Are libertarians our enemies?

Post Reply New Topic

Or it could be argued that people are getting on public assistance because American business had failed them by eliminating jobs, and cutting wages and benefits. Why risk going without shelter, food or medicine in an uncertain and heartless job market when those things can be provided by government? I remember once how Rand Paul's daddy excused such things by explaining how risk comes with freedom, but if that's true, I can do without that definition of freedom.

Exactly. I don't see how someone can blame someone else for wanting a higher standard of living, especially for their children and family.

Oh, they can and they do. They blame people for getting on public assistance, and yet they also condemn them for wanting higher wages and benefits on the job.

That really says a lot more about the sh***y state of the American economy and why WE SHOULD NOT have such reverence for small business. Small businesses create poor quality jobs that people cannot live on.

I'm all for encouraging people to work and contribute to society in a positive, productie way. However, people who work deserve to make a wage that allows them to feed and care for their families and have access to basic health care.

When the US deindustrialized, we lost the ability to create living-wage jobs on the whole. Until/unless we find a way to do that, you cannot blame people for seeking and taking the best deal.

People aren't shifting to welfare because the government has been increasing benefits. They forced into welfare because the economy can no longer support them.

Of course risk naturally comes with freedom but the alternative is what? Some authoritarian nanny state? The old Benjamin Franklin quote(or whoever actually said it ) about trading freedom for security can apply here too.

I don't blame people for utilizing what ever is offered to them tho, its just rational self interest and it would only be hurting themselves not doing so. It isn't their job to be economists or policy makers, why would a poor person care how the stocks are doing on Wall Street or what the national debt is? You shouldn't cast judgement on people for doing what comes naturally, chances are you'd probably do the same given the alternative of depriving yourself. Pride is just as much of a sin as any, so punishing yourself on top of it is just dumb.

It says more about American business than it does American government. If more people are tuning out and depending on the low payout that government programs give it's because they are doing so in their own best interest. If the low wage job pays marginally more than the paltry government payout why would you spend 30 hours (can't do 40, then you'd be full-time and have benefits) being treated like s**t by a low-level manager who barely makes more than you and directs his resentment at this situation towards you, or customers who treat you like s**t because you're at a low level job and at some core human level think they're better than you because of that. Again, if the pay were better that stress would be manageable but it's not, the government check is in your self-interest just for the health benefits alone.

Government payouts don't pull you out of poverty, working a low level job in America doesn't either. So if you're gonna be in poverty either way, why work to be there?

I mean this is a very libertarian view: it's all about self-interest. I don't logically see how you can claim that the market is best run by people pursuing their self-interests and then complain when they actually do.

But that's the thing; an authoritarian nanny state is hardly the only alternative, but you wouldn't know that listening to the right. You can have both freedom and assistance from a government taking responsibility for it's citizens. That's hardly choosing security over freedom.

It depends on what kind of libertarians. I for example am a social libertarian however due to my rather centrist economic stance I am commonly called a left-libertarian. Libertarians are found in different economic areas. All that counts is the freedom. Some say that economic freedom must be included while further left people want to opt out of a capitalist system or want freedom from monitary systems and establish equal distribution. I for all am a anarcho-pluralist meaning that I feel that a state isn't necessary but the voluntary communities may exist with different systems as long as they coexist peacefully. Commonly in is the anarcho-capitalists and the anarcho-communists who disagree with such an idea as they are two ideological extremes on the anarchic side of politics.

Your authoritarian nanny state in action:

Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices. This amounts to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100. 

If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.

Needless to say, the resulting unemployment, lost opportunities, and general stagnation have the most severe effect on the working poor, who are least likely to have savings or other resources to fall back on …

Source:
https://cei.org/10kc2015

Yes, that's when the pie is broken up fairly and distributed fairly, but really that's 1.88 trillion for shareholders not the average american family. It's all about self-interest, if the companies get 1.88 trillion their own self-interest is to pay stockholders: companies are a business, their sole purpose is to make money for their shareholders not look out for employees, the average american family, or even the country itself for that matter.

Any student of the Founders would know that. After all, one of the first laws that they adopted under the Continental Congresses recognized the need to assist those Revolutionary War veterans and their families who had been injured or killed. Sooo, if we consider their congressional act as precedent, anyone who contributes to the success of the nation (militarily or economically) qualifies for assistance. This is particularly true when one considers the methodology of U.S. presidents Roosevelt through Johnson (and beyond) that such "welfare" were actually contributions (however involuntary) made by workers to their own assistance if needed down the road. My Republican friends always forget our collective history. But, I do agree with the idea that the scale of assistance is out of whack. Something as simple as the EBT food cards get "managed" by JPMorganChase and, as a result, yield millions of dollars ( http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-r ... fit-misery ). In my opinion, that is profiting off of misery. That is beyond the cost of doing business and paying the bank works involved.

Either the far right is ignorant of that fact, or they choose to ignore it.

Really? and what sort of welfare checks are these that people are leaving their jobs for?...as far as I know working typically pays more, unless you've been working for high wages for a period of years and become too disabled to work then you might get a substantial amount.

Also most people who apply for disability do so out of need, because their disability prevents them from holding a job...there might be a few frauds here and there, but really for a lousy payment of under 800 dollars a month and being barred from saving anymore than 2,000 dollars in money or assets seems kinda pointless with the hefty criminal charges one would receive if caught 'faking' or if they where found out to have other means of money coming in. It's hardly worth entirely stripping the program and leaving people with real disabilities worse off than they are now, over a few a**holes who like to cheat the system.

Also what do you mean you all for healthcare for anyone who needs it but many don't? technically everyone usually needs some form of healthcare at some time or another in their life....so people need access to that including the poor. And you're quite simply naive if you think the issue of poverty really is as simple as people sitting on their asses and refusing to work....you fail to acknowledge the existence of the working poor for one. Not to mention for the poor who don't work many do have legitimate disabilities and some have more just been impoverished and wandering homeless for so long they face a lot of barriers....plenty of homeless are without an ID for various reasons and of course going to get one can be difficult if they don't have a birth certificate on them, then there is lack of job history, unkempt appearance and all kinds of stuff. I'd say programs should exist to help those people enter the work force...but stigma and discrimination are very real barriers.

I think the laziness and greed that is symbolic is more the laziness up top...I don't think most people think its mostly the poor being lazy, at least not most people I know who have first hand experience with poverty. I myself am on disability but did try working and college before that...but still working to improve the conditions I have that prevent me working. Just about everyone else I know works and are all struggling financially to varying degrees...and like 40 hour full work week. My dads done hard labor sort of work all his life and has been homeless, even while working full time though now he's having to try and apply for some assistance because his body won't hold out as long anymore so he can't do as much work anymore. And people want to sit on their high horses and pretend like if all us poor people would get off our asses we'd all become upper-middle class successful professional people....when the reality is many are very much off their asses already. Then in the case of disability many people on that are in treatment to hopefully become more functional and you want to look down your nose and tell them 'well you just need to get off your a**' This mentality is really starting to piss me off.......so much ignorance.

That is not the same as people deciding to leave their jobs or switch to part time work because now thanks to Obamacare and other government assistance they can live comfortably without work though. That is employers feeling pressure to cut hours for employees whether or not the employees can actually live on the wages of lesser hours...it actually if anything would make it difficult for workers to get by and may have to work multiple jobs. If it we had instated Universal Healthcare that problem probably would not have arised...but I get the impression Obamacare was the closest thing to that which could be slipped through congress.

Two outdated heavily biased articles from 2013 is your proof?

I read the first one and seems written by a major outsider to the disability system...if anything they make it very difficult to get approved, most people are denied the first time around and have to appeal...and then the appeals process is very cumbersome and difficult as well. Also does the author know the difference between SSI and SSDI disability? seems like they just lump it all together. Of course it is right that there are some frauds...though those hurt the people that really need the help and do waste money, but its certainly not encouraged by the social security administration to try and fake and cheat the way the article suggests at all.

And the second article...wow, no it actually does not work like you can just decide...well I don't want to work anymore and just up and start collecting enough welfare to sustain yourself. It actually does not work that way....for one people have to qualify they do look at social security number and your finances, living situation any assets, money or resources will reduce the number of food stamps one would qualify for. Also not just anyone can get medicaid/medicare...and as i pointed out before getting on disability is certainly not a walk in the park. Perhaps you should stop feeling your head with all this heavily baised right wing fanatical hate mongering towards the disabled and poor, you seem to seek out.

Not to mention the automation of many jobs which is only going to increase...though this issue remains largely ignored or at least simply not addressed by the government. Some kind of reworking of the monetary system is just going to become more and more necessary as time goes on. There is the issue of too low wages or too high of living cost leaving the existence of many working poor...but seems the gradual decrease of job availability is being overlooked, and rather blamed on the poor just being too lazy to look for work.