Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:27:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
342 times
|
| |
|
|
I prefer "Would Libertopia cause the needy to get less?"
Libertopia infers that it is accomplishable - that man is willing to
re-distribute his wealth. The fact that man, today, is willing to have kids
working in sweat shops in the developing world to ensure he can have cheap
trainers suggests to me that is not yet ready to re-distribute his wealth.
We also have to distinguish between libertarianism as employed by the
"Libertarian Party" and true libertarianism - they are not the same thing...
but I think the differences are clear.
Back to your question, my first question is less what? Everyone will have
less money in Libertopia, as it will not exist in its current form (my
understanding). As for Wealth, even respected libertarian economists accept
that there is no guarantee that the market can provide everything to
everyone. Indeed, even Larry's economic guru accepted that some tax will be
required for areas of welfare (I am not sure which) as the market will not
be able to provide it. Libertopia can not exist with welfare tax. So in
terms of wealth, I think the needy would get less.
It then follows that less personal wealth means less health, less education,
etc.
Finally, if you are tempted to overhaul your system of government, the test
should not be "Would the needy get less?". It should be "Would the needy get
more?".
Scott A
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A22B098.6201@mindspring.com...
> One of the central arguments against libertarian principles is that
> there will be more poor starving folks. I assert that this will not be
> the case.
>
> It is to my benefit that my neighbor isn't starving and desperate. If he
> is, he is likely to rob me. If he busts my car window to get a stereo
> which he sells to a pawn shop, something like $100 has been wasted, all
> to transfer about $100 worth of wealth from me to other folks. So in the
> end, I'd ultimately rather just give the fellow a hundred bucks. Of
> course, ideally, I'd like to give him that hundred bucks using a system
> which encouraged him to use it not just to feed his wants, but to also
> make himself more valuable to society.
>
> Of course there's even more waste when this poor starving neighbor busts
> my window. If he gets caught, in our current system, we're going to
> waste $1000s of resources to "punish" him, and likely, he'll get tossed
> in prison where it will certainly appear that he is living better, but
> in the meantime, whatever self respect and drive for success he had is
> probably even further trampled, or worse twisted (so that next time,
> instead of busting my car window he kills me).
>
> Now it is true that some lazy slobs will want to hold all their wealth
> for themselves. I'll chose not to live in the same town as them, and I
> certainly don't want to pay "taxes" so that they will be protected.
>
> Now you may assert that a government can do better, but how? No matter
> how you cut, slice, or dice it, ultimately humans are required to make
> the decision as to how resources will be shared to make a better world
> for all. Unfortunately, a government, rather than allowing a free market
> to find the best way, is dependant on a small class of folks who have
> the charisma to convince the rest of us that their ideas are better than
> ours. All it does is concentrate the power, because ultimately, what you
> are doing by paying taxes is giving away a measure of your own power in
> such a way such that you have little control over how that power is
> used.
>
> Now you may hold that most people don't have the smarts to use their
> power effectively. Please show me what guarantees that the few who
> govern in today's society are those with the best smarts, and not just
> the same poor stupid slobs as the rest of us?
>
> The ONLY government that I could see as being able to truly be better
> than human would a government which derrives its power from divine
> sources, but since I reject almost any possibility of this (I don't
> absolutely reject the possibility of a divine force, but if it's there,
> and it doesn't touch all of us basically equally, the number of folks
> who have been touched to an extent that I would grant they might be able
> to be better governors than the rest of us slobs is almost zero, and
> none of them who are alive today hold positions of strength in
> government [a possible candidate for such a person today is the Dalai
> Lama but he sure isn't running much of a government, though he certainly
> is willing to share his ideas to any who are willing to listen]).
>
> Now there is valid concern about whether a transition to Libertopia
> opens us up for a worse world temporarily. All this means is that we
> need to exercise care and thought in dismantling the current power
> structures. As Larry has said before, it isn't easy being a libertarian,
> but just because it's hard doesn't mean it should be rejected.
>
> --
> Frank Filz
>
> -----------------------------
> Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
> Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| (...) Sweat shops in this country are primarily inhabited by illegal immigrants - since their actions are predicated on being "illegal", what protections do they have? As for third world country sweat shops - a people as a whole allow themselves to (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| One of the central arguments against libertarian principles is that there will be more poor starving folks. I assert that this will not be the case. It is to my benefit that my neighbor isn't starving and desperate. If he is, he is likely to rob me. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
