Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:12:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
487 times
|
| |
|
|
Bill Farkas wrote:
>
> 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.
In my book, selfishness needs to be separated from "moral rot".
Selfishness in and of itself is not bad (in fact, my proposal of just
giving poor slobs money because it's cheaper than having them steal to
get the money is based on pure selfishness). Selfishness is bad when it
is not applied towards creating the maximum good. If I decided that I
could afford to spend $10000 per year on LEGO sets that I had no
intention of using, and in fact, would just incinerate just because,
then that is bad (but that bad should not be legislated against, on the
other had, neither should legislation force you to sell me your LEGO
sets knowing that I will just destroy them just because I'm willing to
pay more, of course you need to set the conditions of your sale
correctly, you can't just put it up on eBay with no conditions and then
tell me when I win with the high bid that you're going to pass me over
because you know I'm just going to incinerate your MISB Airport
Shuttle).
Now if you're arguing for the "depravity of man", then it will be
difficult for us to find common ground.
> 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.
Very valid points, in fact, I was going to raise the "one size fits all"
as a bad model, that is the model of our current system. We are
increasingly limiting the options of judges, enforcing one size fits all
solitions. We are increasingly straightjacketting states by enforcing
one size fits all "do it our [the federal] way, or lose your highway
dollars". I think there are some areas where commonality is good, but
I'm also inclined to trust the free market to find those (for example, I
think the free market would quickly decide that the bulk of traffic laws
should be uniform [to take an extreme example, consider if some region
decided that red means go and green means stop - how many fatal
collisions will it take before that region finds that it's roads don't
connect with anyone elses?]).
<snip nice example of charity>
> 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).
Your charity in this case is what libertarians want to foster. You saw a
potential in this young man, and you reached out a hand, but that hand
came with some conditions (I'm assuming that had he started pilfering
constantly, or refused to help out, or otherwise was a "derelict" that
you would have shown him the door). Your charity also allowed him a
means to get back on his feet.
> 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.
There is some virtue in charity without thought of return, but just
giving without ever expecting anything isn't going to help anyone. That
is the problem with government charity, it can't set enough conditions.
> 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.
Libertarianism is all about holding folks responsible.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| (...) I agree, not all selfishness is bad, yet I believe it to be the root of most of what ails us. Any crime or perversion can be sifted down to an illicit focus on meeting a selfish desire. Again, our freedom only exists in our ability to respect (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
