NationStates Jolt Archive

Non-libertarians, who have an understanding of how libertarianism functions . . . you realize that justice and the law *is* indeed given out in a libertarian society, correct?

(sorry to ask a rather *duh*-type question, but many people, who I've talked to recently, think that there is no justice in a libertarian society)

Yeah, there's a police force and courts, but I disagree with libertarianism because the government lacks the power to balance the rich's interests with the poor's. What I mean by that is worker safety regulations, guaranteed emergency medical care to all (regardless of ability to pay), and welfare for those who cannot work all paid for by a progressive taxation system.

What I mean by that is worker safety regulations, guaranteed emergency medical care to all (regardless of ability to pay), and welfare for those who cannot work all paid for by a progressive taxation system.
Welfare is replaced by charity
Worker safety regulations can be pushed for by workers' unions in a libertarian society
Emergency medical care . . . actually that's where I disagree with the LP but w/e

At least somebody does know there is justice in a libertarian society (sry, but I've spoken with so many ignorant people about it and they don't have any idea what they're talkin about)

Welfare is replaced by charity
welcome to why libertarianism doesnt work

charity is never on a grand enoguh scale to make it worth shit, much less enough to replace needed welfare

Welfare is replaced by charity
Worker safety regulations can be pushed for by workers' unions in a libertarian society
Emergency medical care . . . actually that's where I disagree with the LP but w/e

At least somebody does know there is justice in a libertarian society (sry, but I've spoken with so many ignorant people about it and they don't have any idea what they're talkin about)
I'm not sure charity can handle the entire task.
Without government protecting the rights of workers to unionize you could end up seeing people fired from their jobs for mentioning the idea.

Without government protecting the rights of workers to unionize you could end up seeing people fired from their jobs for mentioning the idea.
No, libertarianism allows workers to unionize (actually 1st Amendment protects unions - 'the right to assembly')

Unfortunately, most of these people have no idea whatsoever that there are both militant and centrist libertarians.
Some don't know that it's both a political philosophy and a political party.

For a lesson in the approach that most modern libertarians (and classical liberals) take, I suggest this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767900391/qid=1107028427/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1073825-8018326?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), and this magazine (http://www.reason.com).

Non-libertarians, who have an understanding of how libertarianism functions . . . you realize that justice and the law *is* indeed given out in a libertarian society, correct?
It is circumstancial. In complete anarchy, there is no justice and no law outside of Nature's. In collective anarchy, my favourite type of government, as impossible as it is, there is certainly justice and law.

welcome to why libertarianism doesnt work

charity is never on a grand enoguh scale to make it worth shit, much less enough to replace needed welfare
That was very well thought out. Really. You've won me over.

No, libertarianism allows workers to unionize (actually 1st Amendment protects unions - 'the right to assembly')
But under libertarian rule couldn't an employer fire people for any reason at all?

No, libertarianism allows workers to unionize (actually 1st Amendment protects unions - 'the right to assembly')
No, the 1st Amednment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect unions. It protects the right to peaceable assmeblies, which is not a fundamental part of unions.

welcome to why libertarianism doesnt work

charity is never on a grand enoguh scale to make it worth shit, much less enough to replace needed welfare

I've never understood this. It seems to me that many liberals I know (not on these forums necessarily, but those I know in real life who call themselves liberals) insist that charity won't work ... but then insist we need welfare because we HAVE to help people out. If they're insistent on helping people out, why does the government need to make them do it?

I'm seriously asking about this point of view. I'm not trying to bash, here.

But under libertarian rule couldn't an employer fire people for any reason at all?

That's like saying that under a Democratic rule everyone will turn gay because of gay marriage.

If they're insistent on helping people out, why does the government need to make them do it?
Because liberals do not trust humans to give charity on a sufficient scale. And guess what? They're right. People in general do almost everything for selfish reasons, just like organisms. Nature forces organisms to coexist and help each other out, though that would never occur if it wasn't completely advantageous. The same thing must be done with humans, either give sufficient incentive on a large scale, since no-one's going to give up their money to a hobo, or reditribute wealth from taxes. Either one works for me, but the latter seems easier to implement. If humans were full social animals, it would not be a problem. People would work for the benefit of the whole. But, for some reason, it is advantageous to try to further oneself rather than society. Or perhaps evolution just hasn't been able to keep up with human social development.

It is circumstancial.
It's not circumstatial in the least. This is a myth.
The laws would be minimized of pork to include only those that protect citizens from force or fraud. It's our two favorite words! :p

(I also think Collective Anarchy would be great... if we were evolved enough to handle it)

That's like saying that under a Democratic rule everyone will turn gay because of gay marriage.
No, it's not. Being gay isn't a choice. If you doubt me go get a gay porno and see if it gets you off. Firing an employee because he'll cost you more money is a choice, and one that most companies have proven that they're willing to make.

Welfare is replaced by charity
The largest reason why economic libertarianism tends to not work. Many libertarians have such good ideals at heart, but they tend to just be naïve, unfortunately.

It's not circumstatial in the least. This is a myth.
The laws would be minimized of pork to include only those that protect citizens from force or fraud. It's our two favorite words! :p
Exactly, which is a concept many people can't seem to understand . . .

From what I've heard, unions require much more than the right to meet peacibly.

Libertarianism, like communism, requires much more than is possible of human nature.

The largest reason why economic libertarianism tends to not work. Many libertarians have such good ideals at heart, but they tend to just be naïve, unfortunately.
Naïve? Naïve?!?! It's the communists and anarchists who are naïve, my friend

I've never understood this. It seems to me that many liberals I know (not on these forums necessarily, but those I know in real life who call themselves liberals) insist that charity won't work ... but then insist we need welfare because we HAVE to help people out. If they're insistent on helping people out, why does the government need to make them do it?

I'm seriously asking about this point of view. I'm not trying to bash, here.
because we DO need to help people but not everyone gives a fuck, it is the governments job to make sure everyoen doesnt get screwed over by the apathetic and uninformed millions who dont give a damn. my point is libertarianism is way too idealist. here is libertarianism: well, we are going to let everyone do whatever they want and that will be ok because people will always do what is best for their fellow man and need no guidance at all. thats like pretending anrachy is a sound form of government

That's like saying that under a Democratic rule everyone will turn gay because of gay marriage.

thast nothing like what he was saying, horrible scarecrow attempt there

But under libertarian rule couldn't an employer fire people for any reason at all?
If I had my way, yes, you would be able to hire or fire without the nanny state telling you if you can or can't... but that's another thread altogether.

It's not circumstatial in the least. This is a myth.
All governments are circumstancial in practise. There are so many factors that can not be addressed in theory that every government's effectiveness is circumstancial. And not to mention that there are multiple types of libertarian ideals.

The laws would be minimized of pork to include only those that protect citizens from force or fraud. It's our two favorite words! :p
Exactly my point. Some libertarians believe that there should be no legislation at all. Some disagree.

(I also think Collective Anarchy would be great... if we were evolved enough to handle it)
Hells yeah! But, yes, we aren't. Which is why I love social insects, especially ants, the most populous animal on the planet!

Naïve? Naïve?!?! It's the communists and anarchists who are naïve, my friend
Naïve! Naïve!!!! Only a small minority of people are willing to give out their money to other people, especially ones they don't know. The whole concept of charity replacing welfare is even more naïve than Marxism.

No, it's not. Being gay isn't a choice. If you doubt me go get a gay porno and see if it gets you off. Firing an employee because he'll cost you more money is a choice, and one that most companies have proven that they're willing to make.

Both are ridiculous assumptions. You seem to imply that a libertarian society would be a Libertarian society - one completely gone over to libertarianism. I purposely used a stupid argument there to show how ridiculous I think it is that people assume libertarians all want complete removal of restrictions on business and such.

The largest reason why economic libertarianism tends to not work. Many libertarians have such good ideals at heart, but they tend to just be naïve, unfortunately.
That was a bit brash for you... but replace the word libertarianism with either communism or socialism, and I'm with you 100%!

That was a bit brash for you... but replace the word libertarianism with either communism or socialism, and I'm with you 100%!
Hey, I am not saying that libertarians are the only ones with governmental naïveté, by far. I am naïve myself in some ways, but at least I know that my ideals are never gonna work in practise. If they would, I would probably have multiple orgasms on the spot.

Okay... here's where things get confusing.

Are we talking about libertarianism (which can be extreme or mild, depending on the philosopher), or are we talking about the political party?

If so, I'm a card-carrying member who's very up n up on the platform.

And a lot of the posts here have nothing to do with it.

I know that my ideals are never gonna work in practise. If they would, I would probably have multiple orgasms on the spot.
Now that was funny! Albeit a lil creepy to picture, but got me to LOL.

Are we talking about libertarianism (which can be extreme or mild, depending on the philosopher), or are we talking about the political party?
I don't really know anything about the Libertarian Party. When I refer to libertarianism, it is the governmentak philosophy.

But under libertarian rule couldn't an employer fire people for any reason at all?
I'm getting in a little late on this, but here goes.
In Georgia, we have the ability to fire an employee for anything at any time. Contracts would supercede this, but in general, employees work at the pleasure of the employer.

Naïve! Naïve!!!! Only a small minority of people are willing to give out their money to other people, especially ones they don't know. The whole concept of charity replacing welfare is even more naïve than Marxism.
There's a ton of money donated in the US. Probably a ton in capitalist societies world wide. Some of that is due to favorable treatment by tax laws, but I can't imagine it all is. In fact, I've read studies that say the same thing. I'll start looking for them.

In general, though, don't expect charity to disappear because the tax laws don't favor it.

In general, though, don't expect charity to disappear because the tax laws don't favor it.
Oh, no. Some people do indeed actually do things for other people. But on a large scale, it's just not gonna happen. Cynical? Yes. True? Yes.

There's a ton of money donated in the US. Probably a ton in capitalist societies world wide. Some of that is due to favorable treatment by tax laws, but I can't imagine it all is. In fact, I've read studies that say the same thing. I'll start looking for them.

In general, though, don't expect charity to disappear because the tax laws don't favor it.
Not to mention that half of the cost of most products are in taxes. If people had twice as much money, they wouldn't know what to do with it, except to start more businesses or give it to charity.

If people had twice as much money, they wouldn't know what to do with it, except to start more businesses or give it to charity.
I swear, they really need a "burst out laughing" emoticon. I'm sorry, but perhaps most libertarians aren't as comparatively naïve as I originally thought!

Only a small minority of people are willing to give out their money to other people, especially ones they don't know. The whole concept of charity replacing welfare is even more naïve than Marxism.

that is complete BS...look at the tsunami incident where americans privately gave out as nearly much as our government did...i think it was sandra bullock alone who gave 1 million dollars (to people she didn't know).

also look at bill gates and his philanthropist causes, furthermore, i have read that he has willed only $1 million to each of his kids, and the rest to charity.

sorry, but the US has the most charitable citizines in the world.

Oh, no. Some people do indeed actually do things for other people. But on a large scale, it's just not gonna happen. Cynical? Yes. True? Yes.
I didn't turn up anything useful after a quick search. I guess you just have to be confident that the society is a compassionate one. Let folks that truly can't support themselves turn to churches, family, and private charities. Sorry, that's the best I can do.

also look at bill gates and his philanthropist causes, furthermore, i have read that he has willed only $1 million to each of his kids, and the rest to charity.
Bill Gates has made his money from conning off the masses and other countries. Even if he's sometimes using his money for a good cause, he got it in an underhanded and backstabbing way.

sorry, but the US has the most charitable citizines in the world.\
Yeah...I'm thinking no.

And, so sorry, but if you think it is complete BS that people are inherently selfish, then you haven't met many people.

I swear, they really need a "burst out laughing" emoticon. I'm sorry, but perhaps most libertarians aren't as comparatively naïve as I originally thought!
Seriously, now. Sure, people will spend all of that extra money, but that's just a redistribution of wealth. Eventually, that money is going to get to somebody who is willing to start a new business or give it to charity.

I didn't turn up anything useful after a quick search. I guess you just have to be confident that the society is a compassionate one. Let folks that truly can't support themselves turn to churches, family, and private charities. Sorry, that's the best I can do.
Wow. You are truly convincing. Trust that people are inherently generous...you sure have convinced me!

Seriously, now. Sure, people will spend all of that extra money, but that's just a redistribution of wealth. Eventually, that money is going to get to somebody who is willing to start a new business or give it to charity.
Or perhaps it will just make the rich richer and the poor poorer and result in corporatism. Either way. :rolleyes:

Or perhaps it will just make the rich richer and the poor poorer and result in corporatism. Either way. :rolleyes:
Maybe it will. What are the rich going to do with that money, though? Will they keep it in a vault and go swimming in it?

Maybe it will. What are the rich going to do with that money, though? Will they keep it in a vault and go swimming in it?
Or maybe they will spend it on swimming pools and go swimming in them. You obviously do not understand the effects of money on people. They always want more and more. And they will indeed spend some of it, but not on charities.

Or maybe they will spend it on swimming pools and go swimming in them. You obviously do not understand the effects of money on people. They always want more and more. And they will indeed spend some of it, but not on charities.
As long as somebody's spending the money, it doesn't really matter who does it. The rich can't just keep the money amongst themselves. They'd lose their consumer base and, consequently, all of their money.

You obviously don't understand that trying to minimize somebody is a sign of weakness. Is your self-esteem so low that you need to remind yourself that different opinions are obviously ill-informed? Or did you honestly believe that was a convincing argument? Please try to maintain control of yourself.

Bill Gates has made his money from conning off the masses and other countries. Even if he's sometimes using his money for a good cause, he got it in an underhanded and backstabbing way..

the argument is about the generousity of wealthy individuals, not about how they ammassed such a fortune, this claim is a moot point.


And, so sorry, but if you think it is complete BS that people are inherently selfish, then you haven't met many people.


all individuals are inherently good, and once again, i will state that the US population in general is certainly among (if not the most) generous in the world. US citizens alone last year gave over $170 billion dollars in charitable giving--this does not include businesses or previously established trusts that fund our nation's universities.

how sad - my thread got hijacked ._.

1) Anyone who confuses event-based charity and long-term charity is living in a dream world. Yes, people give lots of junk to people during the holidays or during disasters. How many people do you see ringing bells during Summer? And last I checked, despite our 'charity', AND the government money... people are STILL on the street.

1a) If people are going to give to charity, what's wrong with the government PRESUMING the fact and saving you the trouble of finding a box to pour your money in to?

1b) Charities are businesses, and, thus, corrupt. Remember what Red Cross tried to do with the Afghanistan money? "Reorganize" my ass. Yes, the government versions are also corrupt, but they're more readily made accountable, since they're not international or faith-based (Much...).

1c) Last I checked, there are still millions of poor people and 80 year old millionaires humping Playboy playmates rather than helping people.

2) Laissez faire, sadly, doesn't work in a species of cloisterers. As much as I'd love to see the various Churches start monopolies. "What? You're not a follower of Bobshubop? AND you're not white? Oh heavens, you're not getting a job in THIS town!"

3) As has been mentioned, anarchy is the ideal state. Nobody should have to make laws to be decent people. But its against nature in general. It would be nice if people were that nice, but we aren't.

how sad - my thread got hijacked ._.
It's still on libertarian economics, last I checked.

It's still on libertarian economics, last I checked.
It was originally started on the existance of justice in libertarian societies . . .

It was originally started on the existance of justice in libertarian societies . . .
You say potato. I say potato.

It was originally started on the existance of justice in libertarian societies . . .

Quite obviously us libertarians see economics as true meting out of justice. ;)

Quite obviously us libertarians see economics as true meting out of justice. ;)
Lol tru

3) As has been mentioned, anarchy is the ideal state. Nobody should have to make laws to be decent people. But its against nature in general. It would be nice if people were that nice, but we aren't.

how will anarchy solve the prolem of poor, homeless people on the street?

You obviously don't understand that trying to minimize somebody is a sign of weakness. Is your self-esteem so low that you need to remind yourself that different opinions are obviously ill-informed? Or did you honestly believe that was a convincing argument? Please try to maintain control of yourself.
Oh, yes! I am not trying to tell you that your opinions are ill-informed, I am trying to tell you that, in my opinion, they are very naïve. I could very well be the naïve one here, as objective truth is beyond human grasp, but I personally believe that it is just childish to think that people will donate money comparable to compulsory redistribution. Is your self esteem so low that youget offended at the slightest hint of aggression in contrast to your own views?

the argument is about the generousity of wealthy individuals, not about how they ammassed such a fortune, this claim is a moot point.
Oh, certainly yes. It's just that I hate Bill Gates on a fundamental level, and will not tolerate any praise for him other than being a good buisness man and propagandist. I am a bigot in this way, and just had to bring that up. It was a digression, and there should be no more talk of it. I apologise for that.

all individuals are inherently good
Now this is precisely where we differ. I believe that all humans have no inherent "goodness" factor, merely drive determined by psychosomatics, genetics, and experience. It is my belief that humans, as all organisms, do everything on a selfish basis. There are some who don't do this, but not many. I am a cynic, and believe that humans might donate a little to make themselves feel better, but will not even approach social equality strictly through a donation system. History and evolutionary biology prove this completely wrong, though change is always possible. Just not likely in this circumstance. Every historical aristocracy is on my side of human nature.

how will anarchy solve the prolem of poor, homeless people on the street?
He is talking about collectivism, or collective anarchy. Many communes are a more authoriarian extension of this ideal state. In a collectivist state, there would be no money, and thus no poor. There would be no-one on the street unless they wanted to be.

how will anarchy solve the prolem of poor, homeless people on the street?
Theoretically, people would be willing to help out their fellow man. As Incenjucarania noted, however, "But its against nature in general. It would be nice if people were that nice, but we aren't."

Theoretically, people would be willing to help out their fellow man. As Incenjucarania noted, however, "But its against nature in general. It would be nice if people were that nice, but we aren't."
Exactly!

I'm curious as to where some libretarians think all the money collected by government goes to.

The government budget isn't just thrown into a massive blackhole which sucks it out of society but is rather invested in infrastructural projects (from roads to electricity, drinking water etc.), provides social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, universities etc.), spent on wages to civil servants, helps businesses in grants or contract and is given in welfare to poorer people who, unlike the super rich, tend to spend very large percentages of their money in the real economy, not to mention quality enforcement on products and law enforcement.

Government provides services without which society would simply not function as it does today and removing government would simply shift the burden from government with it's secure source of revenue and expertise to private individuals and companies who have neither the desire nor the means to provide all the needed services.

I'm curious as to where some libretarians think all the money collected by government goes to.

There's a sucker born every minute. Yeah, we should trust the government with all of our money!
It's a much better idea to let them spend as much on education as they do on one F*16 fighter! Now that's not irresponsible in the least.

I could spend all day (you should know this) showing you facts and stats on how government wastefully spends your money.

Also, everyone's ganging up on Gnostikos for being a bit cynical. I'm not an optimist myself.

The way I see it, it's not a capitalists job to be a good socialist.
There, I said it. Now draw and quarter me.

Where did I say we should trust the government with all our money?

I'm aware of wasteful spending by government as well as by private industry (Department III goods, war materials by govt. and non-reproductive goods by private industry)

Care to answer where some people think the money actually goes?

Where did I say we should trust the government with all our money?

I'm aware of wasteful spending by government as well as by private industry (Department III goods, war materials by govt. and non-reproductive goods by private industry)

Care to answer where some people think the money actually goes?

First off, I can't speak for some people. Second, for every service the government provides, I can find someone in the private sector who'll do it better, cheaper.

Thirdly, I have no idea where you're headed.

Is your self esteem so low that youget offended at the slightest hint of aggression in contrast to your own views?
No, but I don't listen to people who aren't nice about it. It immediately trumps whatever good arguments you may have. I'm not one of those people who will hold their ground no matter what. Just last night, AnarchyeL convinced me of something about the estate tax. If you treat me with respect, then it will reflect upon you and your ideas.

I was responding to several other posts, most notably the one in which someone said that without taxation money would go to charity/starting other businesses etc.

Well let me rephrase, where do you think the money would go to if government disappeared?

And seeing as I'm studying public administration, I'd be curious as to how any private sector group could possibly provide better and cheaper services than the public sector.
Frankly, if you think the services that the state provides can all simply be improved upon by letting them be done for profit in the private sector, you are naive at best and I'd like to see some real proof.

Frankly, if you think the services that the state provides can all simply be improved upon by letting them be done for profit in the private sector, you are naive at best and I'd like to see some real proof.
Well, apart from its source of money, what's the difference between the way the government gets things done and the way the private sector gets things done? The only thing that I can think of is competition.

Naïve? Naïve?!?! It's the communists and anarchists who are naïve, my friend
I agree. I think that both the far left (communists) and the far right (libertarians) are naïve ideologues.

Competition rarely exists in the private sector. If it truly did, according to basic economic theory, profits would be zero.

The government is a body with vast economies of scale above and beyond anything most private sector bodies can possibly have.
The government is also dedicated to providing the service regardless of the presence of profit and has a level of responsibility wider than to just a small group of wealthy shareholders.
Not only that but the public sector operates under different social conditions than the private sector and has differing demands and responsibilities and is held to higher standards than the private sector. Importing private sector management techniques of outsourcing of services simply does not work for the vast majority of what the government does.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of government provided services are loss making but socially necessary and hence will not be provided for by profit driven private sector companies.

I agree. I think that both the far left (communists) and the far right (libertarians) are naïve ideologues.
pure communism without change to incoporate flaws in humanity is idealist and foolish, but communism made with safeguards against inherent human nature is far lest idealist than the insane libertarian: if we leave it alone it will all work itself out and be ok

The simple truth is that the vast majority of government provided services are loss making but socially necessary and hence will not be provided for by profit driven private sector companies.
Yes, those are the things that the government should provide. Nobody disagrees on this. People disagree on which things actually generate losses. Private schools and universities seem to do quite well, for example. The costs to the student can also be minimized by donations from corporations who expect to receive skilled workers. The government does not receive such donations.

Also, I would add that the government should be responsible for the things where a monopoly benefits the consumer. For example, distribution systems (like the mail and the roads) should be managed by the government. However, the funding for these systems should come from the users, not from taxes.

Well, apart from its source of money, what's the difference between the way the government gets things done and the way the private sector gets things done? The only thing that I can think of is competition.
Because, assuming the country is a democracy, the government is accountable to the people and corporations are not. Competition also exists between parties in the government.

No, libertarianism allows workers to unionize (actually 1st Amendment protects unions - 'the right to assembly')
Do you think corporations give a crap about the 1st amendment?

Education is not a loss making topic, overall at least. Who do you think pays the majority of taxes? Education is an investment for the future of the economy and the country at large.

Private schools have advantages over public schools that are inherant in their nature i.e., being private, they can pick and choose who they want as students. Not only that but wealthy children usually have a home environment more conducive to learning than poorer families who might not be able to afford school nor have a healthy attitude towards learning.

Frankly I don't see how donations will really help institutions of learning but that is mainly speaking from my own knowledge of the education system in Ireland where your (first) undergraduate (degree/diploma/certificate) education is paid for by the government.
Even in government funded institutions in the UK, the cost of education is rather prohibitive in the amount of debt graduates have and will have in the future (I could look up figures now but I'll do that tomorrow if I come back to the topic).

As regards user fees, these services benefit all of society and hence the cost of them tends to be distributed across all of society. Regardless of whether you use a road or not, you benefit from its existance through the fact it is used to transport goods you consume to you etc.

Do you think corporations give a crap about the 1st amendment?
Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism? That was the entire point of this thread. There is justice in a libertarian society. There are laws, and they are enforced by the government. Libertarians just have a different perspective of which laws are necessary for society and which ones hurt society.

Yes, but they benefit different people in different amounts. From the libertarian definition of fairness, a person should only be forced to pay for the amount that he uses.

I agree. I think that both the far left (communists) and the far right (libertarians) are naïve ideologues.
Please explain this overblown statement.
Namely, what's so "far right-wing" about legalizing drugs, prostitution and gambling?
Legalizing gay marriage?
Being against the war in Iraq (or war in general)?

:confused:

Edit: Just noticed you're from Dublin, lad. I know that Euro libertarians are a bit different.

Yes, but they benefit different people in different amounts. From the libertarian definition of fairness, a person should only be forced to pay for the amount that he uses.
Exactly. Isn't it ironic that the red states are the one's who will miss the funds the worst? :p

Non-libertarians, who have an understanding of how libertarianism functions . . . you realize that justice and the law *is* indeed given out in a libertarian society, correct?
If you define "justice" merely as "respecting the law", then OF COURSE there is "justice" in a libertarian society. But, by that definition, there was "justice" in Nazi Germany too (since they respected their own laws, obviously).

If you define "justice" merely as "respecting the law", then OF COURSE there is "justice" in a libertarian society. But, by that definition, there was "justice" in Nazi Germany too (since they respected their own laws, obviously).
You're about to grasp the concept that justice is not an ethereal superforce.
It's relative to the society you're talking about. That's why justice, indeed, is very different from one nation to another.

Wow. You are truly convincing. Trust that people are inherently generous...you sure have convinced me!
These threads are only worth so much effort. Welfare is a tough program to replace without government involvement. Elimination of welfare payments by the government is probably the hardest part of the Libertarian Party platform to enact. It's one plank where there really isn't a causal link between free-market operations and benefits to society.

Now, people that are disabled, handicapped, or those that turn to welfare for short-term needs are the only ones that are affected by this change. The long term lazy population will just have to get off their butts and work. That would clean out the rolls to the point where a democratic government might want to review welfare policies.

Of course, I could produce evidence until it flowed from my ears and it still wouldn't convince the die-hard socialists that any decline in what the sick, lame, and lazy receive from the dole is just an evil capitalist plot to enslave millions as working poor.

I'm not sure charity can handle the entire task.
Without government protecting the rights of workers to unionize you could end up seeing people fired from their jobs for mentioning the idea.
Wokers have every right to unionize and their employers have every right to fire them for doing so. Laws that violate these rights should not be tolerated.

On the charity issue, if nobody cares enough to keep someone from starving to death, then nobody cares. I'll put it this way, if the amount of charity is insufficient to do whatever you think needs doing, it is the will of the people that whatever you think needs doing doesn't need doing.

If the US was a libertarian paradise (by my standards, anyway) poverty would practically cease to exist here. If you properly understood economics and cared about people, you'd strongly oppose the vastly destructive taxing, borrowing, spending, inflating, and oppressive policies of our government.

Because liberals do not trust humans to give charity on a sufficient scale. And guess what? They're right. People in general do almost everything for selfish reasons, just like organisms. Nature forces organisms to coexist and help each other out, though that would never occur if it wasn't completely advantageous. The same thing must be done with humans, either give sufficient incentive on a large scale, since no-one's going to give up their money to a hobo, or reditribute wealth from taxes. Either one works for me, but the latter seems easier to implement. If humans were full social animals, it would not be a problem. People would work for the benefit of the whole. But, for some reason, it is advantageous to try to further oneself rather than society. Or perhaps evolution just hasn't been able to keep up with human social development.You've failed to grasp the actuality of evolution. Like other organisms, the human organism naturally refines itself to better reproduce. This is accomplished thru both cooperation and conflict. Even simple organisms that live in colonies as cells in a body will attack other colonies. Also, you should understand that you are not a god before you go off on what "must be done with humans." AFAIK, you're a human yourself and lack the authority to determine the fate of humanity.

Naïve! Naïve!!!! Only a small minority of people are willing to give out their money to other people, especially ones they don't know. The whole concept of charity replacing welfare is even more naïve than Marxism.
You're looking at it wrong. Yes, many or most people aren't too enthusiastic about giving money to people they've never met. However, most people are willing to help out there loved ones if necessary. If Social Security disappeared tomorrow, it would not be a charity organization like the Red Cross that would pick up the slack. It would primarily be the children of the needy elderly.

Or perhaps it will just make the rich richer and the poor poorer and result in corporatism. Either way. :rolleyes:
How do you define corporatism? I see it as coporate ownership of the government. That's not compatible with libertarianism.

1) Anyone who confuses event-based charity and long-term charity is living in a dream world. Yes, people give lots of junk to people during the holidays or during disasters. How many people do you see ringing bells during Summer? And last I checked, despite our 'charity', AND the government money... people are STILL on the street.
Despite? I blame the government. It subsidizes poverty.

1a) If people are going to give to charity, what's wrong with the government PRESUMING the fact and saving you the trouble of finding a box to pour your money in to?It's moronic to think the government would know how better to spend my money that I would. Whatever it would presume, it would be wrong.

1b) Charities are businesses, and, thus, corrupt. Remember what Red Cross tried to do with the Afghanistan money? "Reorganize" my ass. Yes, the government versions are also corrupt, but they're more readily made accountable, since they're not international or faith-based (Much...).

I find your claim that government organizations are more accountable than private charities to be extraordinary. When private charities are found to be corrupt, people stop sending them money. Governments hardly have to worry about that.

1c) Last I checked, there are still millions of poor people and 80 year old millionaires humping Playboy playmates rather than helping people.
Who do you think you are that you can decide 80 year old millionares should or shouldn't be doing.

2) Laissez faire, sadly, doesn't work in a species of cloisterers. As much as I'd love to see the various Churches start monopolies. "What? You're not a follower of Bobshubop? AND you're not white? Oh heavens, you're not getting a job in THIS town!"

3) As has been mentioned, anarchy is the ideal state. Nobody should have to make laws to be decent people. But its against nature in general. It would be nice if people were that nice, but we aren't.

Non-sequitor X 2

He is talking about collectivism, or collective anarchy. Many communes are a more authoriarian extension of this ideal state. In a collectivist state, there would be no money, and thus no poor. There would be no-one on the street unless they wanted to be.
There's much use in this thread of the word "naive". I would use it on you except I have no reference to your type of thinking. I don't know where it originates. What world do you live in that you would equate the absence of money with an absence of poverty? I'm tempted to attack your thinking, but I'm not sure I understand what your thinking is.

How do you define corporatism? I see it as coporate ownership of the government. That's not compatible with libertarianism.

Isn't libertarianism tied up with voluntary taxation?

You pay for the government you want. You purchase the service of justice and law from the government. The people with the most money therefore have the greatest influence and in modern societies these are corporate entities. For if the government does not provide justice and law suitable for the needs of these large customers they will cease payment.

...seeing as I'm studying public administration...Why do you want to be a bureaucrat?

Competition rarely exists in the private sector. If it truly did, according to basic economic theory, profits would be zero.
Who's economic theory? That's about the 9th stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I could spend all day (you should know this) showing you facts and stats on how government wastefully spends your money.
Unfortunately, you're right. There is the largest flaw in my economic ideals, is governmental corruption. I'm not quite sure how to take care of that in the long run, though most revolutionary governments are not corrupt at first.

Also, everyone's ganging up on Gnostikos for being a bit cynical. I'm not an optimist myself.

The way I see it, it's not a capitalists job to be a good socialist.
There, I said it. Now draw and quarter me.
Now this is the type of libertarian I like! I can argue as much as I want about wanting humans to have equality, but it still isn't the natural order of things. It is the libertarians that think that there would be socialistic behaviour in a capitalist society that push me the wrong way.

No, but I don't listen to people who aren't nice about it. It immediately trumps whatever good arguments you may have. I'm not one of those people who will hold their ground no matter what. Just last night, AnarchyeL convinced me of something about the estate tax. If you treat me with respect, then it will reflect upon you and your ideas.
Ahh, ok, you are turly sincere. Unfortunately, I have been greeted with so much agression when I tryt o debate with others that I have become that way myself. Just try to see past my bitter rhetoric, and ignore the agression. My arguments are not based on those emotions, certainly not.

I agree. I think that both the far left (communists) and the far right (libertarians) are naïve ideologues.
Far anything is an ideologue. I am an idealist ideologue myself, though I recognise that and try to compensate for my unrealistic ideals.

Please explain this overblown statement.
Namely, what's so "far right-wing" about legalizing drugs, prostitution and gambling?
Legalizing gay marriage?
Being against the war in Iraq (or war in general)?
There is a more recent method of a political compass where there are two axes, one for social authoriatianism and libertarianism, and one for economic. There are libertarian and authoritarian aspects to liberals, and libertarian and authoritarian aspects to conservatives. Liberalism could be comared to both fascism and anarchy, as could conservatism. The only difference are that there are ideal liberal states, and no conservative ones.

You've failed to grasp the actuality of evolution. Like other organisms, the human organism naturally refines itself to better reproduce. This is accomplished thru both cooperation and conflict. Even simple organisms that live in colonies as cells in a body will attack other colonies. Also, you should understand that you are not a god before you go off on what "must be done with humans." AFAIK, you're a human yourself and lack the authority to determine the fate of humanity.
Wow that is wrong. I just finished reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. I have been studying evolution quite a bit, far more than the average human. Biology is my passion, and do not tell me that I have failed to grasp the actuality of evolution. There is still more to learn, certainly, but I understand what I'm talking about. I was probably comparing species evolution rather than individual evolution then, though I don't remember what it was I said.

If Social Security disappeared tomorrow, it would not be a charity organization like the Red Cross that would pick up the slack. It would primarily be the children of the needy elderly.
Yes, and if social security disappeared tommorow, then the elderly who aren't rich or related to rich persons are going to be royally screwed over much more so than they would have been with it.

How do you define corporatism? I see it as coporate ownership of the government. That's not compatible with libertarianism.
Meh, that was a very tenative use of corporatism. I was trying to say too much corporate control, but not actual corporatism.

There's much use in this thread of the word "naive". I would use it on you except I have no reference to your type of thinking. I don't know where it originates. What world do you live in that you would equate the absence of money with an absence of poverty? I'm tempted to attack your thinking, but I'm not sure I understand what your thinking is.
Why thank you for restraining yourself. I do not have that self control that you do. In a collectivist state, everything would be done for the betterment of all. However, it is probably the least possible form of government ever, and I have delusions about it ever coming about, even if I wish passionately that it would.

Who's economic theory? That's about the 9th stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Yeah, I have to agree with you there.

But under libertarian rule couldn't an employer fire people for any reason at all?

Theoretically.

But the employer would get a bad rep, and better employees would drift to employers that treated them better.

The libertarians and the populists are two different boats of loonies, case closed.

In a libertarian society, you can argue everything's fair.

Though how the economy works out is sort of complicated. Humongous rich-poor divides can be created, or most people can prosper quite well.

But my problem with libertarians is the don't really address the fact that people start at very unfair starting lines in life and disregard the people who start way behind (children of impoverished backgrounds) are expected to perform as well other children who are brought in in STABLE enviroments, you know, where your mom isn't a crackwhore and what not.

Also, stop thinking charity will solve all of society's ills. A lot of charities are just fronts for fraud, and knowing the liberatarian lazi faire attitude, they'll probably keep on doing that.

and also: Most welfare by far goes to single mothers. Not jobless 24 year olds.

In a libertarian society, you can argue everything's fair.

Though how the economy works out is sort of complicated. Humongous rich-poor divides can be created, or most people can prosper quite well.

But my problem with libertarians is the don't really address the fact that people start at very unfair starting lines in life and disregard the people who start way behind (children of impoverished backgrounds) are expected to perform as well other children who are brought in in STABLE enviroments, you know, where your mom isn't a crackwhore and what not.

Also, stop thinking charity will solve all of society's ills. A lot of charities are just fronts for fraud, and knowing the liberatarian lazi faire attitude, they'll probably keep on doing that.

and also: Most welfare by far goes to single mothers. Not jobless 24 year olds.
Look, most of what happens to you in life is a result of your decisions. Not how lucky or unlucky you are. Let's start with your last example. No one should have a child unless they can afford it. Welfare has turned that idea upside down. Now families are encouraged by "social engineering" to consist only of single mothers. Fathers need not be present. Plus, the dole picks up the tab for the kids. Don't think you get enough each month? Have another kid. Still don't think it's enough? Complain about how the poor are treated.

Charities are sometimes fronts for fraud. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push certainly is suspicious. I do simple things to avoid donating to frauds. First, I can avoid giving to telemarketers. Second, I can look up charities on the internet and find out how much of each dollar goes to aid and how much goes to overhead. If I can't find that out, I don't donate to that charity. That won't change. Only the disposable income available to donate will increase.

Libertarians: "We have to pay more in taxes! IT'S NOT FAIR!"
Populists: "They make more money than we do! IT'S NOT FAIR!"

Honor students: "We have to do more homework! IT'S NOT FAIR!"
Slackers: "We don't get scholarships! IT'S NOT FAIR!"

All: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! It's just not fair!"

Pay your taxes, morons. The wealthy make more because they're worth more, and they're taxed slightly more because they have vastly more (and seriously, don't give me some crock about how you earned all that because my dad works all day long just to make ends meet. Work for work, if we wanted to be "fair," he'd be the one making six figures. Life isn't fair, so live with it). Welfare is meant to support single mothers and other people who exist under circumstances that make it impossible for them to support themselves. That some people abuse the system isn't the fault of the single mothers et al. but of the people who are abusing it. I advocate lengthy prison terms for people who abuse this system because they don't disenfranchise only the taxpayers, but by hurting the legitimacy of the system, they disenfranchise those who couldn't eat without it.

Libertarians, I'm sure that Singapore would welcome you with open arms. Populists, pack your bags, and move your own whiny asses to Sweden or something. Just so long as you're out of MY country.

...That some people abuse the system isn't the fault of the single mothers et al. but of the people who are abusing it. I advocate lengthy prison terms for people who abuse this system because they don't disenfranchise only the taxpayers, but by hurting the legitimacy of the system, they disenfranchise those who couldn't eat without it.
...
Funny, wouldn't we end up paying more to incarcerate welfare frauds than we would if we just cut them off? Or even if we just kept paying them?

Ahh, ok, you are turly sincere. Unfortunately, I have been greeted with so much agression when I tryt o debate with others that I have become that way myself. Just try to see past my bitter rhetoric, and ignore the agression. My arguments are not based on those emotions, certainly not.
Not necessarily. I often take the position of the devil's advocate. In general, I like to see good arguments, and it bothers me when somebody I agree with says something idiotic. I expect my arguments to remain civil, though, no matter what I'm arguing.

For your information, I am a Libertarian.

I often take the position of the devil's advocate.
That is a problem I have. I enjoy arguing, so sometimes I start playing devil's advocate without even realising it. Then after it's gone on long enough, and someone makes a certain comment, it hits me that I don't even believe what I'm arguing. It can be great fun, though.

In general, I like to see good arguments, and it bothers me when somebody I agree with says something idiotic.
I understand what you mean, but sometimes people just are in a bad mood or don't think something out thoroughly enough. It happens, and you should just brush those off.

I expect my arguments to remain civil, though, no matter what I'm arguing.
Oh, but brashness and vulgarity can just be so fun at times!

Now this is the type of libertarian I like! I can argue as much as I want about wanting humans to have equality, but it still isn't the natural order of things. It is the libertarians that think that there would be socialistic behaviour in a capitalist society that push me the wrong way.
I too get tired of liberals, conservatives, and let's face it, libertarians (sic) who compromise too much with the quasisocialist liberal agenda on capitalist issues.
The systems clearly blow whenever they mix. For both socialism and capitalism, they're like oil and water. Wishy-washy nitpickiness drives their credibility down to absolute zero.
I'm a capitalist. I can only hope that charity would be enough for the downtrodden. What gives me hope (remember, I'm not really an optimist)?
Here's just one idea I share with my party on health care:
In a huge portion of the garden variety medical complaints (of all health care, in other words), a physician shouldn't have to be directly involved (and may not be nowadays, such as is the case in the ER).
Why not be able to call an experienced nurse practioner to diagnose your problem? They'd charge a much lower fee for their services, and could call in a specialist if you needed.
Deregulate some of medicines pro-doctor, anti-nurse and staff legislation (lobbied by the doctors)? If you really wanted to provide the most people with quality health care, why not increase the options available?
Insurance, when deregulated, could be bought with cheaper options.


As you can see, there's not a socialist thought in my head. I'm not going to apologize for my vision.
I don't believe in a rediculous government safety net that protects all. It's an impossible system that breeds a ghettolike dependancy class enslaving generations of vicitims and criminals.
It's not the American dream, to have the government pay for you to live in a subsidized housing and give you just enough food to eat.
This couldn't be solved overnight though. That's becuase we've tried (and failed) at mixing socialism with capitalism.
What a fucking mess. No need for too much naive optimism in my worldview.

Most all of the entire western world is ruled by liberal and conservative socialists (statists).

All believe in increasing the size of government.

Unless the government you live under is limiting it's expenditure then you are living under a socialist (statist) government.

Libertarians are liberals who want to limit the expenditures of the state (anti-statist).

As you can see, there's not a socialist thought in my head. I'm not going to apologize for my vision.
As well as you shouldn't. I would argue with your view, but I just respect it too much.

Welfare is replaced by charity
Worker safety regulations can be pushed for by workers' unions in a libertarian society
Emergency medical care . . . actually that's where I disagree with the LP but w/e

At least somebody does know there is justice in a libertarian society (sry, but I've spoken with so many ignorant people about it and they don't have any idea what they're talkin about)

Perhaps the question has already been asked (although I didn't see it), but where exactly in the libertarian's formula does charity even exist?

You'll have to pardon my ignorance on the subject, but whenever I've read libertarian thinkers in the past, like Rand, Friedman, and Adam Smith, the idea was that people were at their best/most rational/most moral when they were acting purely out of rational, economic self-interest. That being the case, when I look at places like Ceylon and the recent tsunami, I see a bunch of people asking for my money who contribute nothing in return to my pocketbook. That being the case, perhaps the resident libertarians can explain why it is that I would or should contribute anything at all if I adopted their ideal mindset?

Moreover, if I read my Adam Smith correctly, he actually argued that charity is a bad thing, in that it promotes the behavior that makes you unprofitable in the first place, and interferes with the natural distribution of wealth as determined by the invisible hand. Rand made similar comments with her take on the altruist-collectivist ethos of the past. So how exactly do you account for charity in such a system, or are you simply using the word knowing full well that it will never be implemented in the system you hope to construct?

The truth is that charity is just a backdoor way for libertarians to appear benevolent. The reality is that they find it more just for other people to starve than for government to take money out of their pocket, or even worse, that they've convinced themselves that in a perfectly capitalist system, no one would starve at all. The fact that historically this has proven quite the reverse (the Gilded Age of America and England of the 1850's were about as close as any state ever came to a true capitalism, and never before or since has diseases, starvation, lack of shelter and water, etc. done so much damage in raw human terms) does not deter them.

Even assuming that some people violated the sacred principles of a true homo economicus, there is still a problem with the concept of charity, in that any individual is limited by time. I may be the most well-meaning person in the world, but I do spend a great deal of my time trying to make a living for myself, so I simply do not have time to keep track of every group that needs money and effort on their behalf. I might, for instance, remember the tsunami victims for a time, but eventually, whether because I have other things to do or just because next week's news cycle focuses instead on the plight of African children in the diamond trade, I probably will not be able to keep up with the problems in Ceylon or Indonesia, and as a result, I probably will not do what needs to be done for a society that has a shattered infrastructure, and that is provide large sums of money over large periods of time, whether I mean well or no. How do I solve this problem? Well, if I ignored the "wisdom" of Friedman, I'd say that I vest a government with the power to set up an agency to keep track of it for me, and use my tax dollars to good effect instead. However, we all know that that will only lead to a generation of Sri Lankans addicted to welfare, so that will not work, now will it?

Funny, wouldn't we end up paying more to incarcerate welfare frauds than we would if we just cut them off? Or even if we just kept paying them?Or just cut them off from recieving anything at all from the government.

Welfare is replaced by charity

ROFL

Libertarians: "We have to pay more in taxes! IT'S NOT FAIR!"
Populists: "They make more money than we do! IT'S NOT FAIR!"

Honor students: "We have to do more homework! IT'S NOT FAIR!"
Slackers: "We don't get scholarships! IT'S NOT FAIR!"

All: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! It's just not fair!"

Pay your taxes, morons. The wealthy make more because they're worth more, and they're taxed slightly more because they have vastly more (and seriously, don't give me some crock about how you earned all that because my dad works all day long just to make ends meet. Work for work, if we wanted to be "fair," he'd be the one making six figures.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!

What does your dad do for a living? Whatever it is, it probably would not be worthwhile to pay him much more than he currently makes. If he wants more money he should make himself more valuable. I realize that's easier said than done, but if your dad is anything like mine, he should make an honest effort to be something for once.

Anyway, it's not the unfair-ness of taxes that I have a problem with. It's the economicly destructive nature and the immorality of high taxe rates that I don't like. I do not like the progressive nature of the US income tax system, but that's only one aspect. I'm not exactly rich, and I'm not in very high tax bracket. In fact, in 2003 I paid 0 in federal income tax. Still, people should not be punished for success, to risk sounding like a Republican. I maintain that even at in lower income brackets, the rates are much too heavy. Whatever taxes your dad pays, he would be better off paying less.

Also, in the US the income tax is just that - a tax on income. It is not a tax on wealth. Sometimes wealthy people have no income and therefore pay no income tax.


Life isn't fair, so live with it). Welfare is meant to support single mothers and other people who exist under circumstances that make it impossible for them to support themselves. That some people abuse the system isn't the fault of the single mothers et al. but of the people who are abusing it. I advocate lengthy prison terms for people who abuse this system because they don't disenfranchise only the taxpayers, but by hurting the legitimacy of the system, they disenfranchise those who couldn't eat without it.

You're changing the subject. It's not abuse of the social welfare system that libertarians have a problem with. It's the very nature of the system. It may well be a noble cause to feed single moms, but not when other people's money is used. And you're a fool to think you can solve problems with "lengthy prison terms."

Libertarians, I'm sure that Singapore would welcome you with open arms.
Perhaps, but libertarians don't generally like laws that criminalize the failure to flush a toilet.

Some libertarians might try being totally upfront with their agend. Break it down to it's simplest terms.
Screw you if you can't take care of your self. It's my money and I don't want any taken out of my piece of pie.

Perhaps the question has already been asked (although I didn't see it), but where exactly in the libertarian's formula does charity even exist?
The short answer is that charity isn't part of the libertarian's formula. I mean that libertarianism isn't exactly a philosophy covering how you should live your life. It's a political idealogy. I totally understand what you're getting at and thank you for bringing up such a damn good question.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance on the subject, but whenever I've read libertarian thinkers in the past, like Rand, Friedman, and Adam Smith, the idea was that people were at their best/most rational/most moral when they were acting purely out of rational, economic self-interest. That being the case, when I look at places like Ceylon and the recent tsunami, I see a bunch of people asking for my money who contribute nothing in return to my pocketbook. That being the case, perhaps the resident libertarians can explain why it is that I would or should contribute anything at all if I adopted their ideal mindset?
Of those you've mentioned, I'm most familiar with Rand. Rand's philosophy of objectivism is fairly comprehensive and I've gotten sort of a mixed message on the issue of charity from her. I think she was big on voluntarily funded government and permited her fictional heros to be charitable on occasion, but she generally against alturism as a virtue. I honestly don't concern myself much with the finer points of her philosophy. I wouldn't expect Friedman to have much to say beyond perhaps discussing the actual mechanics of charity.


Moreover, if I read my Adam Smith correctly, he actually argued that charity is a bad thing, in that it promotes the behavior that makes you unprofitable in the first place, and interferes with the natural distribution of wealth as determined by the invisible hand. Rand made similar comments with her take on the altruist-collectivist ethos of the past. So how exactly do you account for charity in such a system, or are you simply using the word knowing full well that it will never be implemented in the system you hope to construct?
Well, Smith may well have had a good point. I haven't read what you're talking about, but I think I get it. It's important to understand that there was no welfare state when he was around.

The easiest illustration of what I suspect he was saying is my cousin who's working in a resturaunt washing dishes at age 24. His mother made his life so comfortable he's never made any effort to leave her home. He's been unemployed the majority of his adult life. I can attest that he pretty much got everything he ever whined for throughout his childhood. I was raised in a differen't universe where I rarely got anything I wanted and was out of my mom's house two weeks after I graduated from high school. Today I have a wife, a child, a house, and 2 cars, and I'm only one year older than my cousin. It's not easy for my wife and I to meet all of our obligations, but I think the relative lack of "charity" on the part of my mother has proven beneficial. In this particular case an absolute lack of "charity" would've been fatal for me, so it's a matter of degree.

I hope that example illustrates the potential harm voluntary charity can cause.



The truth is that charity is just a backdoor way for libertarians to appear benevolent. The reality is that they find it more just for other people to starve than for government to take money out of their pocket, or even worse, that they've convinced themselves that in a perfectly capitalist system, no one would starve at all. The fact that historically this has proven quite the reverse (the Gilded Age of America and England of the 1850's were about as close as any state ever came to a true capitalism, and never before or since has diseases, starvation, lack of shelter and water, etc. done so much damage in raw human terms) does not deter them.
First off, I don't understand what would cause a person to conclude that libertarians are anything but benevolent. However, I do think there's some truth to your suspicion that "charity" is a convienient answer to the question of how to otherwise solve the problems that social welfare spending allegedly solve. I maintain that social welfare spending hardly does any good whatsoever and that any good actually accomplished by it could more than be made up for by eliminating the parasitic loss of the current US government.


Even assuming that some people violated the sacred principles of a true homo economicus, there is still a problem with the concept of charity, in that any individual is limited by time. I may be the most well-meaning person in the world, but I do spend a great deal of my time trying to make a living for myself, so I simply do not have time to keep track of every group that needs money and effort on their behalf. I might, for instance, remember the tsunami victims for a time, but eventually, whether because I have other things to do or just because next week's news cycle focuses instead on the plight of African children in the diamond trade, I probably will not be able to keep up with the problems in Ceylon or Indonesia, and as a result, I probably will not do what needs to be done for a society that has a shattered infrastructure, and that is provide large sums of money over large periods of time, whether I mean well or no. How do I solve this problem? Well, if I ignored the "wisdom" of Friedman, I'd say that I vest a government with the power to set up an agency to keep track of it for me, and use my tax dollars to good effect instead. However, we all know that that will only lead to a generation of Sri Lankans addicted to welfare, so that will not work, now will it?That's a silly argument. There is absolutely no reason to believe the any government could possibly spend my money better than I can, judging by my standards. If you did discover an organization that researched worldwide need and funded various charities in a way you were comfortable with, you could choose to give them money, this organization would not be a government. Your government already has your money, and it will spend it as it's members and owners see fit.