political parties constantly scheming to take the benefits away.
@ Sally Strange, #271:
Eh, fine then. I’m “me.” As labels go, that’ll just have to suffice, I guess.
Why is that? You want to be free to run red lights at will, and not take responsibility for your inane actions? There is a reason for government. Sane laws. Equal laws. Public infrastructure. Help the needy.
True to an extent. War on drugs, failure, try treatment. Prostitution and homosexual acts, why bother with what consenting adults do in private, but make sure to remove all coercion from the transaction. But, wear and seat belts or get a ticket, as that is public safety. Same for vaccines. Want to not have to wear a motorcycle helmet? Be able to prove your are totally insured in case you mildly scramble your brains, and need nursing care for the rest of your life. Libertarianism with actual need to properly take responsibility for your actions.
The emphasis on the individual in US discussions of merit (and the idea that the individual is somehow independent from the society he or she lives in) is part of the problem with libertarian thought. We can be ‘me’, but we cannot be ‘just me,’ if it means we do not inherit the fabric of the society around us, which in the US means that we believe we can avoid the problems with defining merit.
@Aetre
It’s just my opinion.
I mean, call yourself whatever you want. When I call myself a feminist, I realize that there are some people who will make unfavorable associations, but I don’t mind, because I own those associations. Andrea Dworkin wasn’t as misanthropic as people think, anyway, but in any case I don’t mind people associating me with their distorted image of her, because those people are idiots who don’t know much anyway.
Are you keen on people associating you with people who care more about keeping 3% of their income in their pockets than they do about making sure all children have health care? With people who think that Lester Maddox was within his rights? The public perception that libertarians care far more about a business owner’s right to be a bigot than they do about minorities’ rights to have full access to all the services provided in their community by businesses that allege to serve the public is well-founded. If you think this perception is not well-founded, and are willing to constantly correct people about it, or if you don’t mind being associated with such people, then go ahead and call yourself a libertarian.
It seems like we have a bit of a problem here: Are the libertarians here allowed to explain that we aren’t, in fact, as gung ho about all aspects of the free market as some other libertarians you may know, or not? If you only want to invite that one brand of libertarian over to the discussion, that’s fine by us. We’ll wait here while you try to find some of them, but be forewarned that many people who think like that are selfish asshats. We know – they come to our meetings. Just like some of you “liberals” are for affirmative action, and some of you are against it, there’s variation in libertarianism.
The only point of contention that I’ve seen that appears to reflect a fundamental disagreement is this:
If someone is suffering in society, and everyone agrees that that person “deserves” to suffer (for only if everyone agrees that they deserve it would no one provide help for them under a “free market charity” system.) Then why should they be helped by the state? Allow me to Godwin for a moment – if Hitler was starving in the street, would you expect society to help him? I think you would. I ask this- when would your compassionate help turn to aiding him in his evils? If you refuse him care once he begins to incite people to kill Jews again, haven’t you then decided that his decisions no longer make him eligible for charity?
I’m sure some of you will have a compelling answer to this, but I can’t anticipate what it is. As a libertarian, it’s pretty easy to say “Yeah, just don’t feed Hitler.” but I’m curious how the other side deals with this?
I think my point is that you have to have a little discretion in who you help at some point, and that libertarians don’t like the idea of the government making discretionary decisions about what people “deserve”, because making those decisions is the responsibility of the individual, and not the government (who makes its decisions on behalf of all of the individuals without consulting them first.)
Uh… you feed him.
Then you let him go on his way.
There’s no problem here. If he’s starving then presumably he’s not in control of the state.
If he’s mentally ill then giving him some state-funded health care would probably prevent his obsession from developing into a fully-fledged plot to murder millions of people.
The problem with Hitler wasn’t that he was Hitler. It was that a great number of Germans thought enough like him for him to make sense, and he managed to gain control of the state.
Alice Miller makes a pretty decent case for how outlawing corporal punishment for children might have prevented Hitler from following his particular path.
What do you think? Banning hitting children respects the individual liberty of the child. But many parents would say it infringes on their parental “rights” (I don’t believe in parental rights, there are only parental obligations, but whatever). How does “the other side” deal with this?
Why? You haven’t explained how you would discriminate against those who need help. They are just “unworthy” in some fashion. Just a you aren’t worthy enough to be considered a cogent responder due to making people “unworthy”.
For one thing we do not engage in contra-factual history, because it’s kinda silly you know. You generally cannot know what’ll happen next.
And furthermore, we realise that we can both keep people from starving and curbing hate speech (and action).
The last one is kinda hard, since both the freedom of speech and the freedom of personal integrity are basic human rights, but once one let go of the libertarian idiocy one can see that human rights exist in a competitive space, where each application of each right might infringe on other – both in the form of one kind of right interfering with another and one individuals right interfering with another.
Once you realise this, you can work towards a balance. It’s not perfect of course, but it’s better than leaving people starving in the street (no matter what you think they’ll do later).
Just to be clear: nobody deserves to suffer.
The belief that some people do “deserve” to be prevented from thriving is transparently based in religious, pre-rational thinking.
Some people need to be locked up for society’s protection. These people tend to be the ones who truly, fervently believe that some people really do deserve to suffer.
I’m a
civil libertarian, and a political moderatefixed.
you don’t have to have a “unique” label to be satisfied that it accurately describes your positions.
the label “libertarian” does not accurately describe ANY tenable modern political philosophy, period.
Dtpeck #266
Those are the anarcho-capitalist libertarians.
Mike Huben, in his A Non-Libertarian FAQ, describes the same problem you’re talking about:
You go on to say:
Your particular flavor of libertarianism may not “automatically and necessarily lead to robber-baron capitalism and the exploitation of the poor” but you’re in the minority of libertarians. I’ve been involved in enough discussions with libertarians over the years to know that most of them think “biznizz good, gummint bad.” Literally their economics are no more sophisticated than that.* As for the poor, noahpoah is a prime example of the libertarian who would have people starve in the streets because they’re “undeserving.”
I think the right not to starve in the streets because some selfish libertarian asshole doesn’t like some poor person supersedes your right to carry a
penis substitutegun or whatever your individual right du jour might be. Consider the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Which phrase comes before “liberty”? Hint, it ain’t the pursuit of happiness.And you can take your begrudging support and shove it up your rosy red rectum. Contrary to libertarians’ belief, society is not made up of a bunch of “rugged individualists.” Humans are pack animals, we have to live together. One of the tools we use to coexist is government. We can argue over how far the role of government should go, but we cannot pretend that role should only be begrudgingly supported.
You are monsters. Individual happiness includes not starving. You quite obviously think that your rights are more important than people not starving. Fortunately, normal people, i.e., not libertarians, disagree. As a result, there isn’t much starvation (I am not foolish enough to think the number is zero).
If you don’t see the contradiction in the above paragraph then you’re either a very poor thinker or so wrapped up in your ideology that you refuse to see the contradiction.
You want Ron Paul or Bob Barr as president? You do hate the US.
You mean like the present conservative-dominated Congress is doing its best to shit on 90% of Americans and make the Koch brothers happy? That sort of checking?
*Something you should know about me, I’m a professional economist.
@ Noahpoah;
People don’t exist in a vacuum. If a person is denied the means of subsistence, then they die. If a policy is put in place that creates a situation where a certain type or group of people are denied the means of subsistence, then this is morally equivilent to a policy of extermination of that group.
Why? Should there be? In your hypthetical you discuss a putative drug addict. Persons can become addicted to drugs by accident or by no fault of their own – exposure to drugs as a child or addiction to painkillers after a serious injury or as a result of a chronic high-pain condition being cases in point.
Even if a person takes drugs voluntarily as an adult for recreational reasons, this does not mean that they want to destroy their lives – they can get in over their heads whereupon they need society’s help, not its reactionary condemnation.
If there is no government safety net in place to protect the vulnerable, then there is not going to be anything approaching comprehensive welfare provision courtesy of ill coordinated charitable efforts, even where those efforts are made in good faith. Some people, such as yourself, may choose not to contribute, while others may contribute but the money will simply be sucked into a morass of independently operating organisations with no central policy or means or organisation.
Even with the best will in the world, such a system wouldn’t be practicable. If you add in a judgemental attitude that some people are ‘undeserving’ of help, then you are as good as throwing entire sections of society under a bus.
I do not think there is any ‘line’ that a person or group can cross where it is acceptable to claim that this or that person is no longer human, and thus can be legitimately allowed to die for want of help from the rest of society. Not murderers, not paedophiles, not terrorists, not war criminals, not even creationists – nobody deserves to be left to die in the name of property rights or ‘righteous’ indignation.
As a libertarian, it’s pretty easy to say “Yeah, just don’t feed Hitler.”
you might as well have said:
“as a libertarian, it’s pretty easy to use my ignorance to defend any irrational position”
because that’s what you just did.
Any historian will tell you that Hitler, as the head of a fascist political party, was simply the product of events around him.
there was nothing unique about him; he never was anything more than an ordinary soldier during the “Bohemian Revolution” in Austria during the Weimar Republic.
so, if you had gone back and “starved” Hitler, you would have done nothing but kill an innocent person.
It wouldn’t have stopped the rise of Naziism.
Ichthyic,
“Political moderate” may or may not be accurate, but I don’t think it’s ever really that informative by itself.
Great! I was hoping you would say something like that. Good answers.
Your argument is that helping one person with, let’s say, a desire to do evil to others, needs more governmental help in the form of mental health services. (Or making parents stop hitting their kids. I’m all with you on parental obligations and not rights.) That makes sense, and is self-consistent.
I think many libertarians would counter that that kind of government gets too big too fast, and eventually gets too bloated for society to function because it draws too much without putting out enough and starts eating away at personal rights (unacceptable) and property rights (only undesirable – this is where I differ from the asshat contingent.)
Do you think that bloat in the government is ever sufficient (not saying that it is now, but hypothetically) for the libertarian side to make more sense than the progressive one? (i.e. No help for anyone provided by the government, and only private charity.) I’m not asking whether you think that would work better, because I know you think it won’t. I’m curious about whether the state could become enough of a financial burden to the society that it should be discarded in favor of the other way. This might get us to the heart of the disagreement.
Don’t forget a good number of people who use drugs or alcohol to an extent they damage their health are in fact self-medicating, be it for physical or mental problems. They need treatment not only for the addiction, but for any underlying cause that led to the addiction.
Of course if the person with the addiction problem is also breaking the law in order to fund their habit then treating the addiction will also remove their need to commit crime. Treatment is unlikely to cost more than sending them to prison.
The only reason to deny such people treatment is to be vindictive. It makes no sense from a moral or economic perspective.
And, in Europe, Libertarians tend to focus mainly on that too, and not on the economic angle.
then they are equating civil liberty with libertarianism, and that is incorrect.
Can we PLEASE just stop using the fucking label “libertarian”?
because it simply does NOT APPLY to anything even remotely represented by any current political party or movement.
it’s MISAPPLIED.
it just causes confusion.
try:
Progressive.
for a label that better fits focusing on civil liberties.
but I don’t think it’s ever really that informative by itself.
better than MISINFORMATIVE though.
DTPeck:
You know, I long for the day when people stop wanking over Hitler/the Nazis/WWII. You can’t use them as justification for everything you want (or don’t want) to do.. It’s intellectually lazy at best.
If someone is so poor that they need government assistance to eat, then guess what? They aren’t running a fascist state.
Help the needy regardless of who they might be. The needy aren’t destroying the economy or the environment and they’re not dictators trying to take away your freedoms– they have less crime to answer for than the very wealthy.
This is just getting absurd.
I’ll admit I’m just kind of lost at this point. You do know that Hitler committed suicide, right? It’s not like the Allies had him locked up somewhere toward the end of the war.
If that “little discretion” is based on amount of income, then yeah*. Anything else shouldn’t even be considered in the equation.
What exactly is the “responsibility of the individual”? You’re being too vague here. What responsibilities? Who’s responsibilities? Is it my responsibility to feed the poor or is it my responsibility not to become poor in the first place?
*Still speaking of feeding people. I wholeheartedly support things like education and healthcare available to all, even the very wealthy.
Are the libertarians here allowed to explain that we aren’t, in fact, as gung ho about all aspects of the free market as some other libertarians you may know, or not?
then why use the label if you aren’t.
it’s fucking stupid.
The liberturd side never makes sense. It is morally bankrupt. One can want to streamline government, and make it more efficient, but the problem with many people is that government doesn’t operate like a company. It can’t. It has a different model than increasing profits for shareholders. Liberturds and the RWAs don’t understand that. And their paranoia causes the bloat.
Oh dear. Please ignore any and all mention of Hitler, because it appears to have muddied the waters entirely – I didn’t make my point well. I bow out. If you think libertarianism is only about economic arguments and not about civil liberties, you clearly don’t want to talk to me. I introduce myself as a progressive libertarian (where it’s relevant) and I generally make more libertarians unhappy than I do progressives when I start sharing my views. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I’m using the wrong term to describe my views (or maybe if those self-righteous wankers who call themselves libertarians would go away, people like me could use the word to describe a political belief system that actually makes sense.)
I introduce myself as a progressive libertarian
aren’t made up names fun?
I personally prefer:
moderate autocrat.
:P
This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them
truer words were never spoke.
it always ends up in a no true Scotsman fallacy.
We, as liberals, understand civil liberties. We also understand the need for government, and are willing pay the taxes for certain things like the safety social net, single payer health care, etc. We aren’t hung up on your inability to ride your motorcycle without a helmet. If you aren’t insured sufficiently that you will never have the public pay for your stupidity (which invariably happens at the moment), I will play my micro flute in sympathy.
That, I think, lies at the real heart of the matter. They don’t want the government involved because, if the government decides to side with the wrong people, there isn’t a lot they can do about it (the problem being that the government is not siding with them, the *right* people). Mind, if you do something about it *before* you get to that point, in the case of real corruption, then this is less of an issue.
The problem of course with “responsibility of the individual” and making such decisions is, that those that harm others, some intentionally, and some entirely unintentionally, not knowing any better, will tend to opt to not take responsibility for it, placing the blame either on their own ignorance of consequence, or on someone else’s guilt of “choosing” to be so injured. The victim, on the other hand, unless brain washed into accepting the status quo, is invariably going to conclude that the *correct* decision is to hold those responsible to that responsibility, regardless of whether or not they knew they where going to hurt someone, especially if they just didn’t bother to think hard enough about it.
The result of this system is the old pre-“innocent until proven guilty” legal systems, where it was assumed that only the victim, whether or not they where harmed, or just claiming to be, where the sole arbiter of whether a) you did hurt them, b) how badly, c) whether or not to do something about it, and sometimes even d) what the “correct” punishment should be. It hardly matters what you did, whether you knew you where doing it, or even *if* you where actually the one that did it, by being accused, you automatically lose all right to choices, and the supposed victim, real or otherwise, gets to choose “everything”, including your own guilt or innocence.
Might as well go back to, “The guy who gets stabbed first was wrong, since fate wouldn’t allow the unjust man to win.”, for all such a method of making decisions about what is fair, just, equitable, etc. gets you.
Better the “collective” decision to get things “sometimes” wrong, than the purely arbitrary path of letting every case, social, economic, legal, etc. be decided on a case by case basis, with absolutely no consistency, or even chance of similar outcome, and determined on what those “involved” imagine each other “deserve” in the matter. You can fix something that isn’t working. How to you fix something that basically doesn’t exist in the first place, since it changes for ***every single individual***, entirely arbitrarily, based on the theory that each of those random individuals can pick what someone else “deserves”? Answer: You can’t, unless you give up the right to make such arbitrary decisions, in trade for some semblance of consistency, and then tweak *that* to handle those cases where there is a valid difference, and not a, “I don’t think X person ‘deserves’ Y.”, purely personal decision.
Nerd:
Which, oddly enough, actually increases freedoms. No one is free if they’re impoverished. Go figure!
Ichthy:
So much fun! I’m a radical anti-monarchist.
Yep, at the moment, the biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. Some people are blind to the facts.
Funny, when making hypotheticals about the poor and needy the libertarians here have made them drug addicted thieves and motherfuckin’ starving Hitler. Says a lot about their thought process.
Now I get to bring out my favorite quote from the libertarian hero, Adam Smith:
¹Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1776. Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses.
Your argument is that helping one person with, let’s say, a desire to do evil to others, needs more governmental help in the form of mental health services.
and the counter argument is?
I can envision two alternative scenarios:
you “help” them by removing them from society, temporarily (jail or isolated camps) or permanently (death).
you don’t “help” them, and thus solve your own personal dilemma by refusing to act.
both alternatives have been tried, and failed.
there is only one logical approach, and it is not relying on the whims of your neighbors, who often act in self-interested ways.
that that kind of government gets too big too fast
evidence on point?
there is none. This is the fiction that maintains the idea that people can even CALL themselves “libertarians”.
when we get to the point that everyone in a society takes personal responsibility for the effects of their own behavior on everyone elses, then, whether you are speaking of a pure democracy, or the end state of Marxism, or libertarianism, or even pure anarchy, for that matter, those all would work.
the fact is, this is not human nature. None of these philosophies are workable as anything more than ideals. Marx himself knew this to be true, for example. He never intended his writings to be the basis for a workable political system, but more like a model to study as an ideal.
likewise, saying that libertarianism can be anything more than an ideal is ludicrous.
you have two choices:
you either let each individual apply their own sense of responsibility to society; which of course has been tried and failed, miserably, to produce any kind of utilitarian result for a society at large.
or you contract a mediator to resolve differences based on agreed upon rules.
IOW, you have a government to mediate.
this, IS A REQUIREMENT, of modern society.
It is NOT a bug, but a feature.
Nerd:
And in deep denial. There’s a lot of poverty can’t happen to me! wishful thinking among the libertarians.
I would also like to impart a small history lesson. Let’s take Germany. Like many European nations, this was traditionally a feudal state, until the end of the Middle Ages.
In a feudal state, the subject was bound to the lord (as a villein, which is a type of peasant, not a bad guy :D ) you were pretty much restricted to your village, in many cases just a little better than a slave). However, the lord was also obligated to look after his subjects, to provide the foundations for their livelihoods, to protect them etc.
There were some who fell through the cracks, they usually congregated in cities, where there were charities, usually from the Church, or in some cases by rich merchants. These were the first examples of charities you can find in Western history (in Lübeck, then one of the richest cities in Germany, such an institution opened in 1286). So here you have your charities at work.
Now here’s a big HOWEVER, which many libertarians seem to overlook: in a European feudal state, poverty of the masses was accepted as a given, like the weather conditions. Most peasants lived in abject poverty, as did most city dwellers. This was accepted as will of god, divine order of how things worked, and in many cases, foreshadowing the Puritan ideas in America, poverty was also seen as the fate of the individual. In cities, towards the end of the Middle Ages, 10-20% were permanently dependent on such charities, and 50-60% were living “paycheck to paycheck”, thus if something of a large scale happened, all these people would all turn at once towards the charities.
Since the 13th century, poverty came to be seen as a threat to the divine social order, with different reactions to it. (You might read up on the contemptuous views of Martin Luther towards peasant revolts). The poor were stigmatised, some religious orders though also started to see it as their mission to look after them. But as you can see from my figures above, charity was never enough. Every famine ran the risk of causing revolts, and to shake the foundations of society.
Fast forward to the period of modernisation after the Middle Ages, i.e. between the 17th and 19th centuries. In this time, Germany was divided into many small, quasi sovereign states, which all went through different types and degrees of modernisation. In some Protestant states, pietism brought about some rudimentary state provided welfare systems (Luther himself was in favour of providing help only to the smallest of groups, who “truly deserved it”), I don’t know that much about Catholic ideology, but I guess there might have been a Catholic state or two that had similar. But again, patchwork and not enough UNLESS you accept abject poverty as a given.
It always make me shudder as the libertarian utopias make me think of the feudal societies of old (obviously without the lord, though if you own a certain area, what would stop you from acting like a lord, after all you own the land right? Free farmers, unlike villeins were not bound to their land, but still were subject to their territorial lord, and under certain circumstances, people did run away to cities*) ). Just look at the research of medieval historians, for such a system to function you first have to accept ABJECT POVERTY OF THE MASSES as a constant phenomenon. The little feudal lords would provide and charities did provide would only help the MOST NEEDY of those cases, and in times of emergency even fall short of that.
It’s gotten quite long. If people are interested, I can provide how the welfare state was then implemented in Germany, in a different post (hint: it was because the elites of the Second Empire (read Bismarck) were afraid of the workers’ movement, thus it was a power move, not a move out of the goodness of their hearts)
*) Stadtluft macht frei “city air will set you free” refers to the custom that villeins would become free men if they managed to hide away in a free city for one year and one day. It was this promise of freedom the Nazis cynically used in their slogan in Auschwitz, Arbeit macht frei
Reference
Der Sozialstaat: Entstehung und Entwicklung im internationalen Vergleich
Good point. So not only are libertarians ignorant of history, they are also ignorant of psychology, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
It can happen beyond their control these days. I hope to work at my little division until I can receive full SSA benefits at 66. But, the plug could be pulled on our little division at any time. Given my age (60+), my chances of finding another job with the same salary (or almost any job in my field) is almost nil. We are making a profit at the moment, so it looks okay for a few more years. And I have my fingers in a lot of
piesprocesses at the moment.If people are interested, I can provide how the welfare state was then implemented in Germany, in a different post (hint: it was because the elites of the Second Empire (read Bismarck) were afraid of the workers’ movement, thus it was a power move, not a move out of the goodness of their hearts)
I’d also recommend Richard Evan’s book:
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Third-Reich-Richard-Evans/dp/0143034693/ref=pd_sim_b_11
as a great historical review of that period.
Yeah. Better than your crappy-ass, incoherent questions deserved.
Only if that person is making it clear that s/he intends to act on those desires. Or is making it clear that s/he desires mental health services.
Golly, thanks. But many libertarians would say that while it’s ideal for parents to stop hitting their children, enforcing such an ideal with Government Force (the “menz with gunz” argument) is an intolerable abuse of government authority.
How big is too big? How fast is too fast?
Too much of what? Not enough of what?
Yes, you’re not a sociopathic jerkoff. That’s a good thing!
Both government and private entities are capable of corruption and abuse of power. Government, ideally, answers to the people. Private charities answer to donors. Government wins. Government, ideally, can utilize economies of scale to achieve as much efficiency as is possible and to reach as many people as possible. A patchwork of private charities is inherently less efficient and less capable of reaching people than government is. Again, government wins.
What is a “financial burden”? A high tax rate? But paying lots of taxes isn’t burdensome when one gets plenty of services in return.
The problem with libertarian “solutions” to such problems is that they conflate less government with better government. Sometimes more government is better. Sometimes less government is better. One has to deal with things one thing at a time, looking at all available evidence in the process. One of my big gripes with libertarians is that they ignore market externalities, whether positive or negative. The market well-suited to maximize efficiency for some things (smartphones, for example) but not for others (delivery of potable water, for example). I’m in favor of following the evidence, and evidence often contradicts libertarian ideology.
Matt Penfold @ 293;
Good point. I should have included that in my original post. If mental and physical health services were more effective, say by means of more comprehensive health care provision, then drug addiction would be that much more manageable.
Scratch the economic argumernt in favour of emprisonment of addicts.
QFT.
I’m sorry I haven’t read the whole thread yet but I have to say I disagree with this whole heartedly. You know why? I’ve been in several different shelters and worked with different programs and most of them are religious. I hated it. I still hate it. I have to sit and smile, nod and go along, pretend to be something I’m not. Not to mention the fact that the daycare they provide always includes trying to teach my child religion. I can’t say anything because I’m there for help and there will be repercussions to stand up, even if its just a chilly environment. Other religious people are fine, but no way is atheism acceptable.
I would love to at least have more secular places to help. I am a young single mother with disabled parents, I have dealt with all kinds of helpful places but having to have that shit forced down my child and I’s throat pisses me off.
Religion is the opiate for the masses, especially the poor and downtrodden. What about those of us down here that aren’t religious? Or the ones that don’t want to deal with religion? Do we not exist because our voices are limited? You speak of getting the government to help more, but I’ve dealt with the government safety net and let me tell you its practically non-fucking-existent. So while we fight for better government, and everyone knows that will take awhile, why don’t we follow through with our values and try to actually fucking help?
Well, the economics part is the ONLY thing that distinguishes libertarianism from liberalism, or lefty thought in general.
So sorry, but if you want to defend libertarianism, you MUST be willing and ready to defend its batshit crazy economic ideas. Because that really is the defining characteristic of libertarianism, at least in the USA.
I’m sort of intrigued that everyone imagines the worst possible libertarian boogeyman here. It’s like libertarian = Objectivist in everyone’s mind. Which is of course wrong. There are many, many strands. I wouldn’t identify as libertarian myself (for example, I think the government does a far better job than private resources at providing health care), but I’m sympathetic to the cause.
At any rate, to try to rescue Noahpoah’s (was that it?) point, let’s get rid of this idea of “desert,” because I agree it’s stupid to think that some people don’t somehow “deserve” to be helped. But isn’t it possible, and isn’t there in fact evidence to support the idea, that direct held will not in fact help people? That some people may need to learn to support themselves and can’t do that if there’s a constant wellspring of support?
I’m sort of intrigued that everyone imagines the worst possible libertarian boogeyman here. It’s like libertarian = Objectivist in everyone’s mind.
“This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them”
scroll up to 288 to see why I quoted that.
There are many, many strands.
WHICH IS WHY IT IS SUCH A USELESS LABEL FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL VERSION.
so, if you’re not an economic libertarian, in the anarchic-capitalist sense, STOP LABELING YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN.
fucking useless distraction.
I have a question for the libertarians here. Does this comic (save for its rather weird ideas on science in some areas, let’s just ignore them) reflect your thinking on a libertarian utopia?
I’ve enjoyed reading it as a comic, but I was always flabbergasted at how people could ever believe a human society would actually work like that. And this is an honest question, but I gotta tell you, to me libertarianism is as flawed as communism because it makes some pretty fatal miscalculations about human nature…
oops, here’s the linky
http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=1
That some people may need to learn to support themselves and can’t do that if there’s a constant wellspring of support?
NO.
what is says is that you are unable to differentiate “help” from just the word “money” in and of itself.
sometimes proper help COSTS money, but isn’t represented by money, in and of itself.
IOW, the idea that social welfare programs are just throwing money at poor people who then become dependent on it…
is FICTION.
so, get real, and stop playing to the fiction.
If this is true, then we should be supporting job training/adult education programs instead of just booting people off of the welfare rolls.
However, talking about job training in this economy* isn’t really going to help people in the short term. Plus, there’s plenty of unemployed people who have college degrees and wouldn’t benefit as much from education programs. So, in the meantime, just fucking provide for people.
*I’ve heard unemployment figures anywhere between 9% (gov’t estimate) and 16% (“real” unemployment).
Your concern is note.
d
If this
isWERE true, then we should be supporting job training/adult education programs instead of just booting people off of the welfare rolls.sorry, but, fixed.
it isn’t true, but merely a fiction projected by the ignorant, and by people who want to push their buttons for political gain.
you know, in fact, that there ARE indeed programs targeted towards training and education programs.
but, these can’t exist in a vacuum. You can’t learn before you eat.
this is the thing that self-proclaimed libertarians always seem to forget.
Fuck you.
I for one am having trouble understanding why the unhelpability of certain people has any bearing on whether government should be involved in at least trying to help them or not. Are they going to become magically helpable once they realize that it’s not The Man trying to offer them rehabilitation, substance abuse treatment, and job training? How does that work?
I call myself a libertarian (I will ready myself to dodge the incoming rotten fruit), and I would basically agree with the premise. If we agree that people being desperately poor and disenfranchised is a problem (which I think you’d have to) then we have to agree that it’s good to help them out. The question of debate, if I’m honest, is whether central government is the best vehicle to achieve the aim.
But, I mean, yeah – helping people when you can is good, that’s what enabled humans to flourish. I like immigrants and don’t care if they have papers(if free trade in goods is good, then free trade in labor must be), I think it’s weird and stupid to care what other people do in their bedrooms and can’t see why a secular institution like civil marriage should be limited to male/female couples. I think too many damn things are crimes, and that we ought to let consenting adults put whatever recreational substances they want into their bodies. And while we’re at it we should work to make the joke of a legal system we have a lot less racist (because it totally is). We should also be pulling out of all of our wars because they kill people for no good reason and cost a lot.
But on the other hand, I think people should pretty much be allowed to keep the fruits of their labors and that we don’t get anywhere by trying to soak the upper 1% of income earners because we envy them or think they don’t deserve to be rich. Although a progressive income tax is probably the most fair way to fund the government. I’m also against all regulation of political speech because if I want to buy an ad three days before the election and anonymously call a candidate “the semilitarate troglodyte son of a backwards goat-hearding whore” I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to. Or if you want to stand around on Wall St. calling for an end to corporate greed, everybody ought to leave you alone to do that. I mean, my basic position is that you should be able to do what you like so long as everybody involved is a consenting adult and it doesn’t harm anybody else. And that whether or not we agree on the way to do it, it’s probably good to help people out when they need it.
Fuck you.
yeah, I can grok that as a succinct response.
It simply bypasses all the explanations, already written and readily available to self professed libertarians, umpteen times over hundreds of years, and just getting to what will inevitably be the only logical reaction to complete willful ignorance.
it’s not a random insult, not even an irrational emotional response.
it merely states the inevitable:
those who are willfully ignorant and assume they can debate the future of society should indeed just FUCK OFF.
Ichthy:
Of course. I wasn’t advocating the Clinton welfare-to-work bullshit, but I was unclear.
As I said, it’s all completely moot anyway, since right now it doesn’t matter how much education or training you have, the jobs just don’t exist.
I will ready myself to dodge the incoming rotten fruit
too late.
you got hit as soon as you mis-used the label to describe yourself.
I mean, why bother thinking about what a label really means, when you can identify yourself with a group, right?
phht.
so tired of this shit.
too late.
you got hit as soon as you mis-used the label to describe yourself.
———————–
So what you’re saying is that, because I’m not an objectivist, I ought to describe myself…how exactly? Like I said, I’d say “minarchist” usually.
Maybe I’ll say “I’m a nonvoter with some classical-liberal tendencies and a penchant for reading JS Mill on the weekends.” I mean, it’s longer, but it will apparently stop the barrage of fruit.
Of course. I wasn’t advocating the Clinton welfare-to-work bullshit, but I was unclear.
I know, it’s just that I don’t want to pretend, even rhetorically, that there is any accuracy to the idea as espoused by the person you were originally responding to.
yeah, I shouldn’t bother with any thread with the word “libertarian” in the title, since in the end, the ignorance inevitably shown by those labelling themselves as such is the only thing that ends up being argued against, and it’s always the same argument.
It irritates in exactly the same way as it does when a creationist comes in and entirely ignores not all of science, but what even was written in the very thread they respond in, and as soon as that one is set straight, another pops in to replace it, with EXACTLY THE SAME ignorant arguments.
it’s just too bloody irritating to me any more.
So what you’re saying is that, because I’m not an objectivist, I ought to describe myself…how exactly?
try with your actual arguments first?
why label yourself as something you’re not?
how does that do anything but confuse the issue?
… to end with, I would add that even PZ’s use of the term “libertarian” in the OP is nothing but bait.
so, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see what it caught.
Well, labels can be helpful in setting an easy starting point. And I’d say that of common, easy to use then modify political labels “libertarian” is closest. Still, perhaps, not all that accurate, but closest.
Plus given the thread title I wanted to say that, yes, there are some people who would under most circumstances say that they tended libertarian and also think that helping people through local institutions is good.
But what is charity to a libertarian? From my chats with them, charity definitely doesn’t mean feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless. It means donating to anti tax or to gun rights causes. Helping those who can’t help themselves just doesn’t rate with most libertarians.
Prove a 38% tax rate is soaking the rich. It used to be 96%, which I would agree is soaking. It also meant a smaller differential in salaries between CEOs and shop floor workers, which is also good.
I ask libertarians to do this a lot, but I suppose I’ll do it again:
Can any of you libertarians point me at a country/state/providence/whatever that both 1) Has policies that are more in line with what you want and 2) has better objective results than what we (the USA) have? Because when I look at other countries that do things well (like in health care or education), I see countries that are even more socialized than the USA is. Are there counter examples that I’m missing or am overlooking due to conformation bias?
However, if there are no such countries/etc, how can anyone assert that privatization is better than socialization?
Do you have any clue as to how much the “upper 1%” earn? Of course you don’t, you’re an economic illiterate like most libertarians. Instead of a long, drawn out essay on how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and you libertarians think this is a grand idea, I’ll leave you with one minor fact. Billionaire Ross Perot pays less tax than his secretary. Aren’t you proud?
Wish I could help you PZ. I grew up an atheist libertarian. I read Ayn Rand, and preached the gospel of selfishness. Of course, I was isolated with a small group of like minded people who reinforced each others preconceptions.
After 9/11, the internet, and the 4 atheist horsemen, I was thrust into a nation, or even world wide, movement. I had all of my preconceptions challenged. I had to try and defend my positions on a myriad of topics. It was slowly revealed to me that my libertarianism was a dogma, a belief system that I held onto without real evidence.
Faced with the statistics from nations like Norway, Finland and Japan, I had to conceded that having a national government that would progressively tax their citizens and provide for the basic welfare of all its people, the average life of all people will be improved.
Sorry, libertarianism is severely flawed. Im now a liberal progressive.
@29, miller;
I’ve always thought that statistic likely skewed by the fact that conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals and the figures “given to charity” include what they toss into the offering plates at church.
I’d be very interested in seeing if, once you remove church donations from the mix, that “gives to charity” figure shifts strongly in the libs’ favor, as I suspect it might.
one aspect of that “conservatives give more than liberals” study that hasn’t been discussed is the degree to which liberals give to social justice causes which count as political rather than charity donations
– – – – –
noahpoah is a deranged, heartless little fuck who thinks everyone else is just s fucked up as they are. Evidence as follows:
It should be very thoroughly pointed out to this little fuck that in fact, not everyone is an asshole who will want to put addicts into prisons or is of the delusional opinion that it is helpful, much less necessary, to do so. Because doing so is fucking evil and counterproductive to society, in fact (and completely nonsensical from a libertarian POW, since prisoners are on “government welfare”; unless this fuck advocates private prisons, which would just make him an even bigger evil fuck, since private prisons have shown themselves to be little more than slave-rings)
– – – – – – –
Aetre’s self-description:
sounds like a bog-standard progressive to me.
– – – – – – –
Dtpeck’s silly post:
depends on the anarchists. Last I checked, left-wing anarchists want non-hierarchical self-government of communities, not no government.
incorrect. should be “negative individual rights”. What also should be noted is that such a position does not in fact increase people’s freedoms, since those are restrained not just by what we’re allowed to do but also by what we’re able to do.
that’s precisely the part that makes you “monsters”, in the sense of having a seriously fucked up morality: you put ideology above actual human wellbeing.
a statement generally made only by people who’ve never experienced significant hardships.
we do; what you fail to understand is that we’re not failing to understand your reasoning, but that we see that your premises from which you reason are harmful and/or factually incorrect.
this is thoroughly fascinating.
are you that confused about what a “need” is? It’s entirely possible to keep people from committing atrocities without killing them (by omission or commission), but you’re incapable of thinking of any? And you’re wondering why so many people here think libertarians are kind of sociopathic, when you produce thoughts like that?
a democratic-ish government? well, not a one of them has ever shown itself to be that heavy of a burden. OTOH, totalitarian regimes, absolute monarchies, and other non-participatory forms of government tend to be more of a burden than not. Kind of the way modern corporatism is.
modern libertarianism’s only distinct feature is its economic argument; progressives are generally civil libertarians, liberals are generally civil libertarians, even some conservatives (depending on the country) are civil libertarians. OTOH, some libertarians are not civil libertarians and are instead propertarians.
– – – – – –
minor correction of Ichthyic’s point:
desperate people tend to flock to drastic solutions offered by charismatic leaders; the particular flavor depends on the historical context and the preferences of that particular charismatic leader.
– – – –
I’ve yet to see any evidence that poor people who do not receive any government aid are statistically more likely to become productive than those who do receive government aid; and on an individual basis, I’ve not seen any evidence that it’s cheaper to carefully weed out those statistically rare individuals than to simply give everyone below a certain economic treschold whatever it is they need. I have however seen evidence against those positions.
Further, who will teach them how to support themselves, and make them capable of doing so when they’re suffering from addiction and other mental and physical problems?
– – – – –
strawman; and hilarious, considering “being allowed to keep the fruits of their labor” is pure Marxism and not at all reflected in laisses-faire capitalist societies in which most labor-fruit is redistributed upwards towards the already wealthy.
another moron who can’t tell the right to buy something from the right to say something. *sigh*
POW –> POV
:-p
And let’s not forget that this 38% is still pretty much the lowest in the entire civilized democratic world.
The top tax bracket for individuals here in Canada is, for example, around 45%.
Also remember that the vast majority of that 1% will have incorporated themselves, and the majority of their income will be taxed at the lower corporate rates.
I’m curious about whether the state could become enough of a financial burden to the society that it should be discarded in favor of the other way.
strangely, while I endlessly see glibertarians whinging about social welfare programs, I can’t recall ever seeing one whine about the largest, most expensive, most bloated single government entity ever created, which directly is responsible for more curtailments of personal liberty than any other single government institution created in any Western Republic in my 46 years of living.
I wonder if they can even guess what I’m talking about?
In a nutshell: yes. There seems to be much of a disconnect between what people believe libertarians want and what we actually do work towards. Believe it or not, we are not all wackos living in northern Idaho wearing aluminum foil caps. Some of us actually enjoy society. Most of us think the Tea Party is batshit insane. From my experience libertarians are no more or less supportive of safety net measures than the general public. The sticking point is whether such measures should be private (meaning voluntary) or government sanctioned (meaning forced). I give to various private charities on a fairly regular basis (I’m still a starving college student myself, unfortunately) and have contributed even more directly in the form of my own two hands. I’m happy to do so and think anyone else who considers themselves part of the human race should too. But I’m absolutely against being forced by ANYONE to contribute the same money/labor or even half of it. And in the end, to understand the libertarian mindset, that is all you truly have to bear in mind: voluntary donation is charity – forced donation is theft. The other concept about which is more effective and reliable is a separate argument, though Hurricane Katrina should have proven in spades that the answer is NOT more tax dollars funneled into a bureaucratic black hole. So just to beat this dead horse one more time, it is not a matter of the end result. We all seem to be in agreement here that helping other Homo sapiens is a good thing. The question is how do we arrive at this point: by coercion or by free will?
matt – So letting an asshole, who has benefited greatly from the society the rest of us contribute to, get a free ride on contributing back is OK with you?
Also, as noted above in the thread, in times of general hardship (like, oh say, now) donations to private charities of all kinds drop drastically, because people are too busy keeping their own heads above water to have much to give. If the government is not providing some sort of safety net or support, what prevents the death spiral?
Snort.. If you play wrong, people just won’t let you play. Which people? What stops a group of people deciding they like to cheat, and using those guns to “force” everyone else to conform? What if one of the people is the guy that owns the gun shop, or the only place that can make it, or..
The biggest problem with anarchies comes down to the fact that, at some point, you do need to agree, not just on the rules, but the penalties, and Bam!, there you get a damn government, of some sort. All the other BS in that comic, stems from this one single failure in understanding. The assumption that, somehow, you can get thousands of people, with nothing in common, to all agree on the rules, versus, say, the imaginary situation in the comic, where everyone has no damn choice but follow some basic rules, or the whole damn lot of them will end up dead in a week anyway. Its still government, just not “official”. And I guess that is what matters, if you are a delusional fuck wit, that wants to pretend there isn’t a government. lol
This one I really don’t comprehend. I mean how bloody clueless do you have to be to not get these basic principles:
1. People on drugs, especially the harder ones, can’t think straight and do stupid shit that will hurt “other people”.
2. Some people are “far” more susceptible to this than others, and the margin between those that are, and those that can “handle it”, is like 500 that can’t, to every one that mostly can. And, those later, won’t keep taking it anyway, since it doesn’t frakking effect them enough to be worth taking it in the first place.
3. Drugs alter brain chemistry, especially in those vast majority that are effected, and that means you have to take more, and more often, to get the same result, the longer you take them.
4. The consequence of 2 and 3 is that the only “sane” way to handle people taking “just any old drug they want” is to either keep them away from everyone else, or **find a way to make them stop taking it**.
The latter is a problem though. It requires understanding what, and why, the drugs do what they do. It requires recognizing that the problem isn’t solvable by simply running campaigns about “just say no”, as though those 500 addicts will just magically either never try it, or magically stop, just like the 1 person that *can* do so (and, it always seems to be this joker that thinks we don’t need to do anything about people taking recreational drugs). It also requires actually knowing how to either stop them working, undo the damage, or, if you are actually going to let people take them, what needs to be done to keep them running people over in cars, going on bad trips, in which they hurt/kill other people, or getting stoned at the job, and burning down the damn building, among other things.
If someone argued for it being nonsense to arrest people screwing in public, my reaction would be, “Well, that is amusing, but unlikely to be overturned.”, but someone saying, “It shouldn’t be anyone else’s business how fucked up you make your life taking crack (along with the health issues, risks to others, lack of productivity, possible crimes associated with getting it, etc.)!”, that person needs professional help, and possibly a bloody drug test, if not both. And, anyone that imagines that a government willing to allow some drug use is not going to be laughing their ass off at anyone suggesting you can find a way to make some drugs “safe enough” to allow people to take them…. is either completely ignorant of biochemistry, a druggy themselves, or not the brightest bulb in the box of, “these don’t fit in anything we own”, box.
Matt’s only objection really just boils down to, “You can’t MAKE me!”
Like someone said upthread, libertarianism is a temper tantrum on a societal scale.
Such errant nonsense. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that it’s useful to have actual professionals, rather than political hacks, in positions of bureaucratic power.
What did Hurricane Irene demonstrate, Matt?
I’m here waiting for the federal government to get its fucking shit together so they can disburse funds so that the company that wants to hire me to help with the cleanup can get started with the cleanup.
This is not evidence that Government Is Bad. It is evidence that unprofessional hacks in government being corrupt and fucking with people’s lives is bad.
Can you see the distinction?
I consider myself to be politically libertarian, and I fully endorse atheists as a social group being more charitable. I’m part of an atheist group at my law school’s undergrad that tries to do regular charity work, which I wholeheartedly endorse.
I used to be absolutely confounded by the libertarian stereotype. My family’s not particularly well-off, and I have never been able to care much about money outside of living with reasonable comfort. And then I met what could be considered “Randroids” (despite personally liking a fair amount of her principles, if not her application of them), or those who seem to use liberty-oriented principles in order to justify being mindlessly self-absorbed. I admit that some of them are unbearable. I don’t dislike “big government” because it hurts me in any way, but that I don’t think that, in many situations, I have the right to demand everyone else act according to my desires.
The entire premise behind libertarianism is a society based, as much as reasonably possible, on voluntary interaction. Charity is a voluntary effort towards benefiting society, or at least a subgroup of such. I can’t think of anything more principally libertarian than trying to help society ourselves instead of complaining to the government.
There are plenty of self-absorbed libertarians (especially self-labeled “Objectivists” who would be more bearable if they didn’t try to copy Rand’s ridiculous rhetoric as well), just like there are self-absorbed liberals and conservatives — and atheists. They are tools. But just like “atheists” do not all fall under one type of personality or beliefs, neither do libertarians. I would think more people from such a staunch atheist community would be better capable of understanding that, considering how prevalent stereotypes against atheists are.
Let me help. Nothing. Why? Because if you created a “fund”, run by some group, private or otherwise, to handle those situations, you then need a board, to watch to make sure its used right, some sort of system to make sure the amount going in is sufficient to fund any relief that may be needed, and you have to do *all* of that, **before** you need the money. The inevitable result, in “private” hands is that either people stop donating, or kill the fund, since its not used, and the money could be “used better some place else”, or, when the real problem arrives, there isn’t enough to do anything with, and no one willing, or possibly able, to add in more, to handle the excess expense, which suddenly became necessary.
In short, a private one would ****fail****. And, of course, in a libertarian world, electing people to figure this shit out, paying them to determine how to set up such things, allowing them the power to borrow/lend money, to handle the situation, etc., well, that is just great, as long as you don’t also give them ***any*** ability to charge people a subscription fee, or enforce anything, in any way, if someone defaults on that “voluntary” obligation. Its really quite simple, if you don’t wan to pay taxes, don’t volunteer to live under the government, whose license agreement says you have to pay a subscription fee, if you want to receive ***any*** of the benefits of doing so, from military protection, to courts, to help when in trouble.
If you want to live in the US, and receive “anything” from doing so, you are, defacto, “volunteering” to help pay for it, with fees. And those fees are no different than your credit card agreement, or your monthly subscription to the XBox servers. If you believe otherwise, then… obviously you will pay back the government for all the services you have used, and stop asking for any more, right Matt?
I might believe that voluntary private charity is more effective than the government at helping the needy when insurance companies can offer free basic coverages to those unable to afford them without going out of business because customers are flocking to lower rates at companies that don’t do this.
if I guessed correctly, I’ve seen some do it, but always with the conviction that if only there were no government, similar entities would simply be impossible and would never arise organically; which, historically speaking, doesn’t seem to be the case. (in fact, historically, the existence of said government entity seems to have been an attempt at limiting the coercive power and influence of those organically existing entities).
if I guessed incorrectly, this post will make no sense whatsoever.
In short, I would give Matt’s type the same advice you get from say SOE, or Microsoft, or anyone else, in the non-government, private sector, would give them:
“If you don’t like the game, stop playing, cancel your subscription, and go someplace else, or if you try to cheat us, we *will* take you to court over it. Otherwise, if you have something constructive, such as suggestions for improvement of our services, please post to the forum, or talk to one of our representatives about your concerns.”
The result of talking to the government may even suck just as bad as talking to SOE about a bug that hasn’t been fixed in 10 years, but at least, unlike them, you won’t find them deciding they don’t want to keep supporting Ohio one day, or something, rolling up all the streets and highways, closing all government offices, and cutting off all services. I mean, how many subscribers to Democracy2.45Beta are there anyway? Is it really worth it to keep supporting them?
That is “private industry” logic, isn’t it?
When you get down to it, good government is really nothing more than a symbol for a group of people achieving together what they cannot alone. While our government often fails to live up to the ideals set forth in the beginning, those ideals are still valid. I don’t blame a government set up to be for and by the people. I blame those who began chipping away at the Constitution, almost before the ink was dry. Whether they do so out of malice or expediency matters little to me. What matters is that they’ve been successful. Now we have a system whereby one can’t get elected dog-catcher without either being independently wealthy, or having ties to some (usually nefarious) special-interest group. We have a populace, many of whom find it easier to listen to whatever “authority” caters most to their fears, rather than doing their own research, and getting involved in their own governance. Until this changes, nothing else will.
hints:
the organization I’m talking about is only a decade old.
it employs over 200 thousand people DIRECTLY within the department, and an additional 2 MILLION as “first responders”.
this does not count the near endless indirect employees and contractors it hires.
this year, it was allocated a budget of around 100 billion US dollars.
compare to all of Health and Human services at 80 billion.
or the entire department of Education at 70 billion.
this organization is also considered to be:
“the most substantial reorganization of federal agencies since the National Security Act of 1947, which placed the different military departments under a secretary of defense and created the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency.”
yeah, so tell me again about how bloated and ridiculous social services is.
oh, that one. nevermind my last post, then.
oh, that one. nevermind my last post, then.
yeah, I think the one you were thinking of had a budget of about 750 billion this year?
I figured I would give that one to the glibs, since they always claim it as the only “true” useful function of government anyway.
Matt’s take just tickles me.
“From my experience libertarians are no more or less supportive of national defence measures than the general public. The sticking point is whether such measures should be private (meaning voluntary) or government sanctioned (meaning forced). I stand watch at my apartment window every day with a swiss knife, and once a week I patrol around the neighborhood. With my own two hands.“
The entire premise behind libertarianism is a society based, as much as reasonably possible, on voluntary interaction.
ah, the naivete of the undergraduate.
it burns.
Normally PZ can’t mention libertarians without aiming a few good kicks at our collective testicles (sorry don’t mean to be sexist but I couldn’t think of a good equivalent for female libertarians). So if this is his way of extending an olive branch I’ll gladly return the gesture. Yes, I’m a libertarian. But I also try to be self aware and I realize many libertarians take our position to unfeasible extremes. I think libertarianism works best if it is sort of a default starting position for policy-making. In other words, my idealized libertarian government behaves in a way that restricts individual freedom as little as possible, while still fulfilling its mandates. Those might include protecting the environment, keeping the peace, insuring safe workplaces, maintaining international security and national defense, etc. Whenever there’s good evidence that government action would be better than market forces, or whenever government inaction would endanger general public or result in excessive suffering, those are cases where I feel comfortable letting the government intervene. Maybe that makes me more of a utilitarian than a libertarian? All I know is that leftists seem too quick to put the common good ahead of the rights of the individual, and conservatives won’t even recognize that individuals have rights in cases where some revered authority (usually god) has declared they don’t, or where extending rights would somehow upset the status quo. See sex, drugs, youth, other races, homosexuals, women, and more for examples.
So I guess my answer to PZ’s question is no. No I don’t think atheism needs to be liberalized because I am ok with social services being handled by the government. At least, I’m ok with it as long as two conditions are met. One, there must exist good evidence that government can manage the social safety net better than private organizations. And two, at least give token consideration to the rights of the individual and try to tread softly. Just try, that’s all I can ask.
We already have such a society.
It’s called liberal democracy.
I really should have said something like “tank in my backyard” and not “knife at my window” for my post at 363. It’s not like the impressiveness (or lack thereof) of an individual’s contribution is relevant. Way to miss my own point.
Funny how you libertarians show absolutely no evidence to back up this unsubstantiated claim, that private charities can do a better job for all people, especially when the economy goes sour and the donations dry up. Not to mention universal coverage versus those who are “worthy”. I wonder why that is. The same reason that many of us consider libertarianism a theology…
Not really been paying much attention have you ? Private provision has been tried, and it was not a success. Yet when governments took over thins improved. Education levels increased, infant mortality decreased, life expectancy increased. In short, every measure used to measure the well-being of a society showed improvement.
Of course some governments did more than others. Those that did more got better results.
It is an article of faith among many libertarians that everything a government touches automatically and instantly turns to shit but if a private organization does exactly the same thing in exactly the same way then universal peace will break out, there’ll be a chicken in every pot, and the darkies will sing in the fields all the live-long day.
Yes I do. People should absolutely help people. Not through force and coercion, but through voluntary compassion.
Speaking as a mildly confused Libertarian Democrat*, I would much rather see “agnostic” charitable organizations than charities that are tied to specific religious viewpoints. I don’t want the local soup kitchen to be theist OR atheist – just effective. So, from that position, I want to see more atheists involved in all sorts of charities, but I want atheist groups to be tightly-focused, single-issue organizations.
So, in essence, I find the question poorly constructed and can’t really get behind either stated alternative.
As for the issue raised earlier about private charities being able to pick and choose…I think that’s a good thing that can be abused. Yes, the KKK could donate to a group that snubs blacks…but I think any charity needs the ability to cut off freeloaders. Transparency and knowledgeable donation practices should help all around; getting funded by known racist groups will tend to chase off nonracists, and using donations to help people who don’t need or squander the help marks the group as inefficient or ineffective.
* Quick summary: IMO, the Tea Party is a GOP sock puppet, the GOP is a sock puppet of both greedy rich pricks and sanctimonious religious jerks, and while I share the stated GOP view that government should be small and effective, I find them completely incompetent at implementing that position. My main objection is to any institution of excessive size, whether public or private. I am a libertarian by ethical preference (I think; at least, I have been), but a political Democrat by process of elimination. I also quite specifically disagree with the notion that we can do away with government; we need it for some things, and it is the most logical choice for other things.
Taxes aren’t force and coercion, they are part of being in a society that provides common goods and services. Only an ideologue would claim taxes are coercion.
Freeloaders must be libertarians, who take advantage all they can. And you still haven’t shown, except by jingoism, that private charities can do the job for all the people…
Libertarians don’t have ethics. They have jingos.
Every one is a freeloader to someone else. I work for the federal government and I recieve a VA pension. Am I a freeloader? Who gets to make the decision as to who qualifies as a freeloader? What if a group decides that all blacks and hispanics are freeloaders and therefore they are all cut off?
If charity should be able to cut off “freeloaders”, what the fuck is the point of charity, then? This sounds an awful lot like “god helps those who help themselves”.
And no matter how you put it, this attitude is still disgusting.
Force and coercion? A bit of an overstatement.
And don’t you notice how naive that sounds?
I mean:
People should absolutely stop scamming people. Not trough force and coercion, but trough voluntary compassion.
People should absolutely stop killing other people. Not trough force and coercion, but trough voluntary compassion.
@374: You keep using the word “jingo” – I do not think it means what you think it means.
@375: A pension is a benefit you’ve paid into and earned. No freeloading there. As for your job, I specifically denounced the Tea Party and the GOP. That means I’m not one of those twits who think government jobs are somehow not “real” jobs. If you do work and get paid for it, that’s a job, no matter who’s signing the paycheck.
@375, @376: By “freeloading” I refer specifically to the practice of taking charity when you aren’t needy. A freeloader is perfectly capable of working but chooses to take money from others instead. Note that I am in no way saying or implying anything remotely like “everyone on welfare is a slacker who could get a job if they just got off their ass” – but it would be foolish to deny that there are such people. Charitable organizations must be able to recognize such behavior and stop helping such people, in exactly the same way that if a friend loses his job, you’ll let him stay with you for a little while – but if he’s not making an effort to get back on his feet, you’re eventually going to kick him out. That’s the whole point of effective charity; it should go to the needy, not the lazy. And Audley, if you find that disgusting…do you endorse corporate welfare? That’s exactly the sort of “freeloading” I mean, just by an organization instead of an individual.
Not sure if this comment has already been made, but the reason that Red States and conservative blocs show up as being more charitable is that church donations are included in the tabulations. If you tithe with your church or turn over your life savings to your preacher, you are counted as thousands of times more charitable than someone who volunteers 15 hours a week at a homeless shelter, or who writes a dozen $50 cheques per year to friends in walk-a-thons.
That would include the wealthiest Americans who have gotten massive public subsidies (tax cuts paid for thorugh loans), every fossil-fuel and nuclear energy company, almost every investment company, everyone who has ever sold stocks or bonds at a profit, etc. Which would also include my pension. And would include the financial aid my kids recieve to help defray the cost of college. And can also be used to deny benefits to anyone who is fill-in-the-blank or has ever used fill-in-the-blank. Again, it comes down to the question of who gets to decide who is a freeloader, who actually needs the help, who is worthy of aid. You think that private individuals and charities will be more fair and more objective than non-partisan civil servants (non-partisan in the job, they can still participate in the political process)?
I’ve always wondered about the mentioning of those lazy people scamming welfare or charities. What do libertarians imagine happens to those people when they’re removed from welfare roles? do you think they stop being lazy scammers?
(and don’t start with corporate welfare, that’s a red herring in this conversation)
It means you repeat nonsense like it is meaningful in place of real evidence. Like evidence that private charities can do the job in a real economic downturn better than government at the moment. What is it with libertarians and lack of citations in their posts? Almost like all they have is theological/ideological talking points, or jingos.
Good job, RevBob. No one is talking about corporate welfare, which by the way, has fuck all to do with charitable giving.
Do you have a point?
@381: Lazy scammers come up in discussions of private vs. public assistance precisely because that’s a key difference between the two methods. Smaller groups are better able to detect scam artists and stop giving them money, which usually counts as an advantage for private groups. Asking whether the scammer repents is a different matter entirely, and one not relevant to that discussion.
@382:
And so you prove me correct; you have no idea what the word means. The rarely-seen noun “jingo” denotes an adherent of jingoism (not a talking point), and jingoism is an extreme, warlike form of nationalism. People fond of slapping flag stickers on their cars and saying “America – love it or leave it” while denouncing Teh Ghey and attending tea parties…those are jingoists, who could also be called jingoes. (The plural form properly has an “e.”)
Dictionaries are your friends. So are facts. Wide brushes, not so much.
Precisely. So why call yourself a libertarian? It’s pretty rare to find a libertarian who will admit that the free market can’t take care of everything, and is willing to look at the evidence to find out which things are best taken care of by the government or the free market. In fact, you’re the first one I’ve met.
I suggest you stop calling yourself a libertarian and call yourself a utilitarian instead. It would be far more accurate, and it would also have the benefit of no longer giving cover to the majority of libertarians, who tend to put ideology ahead of evidence and human well-being.
Really, do you have evidence for this assertion, that scammers prefer to scam the government rather than private charities because it’s so much easier to scam the government?
In any case, that’s the first concrete suggestion I’ve seen so far as to why private charities are superior to government funded welfare. On the other hand, the government has economies of scale and better access to the populations that are in need.
Increased ability to detect scammers is only a major advantage if scammers are numerous and create a major drag on the system. Is there any evidence that this is the case?
@383: I certainly do have a point. If you go back and reread my comments, it is possible that you might even detect it…
Here’s a hint: for any charitable organization, the ability to discern need and say “no” is not simply desirable. It is a necessary survival skill. An organization that gives money to anyone who asks soon finds itself out of money and lacking donors; it then ceases to exist. The parallel between corporate welfare and the lazy friend is that both cases rely on a lack of discernment. Neither the company nor the slacker actually needs the handout.
This.
The reason we probably don’t give as much is that we don’t need to. I’m from one of those ooohh-high-tax-European-wellfare-state-countries (give our politicians a few more years and we won’t be anymore).
Just as an example:
I pay between 7 and 19% VAT on everything I buy. From the baby’s diapers, over the pasta and minced meat, to the T-shirt and the flat-screen TV. On top of the normal income tax, of course, and the “health tax*”, and the pension trust (mandatory) and unemployment insurance.
That money subisidizes things like public healthcare. So I don’t have to cough up some extra money for charity if somebody who’s poor becomes sick. I don’t have to join a charity that collects money so women can have mamographies. If you’re a woman of a certain age you get a nice invitation every two years to have one, free of charge. I don’t have to support Planned Parenthood so that young girls get access to a OB/gyn and birth control.
Of course, I don’t get to feel good about the amount of VAT I can see on my shopping bill. Not paying 5€ and then putting 2€ into a collector’s box would feel muuuuch better, but if I see how my American friends are struggeling, I’m actually much happier just paying the bills.
Those numbers would only mean something if they would take out of the American number all those things that are covered by wellfare in France, Germany and the UK. Numbers that compared donations to international causes would mean more.
To compare:
Private donations for Haiti from Germany: 195 million € (about 250 m $), population: 80 million
Private donations from the USA: about 425 m $ (that was the highest number I found)
*Not really a tax, I will elaborate the system if you ask
Erm, which government gives money to everyone who asks? I’d like to move there.
I only made it through about half the comments, so I apologise if I’m repeating a point that someone else has already made.
I find the whole “we only know what private charities did in the past” thing to be highly disingenuous. That may apply to the U.S., but we have a great deal of data on this from other sections of the planet.
We have a perfect example of what happens when there is little government interference with corporations and when people depend on church and private charities to help countless needy people: large sections of the continent of Africa.
Multiple U.S. corporations have been accused and/or taken to court for bribing various African governments, stealing national resources without permission, destruction of property and of land/water needed for food production, illegally seizing property for their own purposes, illegally polluting public water and food supplies, illegally supplying guns to thugs who then use them on protesters…the list goes on.
So yes, restricting the U.S. government’s control of corporations sounds like a great plan, doesn’t it? Because those corporations are just so good at policing themselves when they know a government can’t force them to do anything or restrict their actions.
As for charities: private and church charities cannot keep up with the level of human suffering. How many hundreds of thousands of people are currently starving to death in the Horn of Africa because they’ve been driven away from their land by both tribal warfare and governmental idiocy, and there’s not enough money to get food to them all? How many people are dying from lack of medical care because Doctors without Borders can’t be everywhere at once? How many people are living in refugee camps because they’ve been driven away from their homes, and how many of them actually get food every day? Religious charities let people suffer and die unless they convert – which is their right, right?
And this is with people donating countless sums of money to private charities AND with various world governments donating as well. But it can’t work because too many people keep getting driven away from land that could be used for food production…and they won’t get to go home unless the wars stop. Which won’t happen because governments and corporations make so much more profit from war and instability. Which leads us back to government regulation of corporations…which libertarians oppose. So I guess Africa can just suck it…right, guys?
Private/church-based charities are not sufficient, especially if we review their inadequacy when presented with large crises. I agree that the U.S. government in particular doesn’t always respond well to a crisis, but at least it takes care of and protects more people than private/church charities do…and that whole National Guard thing is handy as well. It’s more efficient to donate money to a large system that can handle multiple crises than it is to donate to small charities that get overwhelmed and then cannot help those in need.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s look at an opposite example: Finland. High taxes and a high level of governmental “interference”. Ridiculously low crime and poverty rates. Education is free up through the college level. Everyone has access to health care. It has an elected government responsible directly to its people. Finns contribute heavily to the arts and sciences. Everyone is free to do whatever they want, including starting up their own businesses, and they can depend on the legal system to treat them all equally under the law. Religion does not play a very large role in their lives.
Yes, what a fucking nightmare that must be.
I never made any assertion whatsoever about who scammers prefer to target, or why such a preference might exist. As such, I feel no compulsion to support either point.
You introduce several telling qualifiers here, under the apparent belief that I intended yet somehow neglected to state them. However, I’ll play along for a moment…
Yes, there is such evidence. Witness the prevalent “welfare queen” meme that comes up in every single political discussion of the social safety net, and the effect it has of either slowing growth or enabling cuts. If that’s not a “major drag on the system” that is precisely due to an insufficient ability to detect scammers, then what WOULD you say qualifies as one?!
(not an expert but) most scammers, by definition, aren’t lazy. They tend to put a lot of time and effort into running their scams to maximize their take, much like other kinds of predators. The point being, detecting and preventing scammers takes different criteria than judging whether applicants are worthy or not (“lazy”) in the first place. Making aid accessible and simple, for instance, allows more truly needy people to find it and utilize it; putting up barriers screens out some of the desperate and hopeless, but won’t stop determined scammers.
Hang on… RevBob just cited a MEME as EVIDENCE?? Scuse me while I ROFLMAO…
noahpoah
You mean like giving sex ed, pap smears and contraception to people? Or poisoning them with those nasty vaccines? Or treating black people?
Of course, you would probably give to them exactly because of this, but not everybody does.
So, please tell me:
Why should the economically powerfull be allowed to impose their morals, values and judgement onto the question who gets what from charity?
Why should the allocation of those resources be depending on the whims of those people instead of actual needs and the best possible outcome?
Especially given the demographics of wealth.
And just how true is the meme? Evidence needed, not slogans, and political bullshit. Real and solid evidence. Why can’t you supply evidence? Oh yes, you don’t have any…
@393: Read closer, lackwit. It may take you a few more tries, but eventually you should see that I cited the observable effect of that meme on funding as evidence, not the mere existence of the meme.
But, hey – who cares about reading comprehension? As long as you can ratchet up the heat without having to think, it’s all good, amirite?
Not just a meme, but an ancient and discredited meme. Sheesh.
source
source
And 99% of those lazy poor people have refrigerators! How dare they!
DailyKos article with John Stewart transcript
This is RevBob talking:
If anything, the observable effect of that meme on funding, even forty years later, just demonstrates that people are clueless about judging who is and isn’t worthy of receiving welfare because they’re willing to believe any racist, classist, sexist, biased, victim-blaming crap that comes along. This is an argument for culling the unworthy how?
Is charitable funding limited? Sure. Is it more limited because of scammers stealing from below, or because of slashing funding from above?
You’ve got this backwards.
You need evidence that private organizations are even capable of managing a social safety net AT ALL. Because they had their chance to do this back before the government even got involved in the issue, and they failed miserably. Their failure was the PRIMARY REASON democratic governments were compelled, by the demands of their suffering peoples, to get into the social safety net “business” in the first place.
The government’s the only game in town. You want private organizations to get back into the game, you need evidence that their capabilities have changed and improved enough in the intervening time that they now actually have means and capacities to even have a chance of fulfilling that mandate.
Translation: I think you are a bad dog. I don’t care why you fuck up every time, don’t start telling me about your hard childhood or the wholes the drugs ate into your brain. Just fuck off and die, literally.
And they wonder why they’re seen as heartless scumbags greeted with hostility by humanists.
I admit I’m a bit confused about these “personal rights” Libertarians are so adamant about. What exactly would these be?
One thing I don’t get. Let’s take lots and lots of steps back, and accept that scammers are a huge problem of government provided social programs, and also assume that okay, some people really do not deserve help at all, how is that an argument against government provided social program, instead of an argument for making better assessment process? To distinguish scammers/non-deserving people, you would need a process for it even if your program is provided by charity, how is that different for a government program? This just does not follow.
RevBob:
Okay, yeah charities should be discerning– Doctors Without Borders shouldn’t be handing out microloans to impoverished farmers.
But this is exactly why we shouldn’t rely on charities to provide the social safety net. They can be a discerning as they want to be*, as long as the government provides for everyone who needs it.
And “welfare queen”? Spare me. The welfare queen argument works because people are selfish and have a need to feel like they’re better, harder working, and more moral than those dirty poors. It works because people don’t want to believe that they are just one medical emergency away from bankrupcy or one missed payment away from losing their home.
*Think of the Salvation Army here. You can’t get help from them unless you attend their church.
Sally Strange
Ask the British how they like their railways now.
Oh, “Wholes” in #399 should read “holes” of course.
How does keeping help from these people stop them from screwing over their family members, friends etc? They’re not going to be LESS abusive if they’re starving or broke or desperate. They’re not going to be LESS addicted if they’re living on the streets. If they hurt people, fine, get them put in a cell and/or a program where they can’t victimize anyone. Starving them isn’t going to make them better people.
@320: The term “libertarian” (libertaire) was first used as a political epithet by French anarchists in the latter part of the 19th century, so I think the “original” libertarians were probably not anarcho-capitalist. The American-style contemporary libertarians just appropriated the label to their own purposes. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Gladly you didn’t call for blog-owner regulation and rules and such things that would infringe on my right to call you a self-righteous tone-troll.
Free-market rule of out-compeeting tone trolls with posts of substance work pretty well
Speaking of that:
The rescent cuts in the German system of unemployment support actually shows how “generous” support actually benefits those that are working, because they shift the power balance into their direction.
Before, you had some benefits and guarantees. It’s not as they didn’t want to work, but they didn’t want to work for any amount of money.
Now, after a year, people are at risk of losing everything. So especially highly qualified, well-paid people like engineers or people working in PR suddenly found themselves in a position where everything they’d worked for the past 20 years, the house, the car, was at risk.
Well, you could argue that it’s not society’s job to make sure somebody can keep their 300.000 $ house, but as a result, employers could get away with much lower wages. Even though it’s only 50% of what they earned before, it is better than losing everything. Which adds and enormous amount of pressure on those who still earn a decent wage: they put up with a lot of shit, being threatened by the fact that there are people out there who work for less.
The right to own your own poverty. The right to die without adequate medical care. The right to starve to death without being a burden on the wealthy. The right to bargain one-on-one with a multi-national corporation on the health, safety and compensation minimums at your job.
I know in my (non-existent) heart of hearts that posting in this thread again is pointless, but I apparently just can’t help myself.
I want to try to make the point I was trying to make yesterday more clearly, using more carefully chosen words. I shouldn’t have used the words ‘deserve’ or ‘needy’ yesterday, for a variety of reasons. The word ‘deserve’ is too value-laden, and ‘needy’ connotes economic hardship. What I was trying to get at doesn’t even depend on ‘desert’ in any absolute sense, and applies to a much wider range of issues than economic poverty. I will attempt to say again what I was trying, unsuccessfully, to say yesterday, this time using words appropriate to the message.
The first thing I tried to say is that the question posed in the blog post is silly. There is no imaginable reason that a libertarian would have a problem with atheists voluntarily deciding to give charitably or provide community and a social support network. If you have a hard time understanding this, then you are either unable or unwilling to understand libertarianism.
I was challenged on my original post, from a variety of angles. In one of my responses, I tried to argue against the idea that social safety nets have, or should have, the goal of helping every person in need. I will try to explain this point again, without talking about who does or does not deserve help.
It is inevitable that either (a) some people who need help will not receive it or (b) some people who do not need help will receive it. Let’s call (a) ‘misses’ and (b) ‘false alarms’. Now, non-zero misses or false alarms will occur whether help is being administered by a public or private entity; I’m being agnostic, for now, with respect to the role of the government.
If the system is designed to minimize misses, the number of false alarms will go up. Similarly, if we minimize false alarms, the number of misses will go up. The best system, then, finds some balance between minimizing misses and false alarms. This is the essence of what I was referring to as efficiency yesterday.
I don’t have a general rule for determining the relative importance of misses and false alarms. In fact, I don’t believe that such a general rule even exists. I expect that different people assign different weights to the two, making choices accordingly.
When help comes from the government, some person, or people, decide how best to balance misses and false alarms. Crucially, from the libertarian perspective, funding of the government is involuntary. This is a problem for those that disagree about the assigned relative importance of misses and false alarms. Private charities, on the other hand, can be voluntarily donated to or not. If a particular charity efficiently serves those who you believe are most in need of that charity’s help, you can pony up as desired. If they don’t, you can find a different charity.
It’s a bit of a digression, but note that this line of reasoning applies to any number of other, non-safety-net government programs as well, such as the war on drugs. Some people ruin their lives with drugs, and some people have their lives ruined by the war on drugs. If we legalize drugs, it will be easier for people to ruin their lives with drugs, but no one will have their house raided by mistake, and no one will get stuck in prison for smoking or selling weed. On the other hand, if we double down on prohibition, it will be harder (though not impossible) for people to ruin their lives through drug abuse, but we get more police militarization and absurd mandatory sentencing and the like.
Reasonable people can and do disagree about the relative importance of misses and false alarms in any number of situations. My best guess is that, in the modern world, private charities are a more efficient means of providing a social safety net. I could be wrong, and clearly lots of you think I am.
Lots of you also think I’m racist, cruel, dangerous, amoral, immoral, and an asshole. It was asserted that my statements were of a moral kind with murder and that my opinions were akin to genocide. I was polite and calm in every comment I posted, and many of you attributed positions and opinions to me that I have never espoused.
I received a friendly, and respectful, email from someone I don’t know about this thread (I won’t say who, since s/he likely does not want to be dragged into this), to which I responded, in part, with a basic description of my political position: To the extent that I identify as a libertarian, I do so more or less by default, and I would be willing to bet that I’m at least as liberal on social issues as any of the folks calling me heartless, cruel, racist, dangerous, or whatever. My basic position is that people are generally good, but all too capable of making mistakes and bad decisions. Because government (and corporations, and churches, etc…) is made up individuals, the same kinds of mistakes and bad decisions can be made there, but in government (and corporations, and churches, etc…) there are additional incentives and pressures that tend to lead to even more bad decisions (above and beyond the kinds of mistakes we all make in everyday life), and the the ramifications of bad decisions made by people with more power are felt much more broadly. Hence, I tend to prefer private solutions to public solutions, and I generally feel like people should be free to make decisions on their own, with all that this entails. Which is not to say that people in need shouldn’t be helped, nor that the government should play absolutely no role in providing a safety net.
I hope at least of few of you will take the time to read this post, and I hope that I’ve done a better job stating my positions clearly.
@402: “[Charities] can be a[s] discerning as they want to be*, as long as the government provides for everyone who needs it.”
You were doing so well, but then you added those last three words…which completely undermine your point. After all, giving to “everyone who needs it” requires discerning and discretion, and then you’re only talking about degree. Ironic, in the middle of a thread about whether atheist groups should organize to provide charity, no?
And yet, this is all beside the point. This isn’t a thread about whether governments should STOP providing a safety net, but about whether atheist libertarians think atheist groups should START doing so. I say that I want to see “Orange Duck” groups spring up, groups with no political, religious, ethnic, sexual, or WTF-ever affiliation (hence the random color and symbol) that focus on meeting certain needs. We don’t need a Baptist Food Bank, Roman Catholic Food Bank, Transgender Food Bank, United Negro Food Bank, and Gay Communist Gun Club Food Bank – we just need a Food Bank that gets food to hungry people, that all the other factions can support.
You mention the Salvation Army, and I have the same problem with them that you do. They’re not out to help people, but to turn the needy into dancing bears for their sadistic pleasure. While it’s good for religions and religious people to support charities (financially, with time, however), as soon as the religion becomes a requirement, it gets in the way…the group is now a ministry pretending to be a charity, and that’s bad.
I’ve said it before, but not here: I like steak, and I like chocolate pudding, but I don’t want pudding on my steak. In other words, keep things separate. It may be the unfortunate case that there’s no “neutral” charity that supports Cause X, and in that case I’d support atheists getting together to start one – but it should be NEUTRAL, not “Atheists for X.” That way, if religious folks want to support X, they can donate to that group and not have to worry that it will spread Teh Eebil Atheist Agenda.
That’s the question PZ asked, and there’s my answer. The “how heartless are those evil libertarians, anyway” thread can go die in a fire.
So your wording seems to suggest you’d just let them die… The idea of a welfare state is not about choosing who is worthy enough of being supported. The principle is that anyone who fails to hold a job or find other means of familial support beneath a certain threshold, also known as a living wage*), can be certain to be supported by the state (ultimately the community). This doesn’t mean the state cannot make people on welfare to get job retraining and to try and find a job (and just try to find a job after a long spell of unemployment and not too many marketable skils!), also to make sure they’re not cheating the system by misrepresenting information etc. But who are you to judge other people if they are morally deserving of support or not?
Just try to imagine yourself to suddenly lose your family, your job, your health, or whatever through no fault of your own. The idea that no matter what happens the community will look after you, in form of welfare support, universal healthcare and a functioning pension system, is very reassuring to many people. This is one of the lessons of the Great Depression of the last century, in Germany it is known as “social market economy”, or simply “Rhine Capitalism”.
I think Rhine Capitalism gets human nature right compared to libertarianism or communism do. Human beings, in general, resent not having a purpose in life. And usually having some kind of meaningful work is a huge chunk of that purpose in life for many individuals. So it will not be a calling for most human beings to live a life as welfare kings/queens. This is in part supported by studies that show that the unemployed suffer from more psychological stress than the employed.
The idea of leaving it to charity is just hopelessly naive. As many people have said private charities can be quite discriminatory in who they support. And how can they react in time to a large-scale crisis? As the historians I cited in an earlier message showed, we had that private charity paradise during the Middle Ages, and every time there was a large scale disaster/crop failure, the system just broke down.
And compared to Manchester Capitalism, Rhine capitalism gets it better, because ultimately it increases social stability. This is probably why the right in most Western countries supports the welfare state, while the left does it out of the social justice principle.
*) and yes, that means the state will help you get a fridge (the horror!!). Or does being on welfare mean living in abject poverty, like in the Middle Ages?
@ Father Ogvorbis – I’d like to lol at your list, but it sounds too familiar.
Hopefully a Libertarian will answer also.
Buchenwald was even better for libertarians: “Each his own”
Nope, still a morally bankrupt fuckwitted idjit. You get out of that category by showing empathy.
This proves it:
The problem is that you don’t want to be part of common socio/political body. Which requires taxes for the infrastructure. Roads, right of ways, schools, water, sewer, medical care, and social safety net. You misrepresent what taxation is, trying to pretend it is coercive instead of cooperative. We cooperate to make society run. You are a selfish fuckwit who says “I’ve got mine, fuck you”. We have your number.
RevBob@409:
Actually, you don’t need to take it upon yourself to decide whether other people need help or not. One way you can tell who needs help is that they ask. Most people who don’t need help won’t bother actively trying to get it. (The Heifer Project doesn’t offer anything that *I* want, for instance.)
Another way would be to offer help to everyone, whether they need it or not, with some sort of incentive for not taking it. Then people who really need that aid would take it, while others would forego it because they’d rather have the tax break or donation in their name or whatever.
There’s other concerns, but most people are capable of deciding whether they need help or not without someone else’s judgment.
The Welfare Queen meme is a false one. I should know, I’ve been on welfare. And the government does have ways to say no to plenty of people, including those who need it. You know fuck all what you’re talking about. Government handouts are not enough to live off of, let alone enough to be a “Welfare Queen”. There are limitations to how long and how much you recieve not to mention so many fucking hoops to jump through to get it and keep it, it ends up being like a full time job to get the help you need.
Fuck off and die already you selfish bastard. People like you are part of the reason our society is so fucked up.
You claim this but what you said was…
The Welfare Queen meme has nothing to do with how government deals with scammers. The amount of actual scammers are very very low. This meme is more about the Rightwing bitching about all those lazy and undeserving people taking their money and using it on stuff they don’t approve of. Which is pure bullshit. I used food stamps on food and still had people bitch at me because I wasn’t buying what they thought I should, or they thought me a lazy slut, when in reality I was working while receiving food stamps.
You know what would be more efficient than Walmart? Having lots of little stores in every community that could individually tailor their wares to the local clientele. There could be a clothing store, a produce store, a drug store, a flower store, a chocolate store, a butcher, a deli, a bakery. The best part is, each of these stores would sell their goods at less than Walmart could manage, because they’re smaller and more efficient.
Isn’t denying reality fun?
As someone that personally thinks there has got to be some way to sue the asses off of the idiots in my own state that are still, “examining the credibility of Obama’s birth certificate.”, for misuse of state funds, and failure to do their damn jobs, the above idiocy, and those that propagate it, would seem to imply that there isn’t enough money on the planet to sue the idiots that waist time of this stupid shit.
That said, there are a “few” cases where inefficiencies of that sort *do* exist. Here is how you get to them:
1. Create a system that provides “limited” funds to people that need it.
2. Decide, as a concerned right winger, that you don’t want to give them “too much”, or they will get stuck on it.
3. Argue, successfully, that continue to give them money, past the point where **you** think they don’t need it, is a good idea, even if a few months of stability might be better.
4. Argue, in an entirely different context, that minimum wage laws don’t work, they don’t need to be higher, than there is nothing you can, or should, do to “force” companies to pay living wages.
Net result, instead of the system doing what it was supposed to, and adjusting to how much the person *is* making, and providing stability, it actually creates conditions where getting a job will land you less money, deny you all further support, and, quite possibly, render it hard/impossible to get back into the system, if you suddenly loose the shitty job you just got.
In other words, the same people arguing that the system doesn’t work, and that “welfare queens” exist, ***created*** that situation, don’t want to fix it, refuse to allow anyone to get a dime more, once they meet some minimum, but not even close to adequate, number of hours of work, and don’t want to do a damn thing to fix the job situation, or the pay situation, at those jobs. All of this guarantees that some percentage of people will be “welfare queens”, not because they want to be necessarily, but because its a) easier, b) they grew up as one too, and/or c) its literally impossible to get out of the situation, short of finding a non-minimum wage job, with more than 30 hours a week, in a country where you are lucky, especially if you have no union, to get a minimum wage job, at 15 hours a week, from the “free market”.
The free market doesn’t spend resources it doesn’t perceive that it needs to operate its businesses. Beyond a certain point, people are *extra resources*, and they cost more than they are worth. In the last 40 years or so, companies have figured out that they can reduce the total “human resources” by 50%, even without robots, by making people work harder, faster, and taking away things like hour lunches, to replace them with *two* ten minute breaks (that is what I get for 8 hours work, but the frakking boss, who attends meetings, and gets paid 5 times as much, they still get and hour, even if business doesn’t always let them take all of it). In short, companies don’t *need* all those people on welfare to run their companies, they don’t *need* to pay them anything, and by keeping their hours as low as possible, they don’t **need** to legally give them anything at all in terms of benefits.
The “free market” has decided that is doesn’t *need*, or *want* 300 million workers, never mind anything close to the number of people that it “would have” employed, as of 40 years ago. But, somehow, its supposed to find jobs for between 27,000,000 and 48,000,000 (9-16%) of the unemployed workers in the country, with no incentive to do so, and a belief that everyone will be better off if they just figure out how to make stuff with **one fewer unneeded employee**, every time the opportunity to do so arises? The people coming here and talking about free market solutions are not just clueless about reality, they don’t live any where near such a place. The “free market” isn’t interested in helping 300 million people find jobs. It certainly isn’t interested in dozens of competitors, hiring the ones it doesn’t. What it has, does, and will continue, to want to do is, “Reduce the number of people we need to get the job done, and only hire **if** more people are able to buy our products than we can produce.”
What the hell do these people think happens when the number of people that “can” buy those products **drops**, and, due to lack of jobs, will, perhaps, never be able to buy them? How does the “free market” magically fix that? Hire people it doesn’t need anymore? Yeah, right…
Can any libertarian answer me two questions:
1. Why is it that the social democracies of Europe, who have big government programs and social safety nets, have some of the highest standard of living in the world?
2. If large government programs were empirically shown unambiguously to be superior to private charities in helping people, would you still oppose them?
I asked this back in 341 and no one has gotten to it, so I thought I’d post it again. I’m really interested in the answer.
I ask libertarians to do this a lot, but I suppose I’ll do it again:
Can any of you libertarians point me at a country/state/providence/whatever that both 1) Has policies that are more in line with what you want (has policies that are more libertarian) and 2) has better objective results than what we (the USA) have? Because when I look at other countries that do things well (like in health care or education), I see countries that are even more socialized than the USA is. Are there counter examples that I’m missing or am overlooking due to conformation bias?
However, if there are no such countries/etc, how can anyone assert that privatization is better than socialization? It’s not like there aren’t reams of countries/etc with smaller governments than the USA.
Why yes, there are. And they are fully described in Ayn Rand’s books*.
*Which are fiction, but I’m not sure that matters a whole lot.
You people focus way too much on the successful examples. If you want an example of exactly why libertarians are against big government, don’t look at countries too rich for that stuff to even matter, but instead at poor Latin American countries with populist governments – before a certain wealth threshold the big government measures stifle private enterprise to the point that positive development is nearly impossible, leading to low growth rates and high unemployment.
@422
Ok. Do you have an example of a country that does better than poor Latin American countries and yet has policies that are libertarian (especially more libertarian than the USA)? Because I’d settle for that. In all seriousness, I really am looking for a real life example of what libertarians are advocating for. As far as I’m aware, there is no such example. But maybe I’m just missing it.
Ok! For wild kicks and giggles, I (once again) tried to look up libertarian countries. I found a website (http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html) that seems to be libertarian in bent and ranks various countries based on their “freedom”/”liberty”. I decided to take the 10 top ranked countries and see how they financed their health care.
1) Estonia: general taxation through the National Health Service
2a*) Republic of Ireland: Public Healthcare.
2b*) Northern Ireland: Publicly funded Healthcare.
3) Canada – Publicly funded Health care.
4) Switzerland – Universal with possible private “complementary” insurance.
5) Iceland – Universal.
6) Bahamas – Both public and private, including free care for the low-earning individuals/families.
7) United Kingdom – Varies by country, but all have public insurance.
8) United States – This is us!
9) Cyprus – social health insurance, with either free or partial payments depending on income.
10) New Zealand – mix of private and public, including taxation for the public.
*Ireland is broken up into two sections as they have different systems options.
None of these people seem to have more privatized healthcare than we (the USA, #8) do. Or have I misunderstood one of the healthcare of one of these countries?
The island of Ireland is broken into two because they belong to two different countries, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom.
On a different note, I wonder why that list doesn’t even list Somalia at all…
Comparing the USA to poor Latin American countries is a strawman anyway, last time I checked the US was not a poor and/or developing country. Its GDP is well on the level of other rich industrialised countries…
Yep. But the United Kingdom doesn’t seem to have one system; it seems to have country by country systems, so I tried to break it up based on that. I’m assuming the site meant “the Republic of Ireland” when they said “Ireland” in #2, but I’m really not sure. They don’t specify. So I included both.
Really? If you want to look at what makes a great society, shouldn’t you look at the successful examples?
Well, a good question to ask is how those countries got rich in the first place.
Assuming you’re American, shouldn’t you be looking at other first world nations when asking what to do about your country. Comparing the US with poor Latin American countries is like comparing apples and banana republics.
[Citation needed]
In any case, so even according to this only holds for poor countries?
Well, the website from your link doesn’t seem to break the UK up in constituent countries, so where did this come from? Also, there are other countries with mixed systems with two options, like Switzerland and Germany, so if they’re not split up, Ireland shouldn’t be either..
I did the splitting. I took their top 10 ranked countries and looked to see how those countries handled healthcare. It was my desire to see if the other top 10 countries (as ranked by libertarians) were more privatized than we are.
And Switzerland and Germany have different systems for different parts of the country? How do they split the country up?
You are fucking wrong and it’s been explained in some detail why you’re fucking wrong. The reason why governments got into the welfare business is that private charities couldn’t handle the load. The real world isn’t a match for your ideology.
well in that case it was wrong of you to list Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in a list together, as Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom.
Germany has a compulsory healthcare system, called the public healthcare system. That part includes health care providers that are public institutions, but they’re not directly state-run. There are like 200 of them, but there is a part of the welfare law code that exclusively lays out their functions etc, so in a way that could be regarded as semi-state run.
Next to that, there is a system of private health providers, people whose income exceeds a certain threshold can opt out of the compulsory health care system. The rates for them vary by risk assessment and might increase as you age. I don’t exactly remember if private insurers are allowed to be maximally profit-oriented like in the US (though I pretty much doubt it), but the incentive is that doctors can earn much much more from private providers than the public ones, and thus privately insured patients get preferential treatments in many areas.
The UK, to my knowledge has a similar option for highly paid executives, many of whom wouldn’t just get in line with the NHS.
If you don’t like 2b, then feel free to ignore 2b. I included it because the original website didn’t specify that it was the Republic of Ireland, so I looked up both Irelands. I thought about breaking up the UK into all of it’s countries, but given that all of them had public options, I felt no need to do so. If you think this would be reasonable, you can do that.
If anyone is curious, Germany is 21 on the list.
Could be.
That’s interesting. Apparently only the English system is called NHS, the other constituent countries have slightly different names. But they seem to operate on the same principles. This description of the Northern Ireland equivalent of the NHS seems to be pretty much the same as in the rest of the UK, but I might be wrong.
But my objections are more of a methodological nature. If you start breaking up countries like that, then you’d need to do the same for the USA. States like Massachusetts have a different system than others.
Another note on the private option: it is my understanding that in the UK it is used only by a very small number of people, while in Germany 11% are insured with private providers…
Are there counter examples that I’m missing or am overlooking due to conformation bias?
it’s confirmation bias, though I rather like the way you misspelled it.
Just two small points (before I go to bed, as I should have done an hour ago):
0. Not a libertarian of any kind. Just for context.
1. I don’t much like the idea of atheists going into the charity business as atheists. Those things should preferably be secular, that is, they should completely ignore the religion question. Different organizations for different goals. Now, atheists going into the charity business as humans, that’s just fine.
2. As to the US-libertarian-not-in-Europe thing … I think it’s oversold. There’s a reason the current German Federal Minister of Economics and Technology (and vice chancellor) is the chairman of the liberal party. (And the Federal Minister of Justice is also in that party. And so is the former vice chancellor and Foreign Minister (and former chairman).) The FDP “Die Liberalen” (“free democratic party – the liberals”, i.e. US libertarians, not US liberals) have a long tradition of being pro civil rights and pro business rights. And no, it doesn’t go together for me either.
Anecdote time: The current chairman was born in Vietnam. Justice is a woman. And the former chairman is gay. They’re sure colorful.
They’re also currently losing badly in state elections, dropping out of several state parliaments, so that even some of their politicians admit the public no longer sees a reason for their existence. It’s not as if I can recall a single political point they make that is not made by at least one other party. Well, except from their client politics – other parties tend to have different clients and serve them less blatantly. (A famous case was a tax reduction for hoteliers … together with a big contribution by one such hotelier to said party.)
khms, if you’re really comparing the FDP to libertarians, then you don’t know what objectivist libertarians are like. There are simply no parties in German parliament that even come close to a libertarian position. The term (as seen on Wikipedia) for the FDP would be “centre-right classical liberal political party”.
As far as the FDP goes, its main reason for existence is to be a smaller coalition partner for a bigger party, either on the conservative or the social democratic side. Voters would cast votes for it provided there was a realistic perspective for them to actually get into government. In the various state elections this year, there was no such perspective for them. If they can make a credible case for 2013, they will get enough votes to get in again at the federal level.
Regarding the minister born in Vietnam. He was adopted, so he is of course the first minister who was born to foreign birth parents, but his experience of growing up in Germany differs from those who grew up with migrant parents in Germany. Now there are about 15 million people in Germany with a migration background*), and I think it is a disgrace that there hasn’t been a single minister at the federal level whose parents were actually immigrants to Germany. (If I should have overlooked a federal minister, then I would gladly stand corrected)
*) “persons with a migration background” also includes descendants born in Germany. It also includes people with one foreign parent, or German citizens born abroad (mostly the so-called Russia Germans)
So boring, but it does appear to sum up nicely your opinion of anyone who questions the ability of government to solve big problems without creating even bigger ones.
I must point out that you forgot “bomb countries with brown people” and “give churches and corporations like GE, Walmart and oil companies a break because they need help”. Since you imply strongly that we are all cooperating as a community (and not whatsoever under the threat of jail time if you fail to pay up), I want to be the first to call you out as a murdering corporate shill.
Personally, I don’t want to throw my lot in with that crowd and repudiate the notion that I cooperate in this way. I hold my nose and write the check every year because the government actually does do some good for those in need and to your point that we’re in a community here. It’s not a zero sum game if we build a road/Internet/library everyone gets to use. I pay up in spite of the fact that we could easily provide healthcare for all but instead choose to fund, say, bombers. The fact that I go to jail if I don’t is incidental, but still a fact.
The ROI on providing universal healthcare is pretty darned good. Saying it’s a great idea is one thing, but you can’t then ignore the reality of our federal budget when someone says “but, these folks aren’t very good at not squandering our resources…” and then call them a “morally bankrupt fuckwitted idjit” to distract people from your ideology of unconditional support for stuff the government does.
But hey, I think a series of replies from a juvenile troll is starting to make me change my mind about these things. Maybe the government really does do a phenomenal job of administering Defense and Medicare without lining the pockets of a few “friends of the Senate”. Even if they do, we’re all cooperating here so that makes it good, right?
Back to the top: yes. The big-L libertarians SHOULD be enthusiastic about the liberalization of atheism. Defining those parameters of “help” properly without completely bankrupting the rest of our economy will be about as tough as rewriting the constitution, but worth it.
And your inability to see the necessity of this says all we need to know about your inane opinions, and lack of evidence to back them up. Not one libertarian has linked to any evidence to support their theology/ideology. That tells me, and the lurkers here, a lot about your disconnection from reality.
Here’s where you are divorced from reality. Private insurance providers must make a profit on the money, and must pay millions in compensation to the company heads. Medicare doesn’t need to make a profit, and the managers receive a normal Federal pay scale. And it ain’t millions. So the feds can cover more people, 10-20% more than the private sector for the same money. Any fool who isn’t besotted by the words “private” can see that. So who is squandering the money? The government, or the private sector? I say the private sector. And if you don’t think all other people should receive the same benefits you desire, you are morally bankrupt, and we see that here.
Sweet Molly, this is what happens when I step out for a few days to work on my thesis?!
Alright, I’ll try to add something constructive.
With regards to private charity: many are just great. Utterly awesome. Groups like Doctors Without Borders come to mind, for example. Others are thinly (or not at all) veiled fronts for groups that see the solution to the world’s problems as making everyone think like them. This attitude is one I find utterly morally bankrupt. If a person is starving and cold, they’ll listen to a speech about how your god is better in exchange for food and a blanket, sure. It also makes you an asshole for demanding it.
The other problem with privatization, writ large, is what others have said: once we allow for “discretion” – that is, letting someone decide who is and is not deserving – people start suffering. I hate to make myself a poster child, but here goes: I’m currently busy planning my Ph.D. defense. I’m also scrambling to find myself a job. Because I need to eat and have a place to stay. Yes, if push came to shove, I could back with my parents. But I would still have a huge problem if I’m without health insurance.
I actually got in this very debate with a fellow grad student, one who is a full-on Randroid (self-described, even!). I said to him that in a truly free system, I would never be able to get health insurance as an individual. 26-year-old cancer survivors with a stack of other chronic health problems kinda get that problem. He then complained that I was taking everything personally and that I needed to step back a bit and look at things objectively.
Damn straight I take it personally! This is my life I’m talking about here!
Oh, and if I had a dollar for every time I’ve been told a variant of the “you’re taking it too personally” schtick with regards to this issue, women’s rights, and LGBT rights I would be fucking rich enough to have daily scans to see if my cancer’s come back and then build a fucking hospital to treat it.
I’m a Libertarian, but I don’t know if I like the phrase “more socially progressive.” To me, that means the government puts a gun to your head and says your money or your life. I would like to see atheists become more charitable however. I want to live in a society where people do give to the needy. I am brainstorming of ways to do this within my own local atheist community as well. Someone on my FB page said she has a tooth ache and dental insurance but does not have the money for a root canal. She also included that she’s not in the 1% and I’m still not sure what that whole Occupy Wall Street things all about, but I digress. I’d like to set up a donation site (like paypal) and see if we can raise some money for her, but It’s a delicate subject. I don’t want to make her feel uncomfortable either.
It is SO easy to get free government money.
First, all I needed to do was to have several disabilities, fight to try to keep working for several years until the shame of repeated failure sent me to the psych ward to be put under suicide watch.
Then I had to apply, go through the simply “automatic denial on first attempt” process, wait the 18 months in my state before you get an actual hearing, be denied (as usual) in the hearing and file an appeal (usually necessary.)
Then I had to simply wait the additional 18 months until my appeal was heard. (Oh, and of course, find a lawyer).
During the 36 month period while this was all taking place I got to sit back and relax, apart from the trek to the local lunch counter for watery soup and flaccid carrots.
Oh, and of course I was fortunate that I didn’t have to be homeless during this time, because I had family members housing me on their couches, and for a while an in-law paying rent. And of course simply had to charge my credit cards up to the max to buy food.
But then came the payoff – sure, the years of trying and failing were tough and the 36 months with no income were a little rough but after that came the big payoff – instead of the measly $30+k a year I got from working, I got a whopping $10k a year to live like a king off of.
It is of course understandable that in the last 3 years there has been no increase in that amount because the Gvt. informs me that there has been no increase in the cost of living. This is certainly the case, apart from the increases in the cost of transportation, food, toiletries and paper goods and utilities.
I tell ya, this gig is SO fucking good, it’s no wonder there’s a huge problem with people willingly going without income (and possibly housing) for 4 years in order to get that massive payoff.
I’m luckier than many though, I get more than some. Some disabled people I know get about $800 a month. But still – damn, just think of what you could do with a $9600 per year income… heaven!
Looking at figures like that, you don’t need any statistics, you don’t need to cite any studies – it’s pretty damned clear that there have to be TONS of people camping out under bridges for 2-4 years in order to get in on this gravy train.
And even if there aren’t, you have to take RevBob’s point – even if there are only a FEW people engaging in a multi-year plan to gorge themselves on a free below-poverty-level income, it’s important to weed them out even if it means extra hardship for those who are deserving – because the key is NOT to HELP people.
The important thing is to hold people ACCOUNTABLE. To have a system in place to let us know where the BAD ones are. Because even if Gvt feeds thousands of truly needy people, if it accidentally feeds one lazybones in the process, then that’s fucking SLAVERY and THEFT and IMMORAL.
Jafafa Hots, what are you going to do with the shiny new internets you just won?
——–
Marc Leon @442
What? That makes zero sense. Please explain.
darling, I didn’t ask about whether they repent. I asked about what you imagine he consequence of not safely tucking scammers away from the general public would be. Because from the way libertarians talk about this, it always sounds as if they expect those scammers to stop existing once they can’t scam welfare/charity anymore.
that’s so tenuous a link that it renders itself a non sequitur in a discussion of welfare/charity. The reason corporate welfare is a problem is because it’s hugely expensive on an individual basis(and thus makes it cheaper to actually bother weeding out all scammers), and it adds to power imbalances in a society which are anti-democratic. None of this is true for a person scamming for unneeded foodstamps.
really? you give us a racist, made-up Republican meme as evidence for anything other than Reagan’s racism?
You’re a bigger moron than I expected.
that doesn’t work as an argument for whatever your point may be, since it has fuck-all to do with scammers, and everything to do with racism. The effect of a racism on welfare funding is completely irrelevant and unrelated to the effect on scammers. All it is is the race equivalent of the “poor people are drug addicts” class warfare currently perpetrated in Florida (which incidentally is ridiculously expensive and has only served to show that poor people take fewer drugs than everyone else)
QFT
watch the point at whcih the conversation suddenly completely veered off the relevant subject into pointless libertarian bullshit…
listen tone troll: it doesn’t matter how “politely” you tell us that you are ok with people dying in the streets, it doesn’t make you any less of an asshole with warped morals. Politeness is a red herring and a tool for trying to hide the ugly truth about people like you.
translation: I don’t actually know shit about the economics of South America, but my libertarian buddies tell me there was such a thing as the Chilean economic miracle, and I’ll take their word for it.
hint for the less stupid: look at South America’s wealth GINI, and tell me again how evil populist governments are for “stifling private enterprise” by such evil schemes like land redistribution and higher taxes on the wealthy.
should they come back, I’ll pretty much guarantee they’ll give you Chile. They’ll be wrong, but that’s the standard libertarian answer, because libertarians don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between a healthy economy that actually raises people’s living standards and a bubble-economy that makes a very few people wealthy and fucks everyone else over.
In reality, Chile’s libertarian economics should have been used as a warning not to do the same to the world’s largest economies: they had our housing bubble & economic crisis in the early 80’s, with exactly the same result (individual home-owners and loan-holders were fucked, but the big banks and businesses were rescued lest they drag the entire country into the stone-age)
Correction: I don’t want to misinform anyone.
Above I stated that the normal time frame for each step of the process was 18 months. It was in fact 18-24 months, which is why in my case it added up to just under 4 years.
Full courts and such.
and on another note in the context of “must protect resources from people who might not completely need it”: this is the MO of health-insurance companies, to the point where they’ll find as many reasons as possible to deny paying for something.
Meaning, at some point you just have to accept that if you want to provide an actual safety net, you shouldn’t waste time, money, and other mental and physical resources on trying to hunt down low-level scammers in the name of rescuing the budget, because stuff like that tends to take on a life of its own, and suddenly every reason someone wants something becomes suspicious and dangerous to the budget (see: goal displacement). Basic assessment of need, plus weeding out large-scale scammers is generally entirely sufficient, except when what you’re trying to do is punish the poor for being poor (see: drug testing for welfare recipients; “welfare queens”; etc.)
Hock ’em for some toilet paper.
On that subject, part (but not all) of the reason I’m disabled is because I got hit by a speeding pickup while crossing the street. Skull fracture, drain bamage, internal plumbing scambling, shattered pelvis, etc.
The insurance company was supposed to cover my related medical expenses for the rest of my life.
Would you like to know how well THAT worked out?
and now I see Jafafa Hots has pretty well demonstrated the aforementioned goal displacement.
And lest any libertarian gets excited: all organizations are prone to goal displacement, it’s not a government-only malady. Charities are also very prone to that. Religious ones especially, when they overemphasize the evangelism and forget about the charity part of their work. Some of these goal displacements not even Charity Navigator is able to weed out.
I think that’s pretty self-evident. :-(
@440:
Can you clarify your first paragraph? The “necessity of this” means what, exactly? The necessity of a body operating at the scale of a national government? If so, I haven’t disagreed on that point (as early as #59, when my handles were a bit screwy, I made that same point about scale).
I read #443’s reply, which is in lock step with my personal experience. THAT is the point. Why do we waste this many of our resources on hearings, paperwork (not to mention what the actual doctors/nurses/technicians go through) and non care related crap? Why is someone vilified for saying “uh- that’s not getting it done…” when there are at least a half dozen examples like 443 in this thread alone?
Citation?
Medicare/Medicaid don’t provide any health care; they are just another insurer in between the patient and his care. So the answer is right there, Red. The government. The doctors are getting a pittance share of those resources, the patients even less. The money is not enriching the little guy unless he’s running a Medicare scam.
Again…I think it can be done (this is my one belief statement). The government can be asked to do these things and is likely the only entity large enough but I still argue that scrutiny is necessary as we have plenty of experience to tell us it is needed.
/apologize for the handle swap- no sockpuppetry intended. I just couldn’t figure out how to stop wordpress from auto-populating the field
Wow. I can only imagine the reaction you must have to similar phrases, like “civil rights”, “level playing field”, and “promoting the general welfare”.
Yeah, I used to have libertarian leanings back when I didn’t know diddly shit about the society I live in, too.
We go through that to satisfy those who feel that taxes are theft and that government will just create “welfare queens” that this isn’t actually the case, that there is screening, that only the “truly deserving” will get the meager help we provide.
But as this thread shows, it still doesn’t work. You STILL complain.
because the USA is a country that hates poor people and loves punishing them and making them beg. Are you under the delusion that U.S. charities don’t make people run the gauntlet and make them beg? Have you ever tried getting charity from a church in a religious state/county, for example? Especially while gay/atheist/trans/other disapproved of minority?
U.S. class warfare infects all aspects of its society. Countries with less class divisions have less class warfare and their social safety net puts up fewer barriers to receiving benefits. Both their charities and their governmental welfare providers. It makes no sense to pretend that what you describe is a feature of government, when it isn’t present in other governments, but is present in many American charities.
best argument for instituting a NHS in the USA, ever.
KinzuaKid #439
Does the government make mistakes? Is there governmental waste, fraud and abuse? Does the government sometimes squander resources? Yes, all these things happen. However, I can tell you from personal experience as a senior executive in a fair-sized company, that stuff happens in the private sector as well. Several years ago I watched my company pay over two million dollars because the chairman of the board wanted some cement walls to be “decorative.” Shortly thereafter there were several hundred employee layoffs because the recession hit and the company had a financial crisis. Several disgruntled ex-employees tossed paint balloons at the decorated cement walls. Some of that paint is still on what’s called “Kenny’s Folly.”
One major difference between the corporate world and government is that the government operates under transparency. With few exceptions, it’s easy to find out what governments are doing. The $600 hammers and coffeepots designed to withstand aircraft crashes come into view readily. Corporations don’t have this handicap. Unless the screwup is massive, like Union Carbide’s poisoning of Bhopal or AIG’s financial meltdown, corporate mistakes and inefficiencies generally remain hidden.
Jafafa Hots:
Best. Comeback. Ever.
I worked at Fisher-Price when Mattel took over.
Google Jill Barad, The Learning Company, and Mattel. See the astounding amount of money that was wasted on what even a peon like me could see what utter foolishness.
Read how this mistake cost Jill Barad her job, leaving her with nothing but over $1 million a year for life in severance and the forgiving of a multi-million dollar home loan the company had provided.
Read how the cost of this CEO error not only reduced stockholder values, but necessitated the closing of the Ft. Wayne plant and the firing of its workers, the company’s MOST PRODUCTIVE, as a cost savings. Followed by the closure of all other US-based manufacturing.
People in government are usually more accountable. Or at least they WOULD be, if libertarians aka conservatives wouldn’t keep tearing down the mechanisms we use to KEEP them accountable.
People in the corporations who rip off regular folks generally are rewarded. If their theft is too excessive, they get bailed out by the taxpayers they ripped off in the first place. They would never be as accountable as people in Gvt., but they would be more accountable – IF libertarians aka conservatives wouldn’t keep tearing down the mechanisms we use to keep them accountable.
Same thing as with the complaints about welfare queens followed by complaints about gvt red tape. You demand that REAL problems be created in order to combat the imaginary problems your religion tells you must exist – and then you use the very problems you’ve created as evidence that functional government you destroyed couldn’t work because the dysfunctional government you demanded and put in place doesn’t work.
Your guess is not enough. You need evidence.
Here is the evidence to date:
The modern “welfare state” is less than 100 years old. Maybe just over 150 if you really stretch the definition.
Prior to then, governments did not get involved in social safety nets in a big way at all. Private charity was the only game in town.
Private charity FAILED. Utterly and completely. Spectacularly. In every imaginable facet.
And this produced a bottom-up DEMAND among the suffering people for governments to step in. Government social safety nets arose because the people collectively chose to force their governments to provide it. And their collective, willing participation was reinforced with each and every subsequent democratic election, in which candidates proposing policies that dismantled the safety nets lost.
And so far, government run social safety nets have WORKED. They’re not perfect. But they work. Ask any citizen of any modern country with even the slightest knowledge of history if he would trade places and travel back in time to the period before there was a government run social safety net in place. See how many would make that choice. Compare whatever metric of public well-being you can think of between modern states and states from just before the implementation of government social safety nets. The modern states win hands down.
At the same time, we continue to have private charities, so we have a century’s worth of data concerning what private charities can and cannot do, how they succeed and how they fail, and what the limits of their powers are.
Well, based on all this existing evidence, the null hypothesis is that private charity can’t even begin to provide the necessary level of service AT ALL, let alone better than government.
So now you want to propose that today, in the modern world, private charity has somehow changed enough, and/or government has somehow changed enough, that the observed trend for the last century no longer applies? That private charity is not only capable of providing a social safety net, but can do it better than government?
The burden of evidence is on you.
Guessing is not enough.
The ENTIRE current global economic crisis is the result of failures of private enterprise, with insufficient regulation.
Governments did not cause this. Governments may have failed to prevent this, by failing to enact sufficient regulations. Governments may have failed to make things better by choosing the wrong, or inadequate, amelioration policies (assuming that it was even ever within any government’s power to fix things anyways).
But governments DID NOT CAUSE IT.
The PRIVATE SECTOR did.
And it is a vivid illustration of the weaknesses, limitations, corruptions, and inefficiencies inherent in the private sector.
And what is true for the social safety net is broadly true for pretty much everything else that government does. Be it mail delivery, healthcare (in those countries where the government provides it), standards, science funding etc, each and every one of these were not originally a government duty. In the beginning it was the private sector that provided this service, and it was the private sector that failed to deliver. And, at least in democratic societies, it was the people, perceiving the need resulting from the failure of the private sector, who demanded of their governments to get involved and provide that service. And in time (and sometimes it took a very long time indeed), governments responded to those demands and started providing those services.
This is even true for such government staples as roads, law enforcement, currency, and even defense. In the very, very beginning, even these were provided by private citizens doing their own thing, deploying their own wealth and resources. (Though in the case of these things, it was usually VERY early indeed – the government takeover happened very early on, for usually fairly obvious reasons).
The modern liberal democracy, with its various government-run programs, was built step-by-step, on empirical, historical evidence, as one service after another was added to the government plate, each and every time because there was a (often obvious) need that the private sector failed to fulfill, leaving the people to demand that their governments pick up the pieces.
Modern liberal democracy is the null hypothesis.
So for anyone who wants to argue that the private sector can do better than government for pretty much anything that modern governments currently do that the private sector does not do much of, remember that there is a reason that currently governments do it and the private sector doesn’t. And in most cases it was because the private sector once tried to do it and failed at it, or was never interested in doing it in the first place.
If you want to argue that now in the modern world things have somehow changed, and that now, thanks to whatever advance in capability or desire, the private sector really can do it, better than government, the burden of proof is, pretty much in every case, ON YOU.
It is not enough to take some government’s track record of imperfection and criticize it in isolation. You have to provide solid evidence that the private sector can do better than that. As we already have ample evidence in nearly every case of the private sector, in the past, doing much worse. You need new modern evidence to overthrow that existing older evidence.
Otherwise, all you have is blind ideology.
As I figured; hundreds of posts of glibertarians whinging about how to control the “Welfare Queen”, and again, entirely and utterly ignored is the giant golden cow staring them right in the fucking face, created on THEIR watch, with NO OBJECTIONS.
…the thing that has removed more of those civil-liberties they claim to care about than any other government agency ever invented in the history of the US. That has exhibited more DOCUMENTED WASTE IN THE LAST 3 YEARS ALONE, than any other government department over the last 20. The thing that takes 20% more of the annual US budget that THE ENTIRE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT (of which social services is only a part).
…and all you can whinge about is a paltry amount of “your” tax dollars going to feed and house poor people.
fucking blind, ignorant, brainwashed, dolts. You’ve doomed us all to irrelevancy. No intelligent discussion about government management can ever take place now, because there are simply just too many of you ignorant fuckwits around that scream like babies whose milk is too cold.
seriously.
FUCK.
YOU.
I take back what I said about “libertarian” as a self-donned idiotic label. You shouldn’t be ashamed to call yourselves “libertarians”… you should be ashamed to call yourselves “human”.
It’s no wonder people automatically dismiss people who call themselves “Libertarians”. You clowns ALWAYS give us the very reasons why. EVERY TIME.
in summary then…
ask a stupid question…
The only people who want to severely restrict or get rid of governments are those who have decent governments. The folks living in the libertarian utopia of Somalia would love to have a functional government to keep the warlords and gang leaders off their backs.
Well, I’m an atheist. It’s the government’s job to provide for all. That’s why we have it, isn’t it?
On that topic, I donate only when I think the government is falling down in some regard; I generally put my actions into fixing government action instead of patching them with private organizations.
Statistics say conservatives donate more to charity – if you include donating to their church. That’s alot like including payments to your day care or country club, honestly.
On the other hand, statistics say that liberals tend to choose investment strategies which do not avoid taxation, as opposed to conservatives. Not to mention conservatives donating to church can deduct that from taxes…
Pampers for premature babies, but after they are to regular size Kirkland diapers, no question!
Esteleth @ 441,
Absolutely brilliant! Thank you.
OK, I’m beginning to learn.
Libertarians think that the USA is much more like Peru than it is like the UK.
They also think that the punishment for tax-fraud is the death penalty.
They furthermore think that it is acceptable to leave X amount of needy people without help because they feel that this is the just price to pay for a system that minimizes scammers.
OK, here’s my stance on scammers (who are a fucking tiny minority. Somewhere in the oe digit percentage): Just ignore them.
Honestly.
There’s not enough decent jobs around for everybody. It’s a sad fact.
Most people on welfare are more than eager to work. Let’s use the resources to get them into the jobs that exist. Why should we waste money and resources on trying to force a job on one of lazy pigs who will not hold onto it anyway?
The only thing that serves is to boost the egos of power-hungry officials and publicly taint all wellfare recipients with the same broad brush. Doesn’t create more jobs, doesn’t create more justice. On the contrary, it keeps somebody who’d love to have that job, who’d do it well and with motivation out of it because some idiot needs to prove that person X really doesn’t want to work.
As for the German “Liberals”:
I’ve come to call them “libertarials”. One of their problems is exactly that they’ve taken on a more and more libertarian position in regards to health care and of course ecology. They were traditionally the “Party of the well-earning”, the MDs, pharmacists, teachers, small businessowners. They lost part of that base when they were unable to provide answers to the grown ecological conscience of that class. After all, those are the people who are able to by organic produce, put solar panels onto their roofs, or offer climate-friendly house insulation as a business. Those voters feel that those issues are better covered by the Greens.
They don’t get to play the civil rights card. Sabine Leutheuser-Schnarrenberger is somebody whose integrity I deeply respect, but she’s drowned out by the current “boys club”.
I know this sounds a lot like ageism, but their current leaders are all young men just above 30. They lack experience. They especially lack experience in life, when talking about “normal people” and they lack experience in diplomacy.
But they still have the arrogance of youth that lets them think they don’t need advice or, well, information before they open their mouths.
Wow, look at all the venom in this thread. What I find interesting is how so many have decided exactly what a libertarian is with out granting the same grace every other political affiliation claims. How many of you that call yourselves Democrats subscribe to every single tenet of the Democratic platform? How many Republicans? To assume that the label defines every aspect is idiotic. I doubt that any of you apply that same criteria to yourselves, yet are happy to do so with anyone who you think falls outside of your group. Your happiness to decide about others, group them together and blame them for our woes is the same small minded approach of the Tea Party.
I am an atheist and I call myself a Libertarian because so much of both the Republican and Democratic party stances are disagreeable to me. Additionally, I think that the Republican and Democratic parties are very hard to tell apart in actual policy. I voted for Obama, yet his time in office has been very much like that of Bush. The war machine still spending about $1T / year and bankrupting America. Individual liberty is still meaningless, gitmo is still open, the Patriot Act has been renewed, etc. etc.
To answer the original question and the implied questions around it; I embrace the progressive movement and liberalization of atheism. I also happen to support the idea of a government safety net. Many of us who call ourselves Libertarians want to see the government greatly reduced, but not out of every social contract.
There are so many self-contradictions in this thread, it is mind numbing. Most of you seem to think that relying on the goodness in people and the free market to “do the right thing” is ludicrous. Yet, simultaneously, you are mostly atheists who support big government. While not implicit, being an atheist often means you accept evolution, which means that you believe competition drives diversity, efficiency and change. Yet you want big government answers, which have little or no competition. Which brings us full circle. No competition through big government means no efficiency.
Someone, please, explain to me how you can be an atheist (evolution) and also believe that big government programs can possibly do anything other than stagnate and bloat.
@amphiox
Your claim that the government only does things in which private industry fails is demonstrably wrong. Look no further than the postal service for a prime example of where private industry is succeeding and the government is failing. Generally, private schools perform better than their peer public schools. Using a gauge of % of donation that reaches those in need, most private charities perform far better than the government. The list goes on and on. I would ask you in what areas the government performs better than the private sector.
Same thing every other liberturd says. Wow, you are so different *snicker*.
We’ve had liberturds posting their unsupported idiocy here since six months before Obama was elected. We know what they think. They talk in slogans and make unsupported allegations, and repeat their theology/ideology ad naueseum, like their unsupported opinion is worth anything.
Simple, if one looks at reality, big goverenment isn’t always bad. You presume it is bad. We look at facts. Government can do a better job for the social safety net than the private sector. All you show is your theology, and not one citation to real and hard evidence otherwise. That is why you are reviled. You aren’t looking at reality, but believing your unproven theology.
Why don’t you really look at the evidence, and supply something other than false “welfare queen” memes. You want change, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate something other than opinion. Get real, and get specific. And look at the big picture. The ball is in your court to prove your unsupported allegations.
Since I’m probably more libertarian than most people in the freethought movement, I’ll proffer an answer to the question: Yes.
(However, I don’t self-identify as a libertarian.)
LOL, Nerd (#472), in your last two counterpoints, you totally missed the point! Simplified transcript:
JCR: “Since they are not exposed to the selective pressure for efficiency inherent in the private marketplace, change in governments is not likely to be toward efficiency.”
Nerd of Redhead: “The government is better than the private market at providing the social safety net! Provide evidence for your welfare queen memes and unsupported allegations!”
Since I don’t give a fuck beyond making the amusing observation that you don’t deserve the rationalist connotations of the label “atheist,” and I don’t have time to kick your ass in a comment-thread debate, I’m just going to leave this comment and you can do what you like with it.
JCR, self-evident tone-troll
WTF?
Well, you know, as atheists who actually understand evolution, we see that it achieves what it does mainly by misery, early death and extinction.
Since those are things we’d rather prevent in human beings, we think that the free-evolutionary market is bullshit.
So, hey ho, you managed to bring up social Darwinism right up front without even mentioning it , that should be worth a cookie!
Well, you only want to be nicely asked to donate to such projects, rather than being forced to do so via taxes. It makes you feel good and gives you power*
Well, I can look at this right at home. While the formerly public postal service had to (and still has to) deliver the mail to every fucking tiny village and the smallest Hallig, with an adress written by gran who got the wrong glasses on her nose, paying their workers a decent wage, the private services take the big cities and big companies/offices, wth lots of inner-city mail, printed by computers and paying their employees crap.
If “making money” is what counts, yeah, they win. If “delivering a good to society” is what counts, they suck.
*I’m fully aware that I’m currently starwmanning you personally, yet not your libertarian companions who’ve enlightened us much so far.
that’s one fucking dumb argument; or more precisely, it’s a serious lack thereof. As if those were the only choices.
you’re either ignorant of how evolution works, or about how markets work. I’d suggest a few classes in ecology to remedy your ignorance.
Also, I’d like to point out that you’re committing the naturalistic fallacy, since the way evolution creates biodiversity is by being ruthless with the weaker species and members thereof. IOW, the existence of evolution does not an argument for Social Darwinism make.
speaking of ecology classes, two quick lessons:
1)no two species can survive in the same niche for long; usually, a species tends to monopolize its niche, even though some overlap exists.
2)nature is not economically efficient. It produces a lot of redundancy, which makes it resilient to change; efficient systems are not resilient to change.
JCR #471
It cost me $3.47 to send a package by the postal service to my mother in Wisconsin. UPS wanted $12 to send the same package. Explain how UPS provides better service than the USPS.
Old joke: UPS and FedEx are going to merge. The new company will be named “Fed-UP.”
Respect to noahpoah for rising above the personal insults hurled at him by people who don’t know him.
This could be the problem. Objectivists are unempathetic, libertarians are regular humans. Objectivists think all success is deserved and all failure one’s own fault. Very few libertarians believe this. Objectivists think that it is better that the weak and the failures die off to leave a stronger society, many libertarians believe we are all in it together so should help our fellow man. Perhaps one should reserve their insults for those deserving of it as I’d bet noahpoah is just as compassionate as any of you, he’s just less free and easy with other people’s money.
It’s nice that so many of you are compassionate and care about people’s needs. Thus I am somewhat discombobulated by your lack of ire at your country and fellow citizens for not addressing the problem of poverty in Africa. Why is that not your top priority, these people are in real need, as in “about to die as they have no food” need. If the human condition was your true priority you’d maybe show it by your votes, your protests and your charitable donations. But you don’t. You care about American lives more. Until you address this fact it would perhaps be wise not to be calling noahpoah, and libertarians in general, sociopathic, cruel, heartless, immoral etc.
Also, perhaps you should define what a need is before you go saying everyone is deserving of having it met. We have limited resources and if your kid gets sick and requires a $5 million operation then even in the UK that’s just tough shit, you have to have prior insurance, be very rich or organise a massive charity effort or your kid dies. The kid doesn’t deserve to die, but that money can be better spent making many people’s lives better or longer rather than saving one kid. And that’s not a libertarian being heartless, that’s social democracies all over Europe being realistic. The kid may need the operation, but it just ain’t happening.
Some libertarians have a problem with income tax rather than tax in general (I happen to be one of those) and there are many ways to fund a limited state that don’t require so much money. For example, natural resources could be used to have a social fund (as in Norway) where the principle is never touched but the interest can be used to fund limited (as it should be) healthcare, roads, education and a few other things that might be of social benefit without resorting to income tax. A sales tax could be implemented to regulate goods and the consumer decides whether to purchase taxed and regulated goods, or cheaper untested goods. Imagine this with drugs – who wouldn’t want to buy the regulated cocaine rather than the dealer-cut stuff?
Should there be a social safety net? Yes. Preferably not a hammock though.
Should atheists provide it? Only as part of a willing community of participants and not as some atheist outreach program.
Should libertarians object to this? Of course not, don’t be so bloody stupid.
You are not comparing like with like. The US Postal Service is a universal carrier, private courier companies are not.
Why did you make such a silly and obvious mistake ?
by not providing certain basic but low-profit services, as well as not servicing certain rural areas
by expelling the failing students
I sense a theme: fuck those it’s not profitable to serve. I believe that’s how American health insurance companies have become so profitable, too.
all the ones in which the US lags behind European countries, for starters. And the ones you’ve mentioned, if you try to remember is that the point is to get the service to everybody, not to merely do so to those for whom it is profitable to do so. Some people still value a system that educates the whole populace, not just a fraction of it.
In other words, I know I am a lying bullshitter without evidence, ergo I can’t provide any, but I must leave some attitude. Yawn.
Liberturds ever stop to think that the government can’t be treated like a company? Different goals and end users, which means different methods must be used. Yawn, it’s boring that they can’t see the obvious. Not one liberturd has offered real life evidence that the department of HHS is wasting money, and any inefficiency found therein isn’t due to the paranoia that too many folks worry about someone taking advantage of the system. Maybe the same folks know they would take advantage of the system if they could, which causes their paranoia.
What is wrong with liberturds that they can’t support their allegations with citations to academic literature?
oh, do tell, which country would that be? assumptions, assumptions…
and one of these days I will finish writing the article on that particular race card so commonly played by libertarians
uh… poor addicts? d’uh?
What does having to know him have to do with anything ?
He made some incredibly stupid comments. He also showed that he has no concept of empathy or compassion. For some reason he, and it seems you, seem to think he should be allowed to get away with that.
Jadehawk, it’s not a race card. It’s an absolute poverty card. You value Americans’ comfort more than non-Americans’ lives yet claim that other people are sociopathic because they value their own comfort over other people’s comfort (and lives).
It’s not meant as a personal insult, we all do it. I’m just calling out your hypocrisy on insulting others for doing it while being blind to doing it yourself.
Which country? Ethiopia, Rwanda? Take your pick. Surely the use of the US military to quell the warlords and create peace and civil order would result in more saved lives than the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably cost less too.
Matt, I gave him respect for not responding to personal insult with personal insults. His arguments can stand or fall on their own.
You mean when people called him a cold-hearted morally bancrupt asshole?
Those were not insults, those were statements of fact.
‘Tis Himself
Don’t remind me of UPS, please.
First time they delivered something, they broke it. Then, they refused to compensate the sender, a small artisan business making rocking horses, claiming that they hadn’t packed the thing propperly on basis of the way I had packed the already broken thing when I returned it.
The second time they delivered something they claimed I wasn’t living here anymore.
it’s a race card; mostly it’s predicated on imperialist impulses of wanting to go somewhere and fix it for the people who live there. In libertarians, that impulse is generally realized in support of assorted NGO’s and corporations, but just like with state imperialism, it’s nothing more than ignorance of what this sort of thing does to said countries compounded with assorted feelings that amount to nothing more than the white man’s burden.
And shall I take your claim that I value American lives as an answer to the question which country you think I’m from?
Yes he clearly indicated he was happy to let people die if he considered them “undeserving”.
I think your concept of respect needs some work. At the moment you respect amoral monsters. Not very impressive.
you’re illiterate if you think that answers any questions I posed to you.
He was a morally bankrupt idjit fuckwit. He thought his inane opinion equaled facts and reality. Like with your opinions, they don’t. The tone of his posts are irrelevant to accuracy and factual truth of the contents therein, and we here find anybody who let let anybody else die for being “unworthy” is essentially screaming names and insults are those people. I feel sorry for you that you can’t see that.
Tone trolls like yourself think how you say something is more important than the contents therein. Your polite, but factually vacuous statements confirm your tone trolling. Put some real evidence on the table with links to the facts, and be prepared to defend them, not just repeat them when proven false.
@Nerd of Redhead – ah, so you know what people think and will say, even though those of us that are Libertarians here tell you that you are incorrect. You then say look at facts- of which you provided NONE. you reach a conclusion in your mind and then scream it with venom, as if that somehow makes it correct. Please, inform me of the numerous, efficient, government systems. Try reading more and posting less .. I agreed that government is a decent provider of the safety net. It is just that the net is too big, inefficient and abused. I did not even say anything about welfare moms. You need to take the argument out of your tiny mind and into the real of what your opponents are saying.
@Giliell – Did I say anything about being nicely asked? I don’t mind paying taxes and having that used for the safety net. But, overall, government is too big and without competitive pressure to be efficient.
@Jadehawk – It was not an argument, but a statement of why I self classify as libertarian. I am pretty aware of how markets work and evolution works, yet you may not be since you seem to have forgotten that competition is both intra and extra species. You say I do not know how markets work, yet fail to say why. Nature may have inefficiency, but is implicitly drives a degree of efficiency that is not present without competition.
@JadeHawk second post – USPS is not low profit, it is no profit. We taxpayers subsidize it as a failing enterprise. You fail to give a single example of an industry where government does better, but give the general “look at Europe” non-answer. You are correct in that my examples rely on capital. But there are ways to enable this for everyone while still providing competition. School vouchers, for example, would provide for those without capital yet still create a competitive environment.
@Tis Himself – Without life support from the fed, the US postal system is dead. The tax payer makes up that difference in cost.
@Matt Penfold – I am not entirely sure of what you are trying to draw out by calling the USPS a universal carrier and others not. Both FedEx and UPS deliver a full variety of package sizes comparable to what the USPS does.
keddaw #478
I notice you don’t comment about whether the insults given to the sociopathic, selfish asshole were deserved or not. We read his posts. They showed his insults were well earned.
Thank you for playing the No True
LibertarianScotsman fallacy. Which logical fallacy do you want to try next?noahpoah says he’ll begrudgingly allow the “deserving” poor some minimal assistance. But the undeserving poor can starve in the streets for all he cares. It appears that you have a different definition of compassion than normal people have.
You’ve chosen False Dichotomy as your next logical fallacy. I’m impressed. Usually libertarians go for Equivocation or Non Sequitur.
To answer your non-question, we agree there are other problems in the world besides the American poor. In post #390 Ys even discussed people starving in Africa. And guess what, part of the reason why they’re starving is corporate greed, a source of pride for many libertarians.
Since the fact was addressed, we can continue to call you selfish, non-caring, sociopathic libertarian assholes the names you so richly deserve. Now what’s your next whine? Oh yes:
First, how many operations cost $5 million? Second, how many insurance companies would pay that much money for an operation? Somehow I doubt UnitedHealth or Aetna are more generous than NHS.
Why am I not surprised that a selfish, sociopathic libertarian doesn’t like income tax? It means there’s money going out of your pocket to benefit someone who isn’t YOU! And that just grates at your selfish, sociopathic, libertarian heart.
If you think Norway doesn’t have income tax then you just showed that like most libertarians you’re an economic illiterate.
You prefer a regressive tax which affects the poor more than the rich than progressive income taxes. You can stop wondering why I call you a selfish sociopath. Your concern for your fellow citizens is non-existent.
Please collect your decaying porcupine (don’t worry, it’s free and non-government supplied) and shove it up your rosy-red rectum.
Selfish sociopaths annoy me.
No, I reached reality. You scream your idiocy and unreality with every post. Still not providing any evidence of your own.
Backasswards per literturd opeations manual. You claim inefficiency, prove it with citations to the academic literature, not with opinion and unsupported assertions. Most government agencies are lean and mean because they are underfunded. You prove otherwise.
Unsupported claim, just like the liberturd manual says. If there is that inefficiency present, somebody has studied it. Provide a link to those studies. Otherwise, how can I tell you aren’t an ideological/theological liar and bullshitter.
You are divorced from reality. The USPS, by law, must do certain things. UPS and FedEx can cherry pick and only do what is profitable. Not thinking very well. Oh, and the present USPS financial problems are caused by laws which require them to deliver bulk mail at less than cost. If they could set their rates, they wouldn’t have a problem. Political interference, not management, caused that problem.
I wonder if you’ve noticed that humans are a social species, and whether you know how the evolution of social species works.
like I said: you don’t know shit about shit, to think nature is even close to efficient. Designed systems are efficient, natural ones are not.
I also note that you completely failed to so much as notice the fact that none of that is even relevant, since Social Darwinism is not a defensible social policy.
do quote where I said anything about the profit or lack thereof of the USPS.
and
ROTFLMAO
ignorant twit
I had to reread this a couple of times, just to check I didn’t get it wrong. You are a heartless bastard.
I shall inform my boyfriends family, who live in a place with a post office but where UPS prefers not to deliver, that UPS is an universal carrier. Same to the residents of my former town, which had two post offices that had regular business hours, but only one UPS depot that was open once a week, at most inconvenient hours.
And I’m sure Fed Ex and UPS will be thrilled to continue to create, maintain, and standarize zip-code lists, maintain mail boxes, etc. for the same price that the USPS does so.
don’t be so mean. how can you say such horrible things just because they said that poor people don’t need things that won’t kill them.
A universal carrier in this context is one that is required to accept any package and deliver it to any destination inside the country. Further it is to do this for a fixed fee regardless of destination.
I just checked. Fed Ex does not offer such a service. It is quite dishonest for you to pretend they do.
Why did you make such a stupid claim ?
Specialized “look at Europe” answers:
Look at the fucking British Railway. They are turning out more deaths, worse services and shitty working conditions while getting more state subsidizes than they ever got when they were publicly owned.
Oh, and if market does best, tell me why Germany spends only 11,6 of the national produce on healthcare while the USA spend 16% and still gets better results?
Yes, because the mechanism that creates different species is the exact same that produces efficient economies. No problem with that reasoning whatsoever. In nature we never see individuals within a species cooperating.
Then it’s a silly statement since there are more options than just Democrat, Republican or libertarian.
Um, how about the competitive pressure of elections? If elected officials fuck up too badly they can get voted out.
In representative democracies, the people get to have a voice in government. They don’t in corporations. Hell, even most of the employees of the corporation don’t really get to have a say in how the place they spend 40+ hours a week is run. For many people the biggest source of tyranny in their life isn’t the state.
_ _ _
Again, can the libertarians answer me two questions:
1. Why is it that the social democracies of Europe, who have big government programs and social safety nets, have some of the highest standard of living in the world?
2. If large government programs were empirically shown unambiguously to be superior to private charities in helping people, would you still oppose them?
My wife’s uncle lives in a hamlet of about 200 people. If you write a letter to him and send it via USPS, his address is [name redacted], Stump Creek, PA 15683 (notice there’s no street address). The Stump Creek post office is a counter in the general store but there is daily mail delivery. If you want to send him something via FedEx, he’ll have to go 15 miles to DuBois, a town of 8,000, but only on Wednesday or Friday afternoons, which when FedEx delivers to DuBois.