To Libertarians: a proposition

[Pseudo Nym]

Dude, before you start asking questions to libertarians you should do a bit more research than the mainstream news organisations that are currently molding your perceptions.

I don't watch TV, and haven't for years. It sounds like you think you know a lot more about me than you actually do. I just read a fascinating article about that very topic - The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight.

This is such a loaded question OP, are you proposing that some otherwise rational businessperson start a non-profit charity that would directly compete with a government-run program?? I don't see a line forming for that one. Hmmmmm....do I want to go through the trouble of trying to sustain a business based on the voluntary exchange between two parties that competes directly against an entity with a monopoly on violence that can coerce its revenues either from the barrel of a gun or a printing press?

...

One thing you might want to work on is that fish-giver complex of yours - yes I know it feels good to give, but be ready for the consequences...resentment, entitlement, dependency. I think thats why God helps those who help themselves, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

libertarianism != anarchism

And people donate when they're inspired, not challenged by someone who doesn't believe them. The only proof of what works is history, </status quo fail>

You've both missed the point. This isn't about charity, per se. This is a strategy to reduce the size of government, in a manner that sidesteps the political process. It's a bottom-up approach, rather than top-down. This was conceived of as a means to move towards the Libertarian goal of minimal government.

Libertarians say, take the government away and the market will fill the need. I'm suggesting doing the opposite: fill the need privately, which over time will reduce the need for government. Assuming it's done better than the government does it.

If you try to take the government away first, you're in for a hell of a fight, since so many people depend on it.

This doesn't even have to be about charity. Any government-provided service is a potential target. Like FedEx and UPS compete with the USPS. Countering social programs with private charity was just an obvious example since, again, a lot of people (who also vote) depend on them.

Don't point at me and say, "you do it." I'm not a Libertarian. This isn't my cause. Not that charity isn't worthwhile, but at this point I'm more interested in focusing my energies on alleviating the fundamental problem underlying all of this: scarcity.

 

[kingofsp]

Sorry, and I guess I should have worded myself better. I was insinuating that libertarians have no desire to help the world or their fellow human. Instead, they simply want everyone to leave them alone, and get the fuck out of their way. In return, whatever everyone else does is up to them, and they don't give a shit.

So asking them to start a non-profit to help is somewhat a contradiction of their core beliefs.

I consider myself a libertarian. I make enough passive monies that I could just fuck around and play video games all day, if I wanted to. However, I volunteer a great deal of my time to youth programs in the community (just got back from summer camp, in fact).

Go me!

 

[pfgannon]

I don't watch TV, and haven't for years. It sounds like you think you know a lot more about me than you actually do. I just read a fascinating article about that very topic - The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight.





You've both missed the point. This isn't about charity, per se. This is a strategy to reduce the size of government, in a manner that sidesteps the political process. It's a bottom-up approach, rather than top-down. This was conceived of as a means to move towards the Libertarian goal of minimal government.

Libertarians say, take the government away and the market will fill the need. I'm suggesting doing the opposite: fill the need privately, which over time will reduce the need for government. Assuming it's done better than the government does it.

If you try to take the government away first, you're in for a hell of a fight, since so many people depend on it.

This doesn't even have to be about charity. Any government-provided service is a potential target. Like FedEx and UPS compete with the USPS. Countering social programs with private charity was just an obvious example since, again, a lot of people (who also vote) depend on them.

Don't point at me and say, "you do it." I'm not a Libertarian. This isn't my cause. Not that charity isn't worthwhile, but at this point I'm more interested in focusing my energies on alleviating the fundamental problem underlying all of this: scarcity.

UPS and FedEx already do a far better job than the USPS, yet it still operates at a massive loss. What makes you think private charity would stop spending on entitlement programs? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

UPS and FedEx already do a far better job than the USPS, yet it still operates at a massive loss. What makes you think private charity would stop spending on entitlement programs? I'm genuinely curious.

USPS still has customers, partly due to having a monopoly on access to mailboxes.

In theory it's pretty straightforward: as people move from government programs to private ones the government programs won't be able to justify a larger budget any longer, so the budgets shrink.

I have no idea how well it would work in reality. There are undoubtedly a lot of variables involved, and a lot would depend on how effective the private counterparts actually were. This is why I articulated in the original post the need for creativity and to use optimization techniques and open source collaboration.

 

[BigWill]

USPS still has customers, partly due to having a monopoly on access to mailboxes.

.

Eh, not so much. People would install other boxes if another public service became the standard. The problem is they can operate at a loss and keep going. This makes them be able to undercut everyone else, offer cheaper service. No public company can compete, they understand it would be a losing business.

Now if the post office were to suddenly close doors. You can bet there would be shitloads of company's boosting up. You would most likely see local mail services (easier to start) and places like fedex and UPS increasing their work force to meet the demand for letters. Other companies would come in and compete to keep cost down.

If local mail companies became the norm(boost to economy), you could start companies who transfer mail from city to city in batches. Even country to country. These companies could compete for contracts with the local companies. You could have 1 guy and a semi trucking between the cities back forth all day making mail much more efficient.

Obviously that's not a real perfect working system, but you get the point of what could or would happen. The trickle would go on and on. We would NOT have to pay for mail service if we didn't use it in the form of forced tax. Benefits and insurance and things would be passed to the cost of the business, this would further save us more tax. Because of this people would have more money to spend, the extra money would trickle into industries through spending. In staid of it going to the government it would be in the hands of the people. This could even help get people off welfare from having more money, THAT would save us EVEN MORE money and put MORE money into the hands of the people. It would be a complete boost to the economy.

/Rant

 

[guerilla]

The great American Lysander Spooner, who no one is taught about, actually challenged the federal monopoly on mail, and forced the government to lower postage rates through competition.

His famous essay, "No Treason" is one of the best criticisms of the Constitution ever written.

Ron Paul is a Lysander Spooner fan, mentioning him several times in interviews.

 

[lukep]

You've both missed the point. This isn't about charity, per se. This is a strategy to reduce the size of government, in a manner that sidesteps the political process. It's a bottom-up approach, rather than top-down. This was conceived of as a means to move towards the Libertarian goal of minimal government.

I hear you but still I am convinced that it is YOU that have totally missed the point.

We keep bringing up Charity & it's downfall because it will totally fucking TROUNCE what you are trying to do here.

Libertarians say, take the government away and the market will fill the need. I'm suggesting doing the opposite: fill the need privately, which over time will reduce the need for government. Assuming it's done better than the government does it.

It's just not that simple.

Have you ever fed a wild bird, like in a park on gulls on a beach?

As soon as it ate the first piece of breadcrust or seed or whatever it shouted to all of its' friends, "Hey, there's some good shit over here!"

In the end you likely just tried to escape without poop all over you, amirite?

It's not just human nature to come and abuse the source of goodwill; it's ANIMAL nature to do so, which means it's far more cemented into our genes to abuse goodwill than most things we refer to as human nature.

If you've ever helped someone on a 1-on-1 scale then you probably didn't see any goodwill abuse because that one person was held accountable by the fact his contact was so intimate. -But try and help a huge, faceless crowd and you'll see things like elbows to each others' faces, warlords rise up and steal the lionshare from those who need it the most, and other general horrors that you can't ever imagine civilized people doing.

These situations NEVER FAIL to bring out the worst in people.

So my point is your attempt to give more charity will turn out very badly.

"What's the worst that could happen?" You say?

Let's say their are 100 homeless folks living in a big park in your town, and suddenly you decide you're rich enough to feed and clothe them all.

Giving them all money directly will wind up in the biggest run on the liquor market in your town's history, and building them a free place to live will likely get your building burned to the ground the next night when some other bum is told that your place is full.

So you decide to pump all that money into social programs that help them pay their bills somehow, it seems like the best way to help them help themselves, so they don't have to live on the street.

Most of them take you up on your help and your money comes flowing into their lives somehow. Now you're enabling them to use the rest of the money they earn (beer can recycling? theft? Who knows) on drugs, alcohol, or whatever it is that they most desire... Because they aren't spending it on the bill you're now paying.

Then they tell their bum friends about your program, and congratulations, you've got your very own unsustainable welfare state. Suddenly the 100 bums in your park now number 1000, all thanks to you. Low income earning fools who are addicted to a drug but are still clinging to cheap apartments can now go live in the park and get 'free drugs' like the bums there are all doing. Congrats, you've expanded the bottom class and made the world a FAR WORSE PLACE.

Moral of the story: Pumping money into a charity doesn't "Fix" the situation, it usually only attracts and expands the number of people who need it.

I'm aware that many problems exist where you can simply replace a window or air conditioner or something tangible to fix a problem, but they are rarer and cheaper in general than these larger issues. If you only want to solve these smaller problems, I have no problems with that. About a buck fiddy each ought to do it...

But if you want to solve any real problems; the answer is to solve it in your own family and tell the rest of the entire world to GO FUCK THEMSELVES. It's the only sane & effective way.

Yes I realize that this philosophy will result in the death of uncounted millions of druggies, whores, trailer trash, homeless folks, and even just a few unlucky, downtrodden slobs... But only once.

Why just one time? Because the next generation won't exist anymore. Their kind will be as extinct as the t-rex. -And not just for genetic reasons either...

People will start looking at addictive drugs, sleeping on the streets, and even just being poor as something that KILLS THEM 100% OF THE TIME instead of something they can bounce back from soon... And avoid it at all costs.

Because right now you're making them feel it's A-OK.

If you try to take the government away first, you're in for a hell of a fight, since so many people depend on it.

Just once.

Half will starve, the other half will get with the program. Then it's all over with and your FAR healthier society can now move forward.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

I hear you but still I am convinced that it is YOU that have totally missed the point.

We keep bringing up Charity & it's downfall because it will totally fucking TROUNCE what you are trying to do here.



It's just not that simple.

Have you ever fed a wild bird, like in a park on gulls on a beach?

As soon as it ate the first piece of breadcrust or seed or whatever it shouted to all of its' friends, "Hey, there's some good shit over here!"

In the end you likely just tried to escape without poop all over you, amirite?

It's not just human nature to come and abuse the source of goodwill; it's ANIMAL nature to do so, which means it's far more cemented into our genes to abuse goodwill than most things we refer to as human nature.

If you've ever helped someone on a 1-on-1 scale then you probably didn't see any goodwill abuse because that one person was held accountable by the fact his contact was so intimate. -But try and help a huge, faceless crowd and you'll see things like elbows to each others' faces, warlords rise up and steal the lionshare from those who need it the most, and other general horrors that you can't ever imagine civilized people doing.

These situations NEVER FAIL to bring out the worst in people.

So my point is your attempt to give more charity will turn out very badly.

"What's the worst that could happen?" You say?

Let's say their are 100 homeless folks living in a big park in your town, and suddenly you decide you're rich enough to feed and clothe them all.

Giving them all money directly will wind up in the biggest run on the liquor market in your town's history, and building them a free place to live will likely get your building burned to the ground the next night when some other bum is told that your place is full.

So you decide to pump all that money into social programs that help them pay their bills somehow, it seems like the best way to help them help themselves, so they don't have to live on the street.

Most of them take you up on your help and your money comes flowing into their lives somehow. Now you're enabling them to use the rest of the money they earn (beer can recycling? theft? Who knows) on drugs, alcohol, or whatever it is that they most desire... Because they aren't spending it on the bill you're now paying.

Then they tell their bum friends about your program, and congratulations, you've got your very own unsustainable welfare state. Suddenly the 100 bums in your park now number 1000, all thanks to you. Low income earning fools who are addicted to a drug but are still clinging to cheap apartments can now go live in the park and get 'free drugs' like the bums there are all doing. Congrats, you've expanded the bottom class and made the world a FAR WORSE PLACE.

Moral of the story: Pumping money into a charity doesn't "Fix" the situation, it usually only attracts and expands the number of people who need it.

I'm aware that many problems exist where you can simply replace a window or air conditioner or something tangible to fix a problem, but they are rarer and cheaper in general than these larger issues. If you only want to solve these smaller problems, I have no problems with that. About a buck fiddy each ought to do it...

But if you want to solve any real problems; the answer is to solve it in your own family and tell the rest of the entire world to GO FUCK THEMSELVES. It's the only sane & effective way.

Yes I realize that this philosophy will result in the death of uncounted millions of druggies, whores, trailer trash, homeless folks, and even just a few unlucky, downtrodden slobs... But only once.

Why just one time? Because the next generation won't exist anymore. Their kind will be as extinct as the t-rex. -And not just for genetic reasons either...

People will start looking at addictive drugs, sleeping on the streets, and even just being poor as something that KILLS THEM 100% OF THE TIME instead of something they can bounce back from soon... And avoid it at all costs.

Because right now you're making them feel it's A-OK.



Just once.

Half will starve, the other half will get with the program. Then it's all over with and your FAR healthier society can now move forward.

You know what I see when I read this? I see someone that lacks wisdom, experience, and empathy. It sounds like something someone with a very simplistic, naive worldview would write.

People who are homeless aren't the simple caricatures you portray them as. A lot of them have mental issues. Some don't fit into the society we have, with its focus on competitiveness, materialism, and presentable personae. Some have been damaged psychologically by it - by the prevailing attitudes and values of society. To be a 'functioning member of society' can be a tremendous challenge for some, and the way they are often treated (as illustrated by your reply) - as something less than human, as little more than refuse - you can only imagine how that further harms their psyche, their sense of self worth, and feeds into mental states of depression, anxiety, paranoia. Is it any wonder that they drink and use drugs? You might do the same, if you knew their thoughts and feelings. How can you know what they've been through? How can you judge a man without having walked in his shoes?

You know there are a lot of homeless war veterans, don't you? Do they deserve your scorn, your derision?

What of young men or women on the street who came from broken homes and suffered years of emotional or sexual abuse?

I'm not going to tell you how to feel. The only thing I would suggest is to treat those less fortunate than yourself with dignity and kindness. Remember that you don't know the life they've lived or what they might have suffered through.

 

[guerilla]

You know what I see when I read this? I see someone that lacks wisdom, experience, and empathy. It sounds like something someone with a very simplistic, naive worldview would write.

Attacking him personally doesn't make your argument.

Also, it is incredibly arrogant of you to assume you know him, or that he isn't someone who has been homeless, or has mental issues, or is a disabled veteran.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Attacking him personally doesn't make your argument.

I wasn't arguing his point. What are you doing in here? Go troll a different thread.

 

[Gertex]

People who are homeless aren't the simple caricatures you portray them as. A lot of them have mental issues. Some don't fit into the society we have, with its focus on competitiveness, materialism, and presentable personae. Some have been damaged psychologically by it - by the prevailing attitudes and values of society. To be a 'functioning member of society' can be a tremendous challenge for some, and the way they are often treated (as illustrated by your reply) - as something less than human, as little more than refuse - you can only imagine how that further harms their psyche, their sense of self worth, and feeds into mental states of depression, anxiety, paranoia. Is it any wonder that they drink and use drugs? You might do the same, if you knew their thoughts and feelings. How can you know what they've been through? How can you judge a man without having walked in his shoes?

You know there are a lot of homeless war veterans, don't you? Do they deserve your scorn, your derision?

What of young men or women on the street who came from broken homes and suffered years of emotional or sexual abuse?

I'm not going to tell you how to feel. The only thing I would suggest is to treat those less fortunate than yourself with dignity and kindness. Remember that you don't know the life they've lived or what they might have suffered through.

blah blah blah...

So because you come from a broken home and sexually abused you have the 'excuse' to slack?

There are a huge amount of men and women in the military.. just because they served their country you are not allowed to have derision for them once they fuck up?

Treat them with dignity and kindness? Sure... Help them get a 'free lunch'??? Fuck no...

Fact is... You challenge today's .gov charity machine and you are getting deep into politics and will be fighting the 'system' every step of the way...

Your loosing an argument and turn into a shithead calling folks trolls? WTF?

Dude, your heart is in the right place... you are just slightly deluded and have obviously never been in the trenches yourself....

 

[guerilla]

I wasn't arguing his point. What are you doing in here? Go troll a different thread.

Correct, you were not arguing his point. You were making personal attacks.

Calling me a troll is just more of the same. You have not substantiated an argument, I suppose all you have left is to attack my credibility rather than my ideas.

 

[music4mic]

Ok, so take this example. A couple get married, have a couple kids, and the wife decides to be a stay-at-home mom to raise the kids properly. Husband gets killed in a car accident, wife is left as an unskilled laborer, and since we're living in a libertarian society with no laws regulating businesses, the insurance company fucks her out of any money she should be owed.

You're actually saying society is better off without helping her? So now you have a mother and two kids sleeping on the streets, going to sleep hungry every night, she can't get a job because unemployment is at 8%, she's unskilled, and thanks for the libertarian society, even if she landed a job it'd only pay $0.75/hour. Obviously, she's going to do what's necessary to take care of her kids, even if that means doing some things she shouldn't. That's just human nature.

Now let's compound that scenario by 10 or 20 years, and take a wild guess at what your precious little society is going to look like. Definitely not one I'd want to live in, or open a business in either. I'd have to pay out of my ass for security of my business, residence, would need a bullet proof car, wouldn't be able to comfortably walk the streets almost anywhere except gated communities, etc.

Does she have family? Friends? What about a church group? Can she contact a city organization?

She'll do what she has to do to survive. She'll make her own way. People did it for a long time prior to the government babysitting them and they can figure it out again. If she has to depend on the government for help, then chances are she'll never excel, but she'll be too reliant on the government.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Correct, you were not arguing his point. You were making personal attacks.

Calling me a troll is just more of the same. You have not substantiated an argument, I suppose all you have left is to attack my credibility rather than my ideas.

Heh... well, this is exactly what trolls do. Draw people into arguments. So the only difference between you and an actual troll whether you are sincere or not.

I'm not interested in making, substantiating, or defending an argument in this thread (and yet, here I am, doing exactly that). My intent was only to present the idea. Which I did, as best I could. Apparently no one thought it was good idea. So I'm pretty much done here.

And also? There's a hell of a lot more personal attacks made against me in this thread than I've made. Why haven't you called any of them out?

 

[guerilla]

And also? There's a hell of a lot more personal attacks made against me in this thread than I've made. Why haven't you called any of them out?

Why should I concern myself with your welfare when you care so little about mine?

If you want me to defend you, then honor the golden rule. Treat me as you want to be treated.

 

[lukep]

You know what I see when I read this? I see someone that lacks wisdom, experience, and empathy. It sounds like something someone with a very simplistic, naive worldview would write.

G's right, that sounds like an attack; one that kind of makes me smile because it tips your hand and reveals your entire method. It shows that you didn't really read & understand my post; your arguments aren't really in opposition to what I said but you are lashing out with emotion nonetheless.

People who are homeless aren't the simple caricatures you portray them as. A lot of them have mental issues.

No shit, Sherlock. If I took the time to give you real examples we'd be here all week. So I wrote only about CROWD MENTALITY & ANIMAL NATURE, which was 100% true and you know it.

Some don't fit into the society we have

LOL, that describes us Libertarians perfectly!

Is it any wonder that they drink and use drugs? You might do the same, if you knew their thoughts and feelings.

NO, I would certainly NOT do the same, you can bet your life on it.

I have written before on this board about my experience with my heroin-addicted, ex-con family members. I've helped at homeless shelters before while I was younger too. After seeing that shit a couple of times you have to struggle hard to hold onto any faith in humanity.

You really don't know who you're talking to so take this as a lesson on how not to say too much stupid shit in public.

How can you know what they've been through? How can you judge a man without having walked in his shoes?

You know there are a lot of homeless war veterans, don't you? Do they deserve your scorn, your derision?

What of young men or women on the street who came from broken homes and suffered years of emotional or sexual abuse?

Now your bringing up lots of scenarios that WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST in a libertarian society. Not too many war vets when we are pretty isolationist...

As for the others they are not getting my scorn at all; I have clearly stated that THE FAMILY should look after their own, not strangers.

Get raped? Move back in with your parents for a while... Don't ask for government assistance so that you can live more comfortably while waiting to return to society... That's simply inappropriate and it boggles the mind how such a thing would even be thought of much less allowed...

You feel that you are under attack on this thread and the reason is simple; you're thinking with your big bleeding heart and not with your brain.

Libertarians are brainy folk; what the fuck did you expect? Hugs?

 

[Gertex]

And also? There's a hell of a lot more personal attacks made against me in this thread than I've made. Why haven't you called any of them out?

So, I actually spend the time to go through the entire thread - NOPE - not a single personal attack against you... Worst I could find is someone calling you liberal...

As far as I can tell, you drew first blood... :ak:

 

[Pseudo Nym]

So, I actually spend the time to go through the entire thread - NOPE - not a single personal attack against you... Worst I could find is someone calling you liberal...

As far as I can tell, you drew first blood... :ak:

Fair enough. I guess it was more the perception of being attacked, then. It's a rough lot up in here, you have to admit.


Hey lukep, I apologize for being judgmental toward you.

 

[REIMktg]

To be honest. I think the OP is on the wrong track. How about challenging the libertarians to start non profits - that make... profits.

There are so many ways for non profits to profit, pay dividends to investors etc. In fact it can be a tactic in your overall tax shelter strategy.

The possibilities are endless and it can prove that even serving the roles as a "point of light" does not have to burden the surrounding society.

This is really a largely untapped business opportunity if you think of it properly. Not all the opportunities within the niche are strictly libertarian in its purist form - but still it is a great step in the right direction.

And Yes, I have already started one, and yes it will benefit others, but it is going to benefit me as well.

 

[DocApocalypto]

Sorry, and I guess I should have worded myself better. I was insinuating that libertarians have no desire to help the world or their fellow human. Instead, they simply want everyone to leave them alone, and get the fuck out of their way. In return, whatever everyone else does is up to them, and they don't give a shit.

So asking them to start a non-profit to help is somewhat a contradiction of their core beliefs.

Libertarians don't believe in compulsory "giving" aka theft. If you look at stats, people who want smaller government are much more charitable than the bleeding hearts that talk about suffering and the evil rich. What is selfish is thinking that you own my labor because of some unrelated misery.

In the US, this mentality has only created more misery. When the entitlement check replaced the father in inner city households, poverty and incarceration rates skyrocketed. Its the tyranny of good intentions. And if anything it makes people feel like they've already given enough, and sadly not to their neighbor but to a central authority.