Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:33:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
398 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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.
The idea that any system will/can get rid of poor starving folks is naive,
at best. It is impossible to do away with poverty. Mainly because in some,
if not most, instances it is self-imposed. Some people just do not have the
desire or courage to do what it takes to be self reliant. Socialism will
never do away with poverty because it CANNOT be fairly implemented. Besides,
everyone SHOULD NOT get an equal piece of any pie - some people contribute
more and deserve more in return. That is what feeds greatness -
unfortunately it also feeds a host of bad qualities as well. Our free-market
society is the best model to deal with poverty, yet woefully failing due to
individual moral character. Which leads to another point - any system which
does not realisticly recognize the fact that we as a species are bent toward
selfishness will not be able to provide an answer.
We will always have the poor (re: J.C.) - they give us a divine opportunity
to show genuine compassion. I disagree with what Frank says below because I
believe we should help people because they need it, not because we don't
want to be hurt ourselves (selfishness). Yet, then there is the matter of,
"If I give that guy money will he use it for drugs or booze?" Is it
unreasonable to set some sort of criteria for this compassion? Are some more
deserving than others? Should we choose who we think will use our compassion
more wisely than others? I don't think there easy answers to such questions.
One-size-fits-all doesn't work in the myriad of circumstances people find
themselves in.
If I may, please indulge me in a story. About six years ago, my wife and I
learned of a 19 year old kid named Ellis, who was homeless. We discussed it
and decided to let him use our spare bedroom - she was pregnant at the time,
and we were getting it ready for our daughter-to-be. Ellis had no home, no
family (he hadn't heard from his mother in years, father dead, raised by
grandparents now also dead) and no job, and had been in jail. We took him in
because he seemed sincere and desperately wanted to get back on his feet. At
first he was very polite and proper, he helped out around the house. Slowly
his attitude changed, he got snippy on occasion. I got him a job where I was
working at the time - same thing there, nice in the beginning, slowly
changing. Eventually he was able to buy a car, which led to more problems,
nothing major though, little things too insignificant to mention. And then,
finally, he was able to locate his mother in Ohio somewhere (we were in
Florida). After six months, he was on his feet and reunited with his mother.
I understand they had a rocky reunion - but for the most part he's doing
fine still. After he left we noticed that some things were missing, which
annoyed me a bit, but I reserve the possibility that there may be some sort
of misunderstanding or mistake involved.
My point is that I believe this young man's life is worth far more than any
inconvenience he may have caused me and my family, yet we did make some
value judgements before embarking on such a task. Some people will get back
up and some won't. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't help those whom "we
think" won't. I wasn't "certain" Ellis would, but I was willing to take the
chance. Poverty is not a simple "give 'em what they lack" issue. It gets
into the human spirit and will to achieve - all things which are nurtured by
a loving environment which promotes the significance of each individual.
Those in society who are lacking this love or significance on a tangible
level are the same ones who become derelict (which I believe to be evidence
of God - and no, I'm not trying to open that debate again - just musing aloud).
Also, I believe our motives justify or negate or actions, whatever they may
be. A seemingly good deed done for the wrong reason stinks. If we help some
one soley to prevent ourselves from being harmed, we are no better than the
miser who hoards his wealth, both are selfish. True happiness can only be
found by helping others without thought of return.
As far as crime and punishment - people choose how they will react to
correction. Some learn from it and some don't - it gets back to what people
have deep inside themselves. Society cannot be held responsible for such
individual choices. Society can, however, hold the individual responsible.
We have rights as we respect the rights of others.
Doning flame retardant suit,
Bill
>
> 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....
Sssssssnip!!!!!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
