In A Libertarian state how would the poor survive?

[Anil]

But it seems Libertarians believe all humans are inherently good and capable of living well together peacefully if left to their own devices, and governments by their nature subvert this, and that we don't need an authority who controls us all with the threat of violence in order to ensure we all live well together.

exactly and i just made that case (more or less since there are some exceptions that even libertarians can't stomach) in my post above...

 

[Ikki]

For a bloke whose head is as inflated as yours, a lot sure goes over it. You’re the one espousing charity as a replacement vehicle for the welfare state. It’s really incumbent on you to demonstrate it’ll work. You know, just like it did for the poor before the welfare state came into existence....

I've demonstrated that already umpteen times on this board: America until 1913 didn't have an income tax and the government spending accounted for single digits in terms of GDP - USA was no welfare state and most people that needed relief relied on charity.

In that time, it became the richest country in the world - and possibly all of mankind. People didn't flock to America from all corners of the world to be fleeced, they did so to get rich and they continued to do so as their emigrating family members became more wealthy and sent for them. People that need charity/welfare are those that cannot look after themselves; they are not Uni students who don't want to work while they study or people who have made negligent life choices that wish for other people to subsidise their lifestyle.

It's simple logic: without the ability to build up capital - or money - you cannot be more charitable. Your retort was that rich people are just evading taxes - as if Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates et al don't have souls because they managed to amass a fortune. Are you more benevolent because you vote for a welfare state you hardly contribute towards? Funny stuff.

You implicate the evilness in the common people, yet your solution is the welfare state. If you don't see how contradictory your reasoning is then your head is more inflated than mine (pause). The wealthier people not only contribute towards charity but they also pay the most taxes. Also, ya know, as an important aside: rich people creating jobs is more beneficial than a payout.

And what would we have ever done without the welfare state...

That’s ok, I don’t give you any credit, and never really have.

Well that's the difference between us. Even though your arguments are embarrassingly flawed, I entertain you in the off chance you might actually have something intelligible to say considering you're probably twice my age. If you entered into any of these discussions in good faith you may have learned something by now.

But I'm still waiting patiently, almost 60k posts later, for you to make a cogent argument. In the meantime, post more because when you're serious at least we get to see this pretzel logic and know what to avoid. When you're sarcastic it doesn't reveal it adequately. I guess that could be by design: hide behind one liners and subbing other posters to evade delving into a thought process you yourself haven't worked out.

 

[Ikki]

Why would you need strong private property rights if everyone is inherently good

Not everything comes down to evil, there are legitimate misunderstandings or competing interests. We also have homicide laws even though a small number of people actually commit homicide.

Libertarianism really implies that most people are good and are likely to be corrupted when they have the power to coerce others. The idea can be a functional argument as much as it is moral.

 

[Ikki]

• there won't be any poor people in a libertarian system since the big bad govt won't be stealing from its citizens. people will be either rich, comfortably well-off or dead (the dead ones would be the unproductive people who are a burden on society, they are takers/moochers so they don't matter anyway).

People will be richer, there will always be relatively poorer people but they will be better off being in an economy that can easily give them an income, rather than one mangled by a government that will slow down economic development. Contrary to popular leftist belief, many people hold themselves back through a lack of discipline and effort. Otherwise, in a free market, you are far more likely to climb the economic ladder, which is why the freest economic nations tend to be the richest.

• corporations will trickle down their profits to their employees. everyone will get exactly the salary, bonus and recognition that they deserve irrespective of gender, race, age, sexual orientation.

Gotta love how you use leftist dog whistles but this is more or less true.

• private healthcare will engender competition and drive down the cost of services and medicine and will make it affordable for everyone to get high quality goods and services. in fact the price of all essential goods and services will become dirt-cheap because of the laissez faire free market competition. even in sectors where monopolies happen (now that anti-trust laws are out of the picture), these benevolent behemoth corporations will honorably refuse to take advantage of a captive market.

No, I don't think everyone will ever get the best of everything. We are living in the real world, not some marxist utopia. But, it will be more accessible to more people.

• the c-level people are for the most part honest, hard-working people anyway and the few unscrupulous, unworthy ones will be weeded out by highly ethical corporate policies. nepotism will be unheard of.

Companies that don't have the government to coerce others to be subsidised or regulated in favour of will have to meet the demands of its customers as that will be the only way they actually make money.

• shady companies and unethical business practices will be punished by the all-powerful consumer just refusing to buy their goods and services and by their more ethical competitors.

Yes, people have brains and tend to use it more when they don't see the government as their matriarch. I know, hard to believe.

• there will be charities run by rich individuals and corporations (freed up from having to practice charity to reduce their taxable income, they will now be motivated by genuine philanthropy) for the disabled and generally unproductive people who are not supported by their family.

Yes but not just rich individuals, ordinary individuals can give more.

• once the deadly malaise of political correctness and social justice posturing are weeded out from society, an incorruptible volunteer army and police force will make sure laws are enforced and borders are protected. crime will be scarce but an equally incorruptible and completely unbiased judiciary and the justice system will make sure criminals are punished and victims get justice. there won't be any more racial tension, not even the concept of a minority group, everyone will be treated equally.

Are you speaking about anarchism? Libertarians do believe in government too, you know this right?

Stupid people and political correctness will always exist, they just won't have the power to become fascists.

• every country will be self-sufficient and its citizens rich and happy so there won't be really any need to migrate to another country. when it happens, it will be 100% legal migration.

Erm, maybe. Probably not.

• all religious groups will be treated equally and without prejudice. atheists, socialists, transsexuals and other enemies of a free society will be eradicated.

By government sure. By normal people? Nah, again, let's stick to reality.

• ayn rand, jordan peterson, ben shapiro will be required reading for children starting from elementary school.

If only, but libertarians don't force people to learn anything: freedom, remember?

• politicians will become more or less powerless and so money in elections and business lobbies will become obsolete. as a result all politicians will be honest and devoted to public service, corruption will be a thing of the past.

Actually, it's more likely they will be more influential locally which will keep them more honest. But politicians are likely to find ignorant people who will give up their rights for goodies, but we can hope they won't I guess with everybody reading Mises and Friedman

• there will be no wars or terrorism of course because why would happy people want to fight?!

Nah, ignorant people who demonise others will always exist.

• unfettered by the pernicious environment protection policies and in the absence of rubbish conspiracy theories like climate change, all kinds of technology will flourish. pollution will be dealt with somehow by better technology. if plant and animal life die off, it's because it is necessary for human survival. in the highly unlikely event of coastal cities going underwater (highly unlikely because of course climate change is pure hogwash), advanced technology will help build underwater cities or cities in outer space.

Well, this one has gotten off the deep end. You can be a libertarian and believe in climate change. You just won't expect the government to fix it.

• flying pigs and unicorns will be common-place in all libertarian countries and will become the national bird/animal in those countries.

Again, we aren't talking about a marxist utopia. Real world only please. Thanks.

 

[Ikki]

Recently been watching Yaron Brook, he's good on the economic stuff and entertaining.

 

[GIMH]

Why would you need strong private property rights if everyone is inherently good

Nah look, I can’t speak for everyone but my personal belief is that many people are bad and that’s why I’m a libertarian.

I love that in Anil’s stupid post he named Shapiro and Petersen as required reading when neither are libertarian. Ayn Rand isn’t the defining voice some people seem to think either - some of her stuff is good but it’s also highly problematic in places.

I think Niall asked a fair question here but some of the posts, in particular Anil’s absolute mess, are why it’s just not worth the effort to tackle seriously.

 

[Ikki]

I don't know mate, I love it when Anil posts.

 

[Ausage]

I don't know mate, I love it when Anil posts.

My favorite bit was where he used failures of government to argue against Libertarianism.

 

[GIMH]

My favorite bit was where he used failures of government to argue against Libertarianism.

It’s the wrong type of government you see

 

[sledger]

It’s the wrong type of government you see

Haha, a bit like how Venezuela is not true socialism, or Soviet Russia was not truly communist.

 

[zorax]

Is the USA a failed capitalist state

 

[Munificent_Fool]

If not for capitalism, most of the world would still be largely poor.

Most of the world still is largely poor. Unless of course you think earning $4 a day doesn't make you poor.

It is the greatest creator of wealth and it is evidenced by the fact that even the poorest in the most capitalistic countries (or traditionally capitalistic) live significantly better than most of the world and most people that have ever existed in history.

Slaves lived better in 1850 than in 1750. What's your point?

The US is more "capitalist" than most developed countries and their poorest are far worse off.

 

[Ikki]

Most of the world still is largely poor. Unless of course you think earning $4 a day doesn't make you poor.

Yes, they were far poorer 200 years ago, that's the point. In the last 30 years alone extreme poverty has been cut down by 50% around the world - and that's a conservative estimate. That is a great feat.

Slaves lived better in 1850 than in 1750. What's your point?

The US is more "capitalist" than most developed countries and their poorest are far worse off.

what utter tripe. The poor in USA are richer than most people around the world. What in god's name are you talking about?

The USA still is a fairly capitalist society but from about 1900 onwards, it has regressed massively. As I stated in the above, the government spent less than 10% of the GDP, in recent years that figure is generally between 33-38%.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

Yes, they were far poorer 200 years ago, that's the point. In the last 30 years alone extreme poverty has been cut down by 50% around the world - and that's a conservative estimate. That is a great feat.

How is this a response to what I said? You said if not for capitalism most of the world would still be largely poor. Most of the world still is largely poor.

Is thing thing on?

what utter tripe. The poorest people in USA are richer than most people around the world. What in god's name are you talking about?

The USA still is a fairly capitalist society but from about 1900 onwards, it has regressed massively. As I stated in the above, the government spent less than 10% of the GDP, in recent years that figure is generally between 33-38%.

I didn't say otherwise. You've misread. I said the US is more capitalist than most other developed countries and yet among developed countries, the poor in America are worse off than the poor in many other less capitalist, developed countries.

Your implicit suggestion that the more capitalist a country is, the better off the poor are is demonstrably false.

 

[Ikki]

How is this a response to what I said? You said if not for capitalism most of the world would still be largely poor. Most of the world still is largely poor.

Is thing thing on?

That's because of the varied definition of poor and our changing the context of it as we become more wealthy. The standard of living for poor people in most developed countries now is the standard of the wealthy hundreds of years ago. People, even in relatively rich countries, were dying of starvation and simple illnesses/diseases that caused death fairly commonly. Even in Africa, since 2000 their average per capita income has risen by 50%. One has to have perspective on these things.

I didn't say otherwise. You've misread. I said the US is more capitalist than most other developed countries and yet among developed countries, the poor in America are worse off than the poor in many other less capitalist, developed countries.

Your implicit suggestion that the more capitalist a country is, the better off the poor are is demonstrably false.

Says who? And how do you measure that? America is more capitalist in reputation but it is dependant on how you define it - which makes your premise and conclusion flawed. In Economic Freedom index, America ranks lower than Australia and Denmark - ergo less capitalistic. And it goes far deeper than your simplistic argument: America subsidises the world for much of their defence and a multitude of other things - like medical research. It goes even further as many countries around the world are funding their programs through debt and money printing. It's the equivalent to thinking you're rich when you've bought everything on your credit card. The bill comes due eventually.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

That's because of the varied definition of poor and our changing the context of it as we become more wealthy. The standard of living for poor people in most developed countries now is the standard of the wealthy hundreds of years ago. People, even in relatively rich countries, were dying of starvation and simple illnesses/diseases that caused death fairly commonly. Even in Africa, since 2000 their average per capita income has risen by 50%. One has to have a perspective on these things.

Clearly you have no perspective. The same logic can be used to justify any system that has rising standards of living be it across decades or centuries. There were rising standards of living in Nazi Germany. Does that justify fascism? The same can be said for some communist countries, and some slave societies. It is not a valid argument.

Says who? And how do you measure that? America is more capitalist in reputation but it is dependant how you define it. In Economic Freedom index, America ranks lower than Australia and Denmark - ergo less capitalistic.

So assuming that economic freedom and capitalism are interchangeable synonyms, which they're not, you're arguing that my claim of America being more capitalist than most other developed countries is false because two other countries out of dozens, are supposedly more capitalist than the US? lol................what?

Poverty is routinely measured in relative and absolute terms. And the US fares worse on both than a host of European and other developed countries. I can't help that it contradicts your free market zealotry.

And it goes far deeper than your simplistic argument: America subsidises the world for much of their defence and a multitude of other things - like medical research. It goes even further as many countries around the world are funding their programs through debt and money printing. It's the equivalent to thinking you're rich when you've bought everything on your credit card. The bill comes due eventually.

They also subsidise their own multinationals who rape underdeveloped countries. But that's apparently fine under the rubric of free trade, yeah?...

lol and yeah America would never fund their programs through debt would they? They only have the highest absolute debt in the world, the 9th or 10th highest relative to GDP, and the fifth highest on a per capita basis.

God you talk some utter **** on here.

 

[trundler]

If you're poor under capitalism you're not actually poor because you're probably using the wrong definition of poor. At least you have footpaths to sleep on. Gotcha.

 

[GIMH]

America being funded through government debt contradicts them being the most capitalist country around

 

[Munificent_Fool]

America being funded through government debt contradicts them being the most capitalist country around

Nobody said the US was the most capitalist.

 

[GIMH]

Nobody said the US was the most capitalist.

Okay but you said it was more capitalist than most. You then highlighted their ridiculous levels of government debt.

America long since stopped being a capitalist dream.