Or crony socialism…Socialize loss, privatize profits, etc.
California is the number 1 welfare state in the nation with the highest benefits and has the highest poverty rate in the nation; and this state is as “blue” as a state can get.
I have NEVER heard a single Democrat advocate for “Welfare Reform”, they advocate for MORE programs on top of the current pile of fail and they blame the failure on too little money being spent.
I noticed CS that you did not comment on what I posted but instead chose to ask me a question, I assume that this was an attempt to avoid explaining why you reject what I said in favor of hoping I would fit your stereotype by answering your question?
I will answer it because I don’t argue like a Liberal, as a result I can defend what I advocate without games.
Would I support any form of assistance?
Absolutely, I engage in assisting the poor constantly; what I oppose is using government to design, manage and distribute this “help” at the point of a gun whether the people who are forced to pay for it believe in the system or not.
I am forced to hurt the poor everyday by your Party, they take my resources by force and use those resources to destroy the lives of poor people; I have no choice but to fund this wholesale destruction because the government took over the work of Charity and sucked all the good out of it.
The fundamental difference between us is that you have an indefensible faith in governments ability to operate with integrity and I have a fundamental faith that government can never, has never and will never operate with integrity for very long.
The reason the poor were not the same people in perpuity before Welfare was because charity was handled by the communities as INDIVIDUALS; it was not an “entitlement”.
If someone came to church with their hat in their hand they got help, but the help came from their own neighbors who they lived among. If the needy person refused the jobs they were offered or was clearly taking the charity as a means to live a decadent lifestyle it would soon be known and they would be cut off.
If the person was grateful for the help and took the work opportunities that were offered they were taken under the wing of the community until they had the skills to support themselves; then they became a funder of the charitable outreach.
That was the “system” and it worked great, people felt grateful instead of entitled and the very people who needed workers were directly involved in training and placing needy people where they could fit in.
It was a far more efficient and effective system than creating a monster bureaucracy with a checklist to determine eligibility and no connection between the ones paying for it and the ones receiving it.
That is why the system without government guns managed the poverty problem in such a way as to render it a tempory condition for most while the government turned it into a generational curse that few ever find a way out of.
Well meaning people create crap like this, then people with nefarious motives make sure it remains forever to damage everyone; that is why ALL CHARITY should be local and that is why the Constitution forbids such efforts at the Federal Level; our Founders knew that governments are necessary evils so the only way to keep their evil in check is to limit their involvement to as few of things as possible and specifically enumerate those things.
Now are you planning to answer the question I asked you or was this just an attempt to dismiss my points by hoping I would cross some line in my response?
And a new question for you: Are you willing to even consider any form of assistance for the poor that is not managed by the government?
Please describe this “just property distribution”, I am curious how you have determined that my current property was obtained “unjustly”.
Nonsense, of course. They’ll “bounce back” only after they’ve hit rock bottom. To most, that’s when they are arrested and then incarcerated somewhere where they MUST beat their addiction “cold turkey.”
Just WHAT do you think is a “just” distribution of property??? Never mind. I can answer FOR you. “In a ‘just’ system, we can confiscate the property of those who, in our unchallenged opinion, have ‘too much’, and redistribute it to those who have–again, in our unchallenged opinion-- ‘too little.’”
A former Deputy Police Chief outright states it:
Most libertarians subscribe to a Lockean/Nozickean theory of justice with respect to property, which is basically the idea that property holdings are just if they are the result of peaceful homesteading, trade, or production.
So in theory, suppose you have a society built up of peaceful homesteaders who produce and trade: most libertarians would hold that inequalities in property arising in such a society would be just, and that, prima facie, no legitimate basis in justice could exist for redistributing wealth from those who have more to those who have less.
A few caveats tend to carry with the above claim. Most famously, we have the “Lockean proviso.” Locke argued, and Nozick basically agreed, that the exception to the above notion of justice is that there must be “enough and as good left for others.” The canonical example is that it wouldn’t be justice to claim property in the only water in a desert, and then force anyone wanting a drink to be your servant. Most libertarian philosophers agree with this, though there are a few notable exceptions. The Lockean Proviso is an enormously complicated subject, however, that could easily be discussed at book length. I’ve just tried to provide the most basic and succinct overview.
Another problem with the Lockean/Nozickean view of justice in property is that no society in history could possibly meet that standard of justice. Every society in the world exists on a foundation of rape, theft, murder, and injustice. Given this, it’s hard to imagine how property could ever be justified along a historical Lockean analysis.
Nozick concedes this point. In fact, he goes so far as to say that the difference principle could be the best way to govern property distribution in actual societies—a remarkable concession!
Some libertarians have argued for what is derisively called the “libertarianism starting…now!” theory of property justice. Essentially, this says that maybe it’s true that society rests upon injustice and theft, but we should still forget all of that and try to build a libertarian society here and now. The problem for this theory is obvious: that sounds really great for the people who benefited from all that rape and theft, not so great for the people who were the victims of it. Still, if libertarian theory is true, and I believe it is, then a libertarian society will still trend towards social justice, as free markets here and now will still provide more opportunities for people to create, advance, and succeed. However, it’s hard to avoid the idea that this would still require some sort of redistributive scheme, such as a universal basic income, at least for awhile.
I could go on, but I doubt anyone has read this far anyway.
I read it all the way to the end and it’s STILL nonsense, Mr. Anderson. I am NOT responsible for what my ancestors did. My “inheritance” from my own parents, after dividing it with my siblings was about the equivalent of two months of my own salary at the time. I’ve worked my butt off to acquire what comparatively little I own (compared to Bloomberg, for example). I’ve never stolen, cheated, raped or murdered anyone in my life and I will NOT countenance being accused of doing so in order to prosper because some so-called “philosopher” thinks I bear the responsibility because someone in the distant past did so. Your “libertarian philosophers” can kiss my ass.
J.Anderson calls himself a "liberal-libertarian which is an oxymoron. I can sympathize because I was similarly conflicted when I was in my 20s. At age 31 I learned that government micromanaging of people’s lives usually resulted more inequities than solutions.
The truth is there will always be inequalities. Some people will earn more income. Some people will have a higher net worth. These unequal results are the result God given talents, life choices and willingness to work harder than other people. The key is how does a society takes care or helps the weakest and truly needy among us. That is the true issue. Engineering universal equity is socialism, which produces bad results for everyone except government officials who are “connected.” Government get rich under the socialist and communist systems. Everyone one else is lucky to be able to scrape by.
No, he’s saying that doing something harmful to garner votes is an evil thing; that garnering the votes (and, I would add, making people excessively dependent upon the government, which is also an evil thing) was the intended purpose, and altruism had somewhere between little and nothing to do with it.
Sure, why not?
It “creates” the currency system, but it doesn’t give it worth. Worth can only come from representing real wealth (we’ve been down this road before, too). Printing more money only makes it all worth less per unit. That is taking it from someone else first. No, our money is not based on debt; its eventual inevitable collapse is.
Sendgop…you’re a tedious little man.
I’ve never called myself that.
At any rate, this is false also. “Libertarianism” is considered a subbranch of “liberalism” by political theorists and philosophers.
Who is calling for “government micromanaging of people’s lives?” Me? Ugh, getting really bored of this.
Well, then we’re left to determine who gets to decide what is harmful. For example, you might say (since I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that giving someone assistance is harmful because it reduces there the incentive to work hard and provide for themselves.
I think that can be true, but I don’t think it’s always true and I think that should be the goal of any assistance program is to help people meet their potential.
It creates the currency system and the currency. I would agree that the currency has no intrinsic value, it’s value is extrinsic, linked to what things of real value it can be traded for.
Now banks also create dollars, but, strictly speaking, for every dollar a bank creates, banks create an equal debt. So when you add up all bank created money beside all bank-created debt, it sums to zero. Only the US government creates dollars with no corresponding liability in the US private sector. The debt exists in the public sector.
Because the government has a monopoly on the creation of dollars and the monopoly on force if you fail to submit some of those dollars in payment of taxes, then I’d argue that while strictly you are correct, in real terms, the dollar will have value as long as two things happen:
- The government maintains it’s monopoly on the US dollar and it can enforce its tax regime.
- People are willing to make and sell things of real value in trade for the government’s dollar.
Those are just facts, not an endorsement of the system. That’s how it works.
I think the confusion lay in the fact that classically liberals were those that believed in less government. Today, the term has been co-opted to mean something entirely different.
These are your own words. “Left-wing libertarian” sounds like political schizophrenia to me.
Not any more. The “progressives” co-opted it because the world sounded more like, “open, free and tolerant.” Of course if you go back the 1960s, the college radicals of that period sneered at liberals. Then they learned that word sounded better than “socialism” so now it’s okay, although not as good as “progressive.”
In a system of crony capitalism, redistributive schemes along Rawlsian moral lines are necessary as a matter of justice. The only question is what kind of schemes. Personally, I favor getting rid of the entire current system (social security, medicare, food stamps, etc.) in favor of a simple minimum basic income.
Well maybe there is hope for you yet, although for the “progressive” GAI has become just one more entitlement on top of everything else.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. “Left-wing libertarianism” is a specific branch of political philosophy within the subfield of libertarianism. It includes anarcho-capitalists like Roderick Long who are against any state whatsoever. Equating it with the modern democratic party is just you not understanding the terms being used.
Neither do I care at all how the word “liberal” is used by idiotic political hacks like Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh. I’m using the word “liberal” in the sense it’s still used by philosophers and political theorists; i.e. as a political theory that places primary emphasis on the value of liberty.
Moreover, equating a call for minimum basic income with “progressives” and government “micromanaging” is equally clueless. Both Milton Friedman and Hayek called for a minimum basic income as a replacement for the current welfare state. My position on this is actually closer to the conservative end of the libertarian spectrum.
I think history has shown that government assistance consistently devolves into it being true.
Agree thus far…
But here’s where the train runs off the rails. If the government is creating dollars out of thin air and spending them on real goods and services, then there is more demand on those goods and services. Yet there is no more supply, and the prices go up; and the government isn’t producing goods and services (theoretically, government is a service; in practice, not so much) to put into the economy to supply something in another area for people to spend money on. The result: They’re only giving what they took from someone else, after they take a big cut for themselves.
It doesn’t follow that the dollars have the same value after printing more. People are not willing to make and sell things of real value for the same number of dollars.
Not addressing this particular sentence. I just wanted to quote it.
You don’t have to go back too far to find that everyone is related and descended from the same folks. At some point, everyone or nearly everyone is a victim and a beneficiary of a rapacious past.
And Friedman got it with the EIC. While not universal, it reaches fairly high on the income scale. It never replaced the welfare state. It supplemented it. I like this concept vastly better than the welfare state we have, but we literally cannot afford anything meaningful. It appears as pie in the sky as everything that comes out of Ocasio-Cortez’s mouth. If you put $1,000 in the pockets of every single person in America every month, it would cost $4 trillion annually. If you could means test it, great, we might have something to work with. But the current welfare state will provide upward of $650 in food stamps a few years ago plus cash assistance, plus assistance with utilities, plus assistance with rent (if you can get past the two-year waiting list) and free medical care. If you’re working, make the correct amount and have enough children, you can score up to $10,000 in cash per year from the federal government anyway through the EIC. My example of $1,000 per month doesn’t begin to cover this. The benefit would need to be larger for those already dependent on the welfare state.
What minim basic income concept do you think is feasible and sustainable?
You shouldn’t have to live your life in constant fear that what you say will offend someone. Of course, you need to use good sense, but don’t let people who are easily offended rule you.