Amen.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1133
"It occurs to me that, in these wartime years, I have a lot more in common with my left-wing associates than the right. Except that there's one stumbling block which makes them look askance at libertarians: "What about the poor?"
Now, I have no objection to helping the poor. We donate to our local food bank. I help refurbish computers so that poor kids can have one for their schoolwork. Part of my volunteer work for the Red Cross involves helping families who have experienced personal disasters (like a house fire). Indeed, one of the aspects I like about where we live is that when a family suffers a fire, or has a child with special medical needs, collection boxes will pop up in all the local businesses, and I'm among the many kicking in.
I'm all for helping the poor. I just think it should be private, and voluntary.
At this point I usually hear the objection, "But that's not enough! Small scale solutions like that will never solve the problem!"
Today it hit me: why the hell not?
To be more specific: the question should not be how do increase the scope of the (private) solution. It should be, why is the problem so damned big?
Let's face it: if you're living in a society in which anywhere from one-quarter to one-half of the population can't meet their basic needs through their own efforts -- where a half-trillion dollar enterprise is needed to "help the poor" -- then there is something fundamentally wrong with your society; and redistributing wealth, from those who have managed to succeed to those who have not, is avoiding the real problem. Whether the problem is the legions of overpaid bureaucratic parasites, the erosion of savings through inflation, confiscatory taxation, the countless costs of busybody legislation, or all of the above, you need to fix the underlying cause before you can ever really help people.
Put another way: if transfusing a few units of blood doesn't help the patient's condition, you'd better start looking for the bleeding....not look for more blood donors.
As a (small-l) libertarian, I am working toward a society where everyone can sustain himself/herself; where being poor is a misfortune and not a chronic condition; and where the needy will be at most a few percent of the population. In that society, private charity will be more than sufficient to help them. And I'll be there, contributing."
Good points. The ONLY thing the welfare state has created is a near-permanent dependency underclass. They have no stake in the future, so they trash theirs. Crime and bastard kids are their only legacy. Thanks so much LBJ you stupid liberal fuck.
"It occurs to me that, in these wartime years, I have a lot more in common with my left-wing associates than the right. Except that there's one stumbling block which makes them look askance at libertarians: "What about the poor?"
Now, I have no objection to helping the poor. We donate to our local food bank. I help refurbish computers so that poor kids can have one for their schoolwork. Part of my volunteer work for the Red Cross involves helping families who have experienced personal disasters (like a house fire). Indeed, one of the aspects I like about where we live is that when a family suffers a fire, or has a child with special medical needs, collection boxes will pop up in all the local businesses, and I'm among the many kicking in.
I'm all for helping the poor. I just think it should be private, and voluntary.
At this point I usually hear the objection, "But that's not enough! Small scale solutions like that will never solve the problem!"
Today it hit me: why the hell not?
To be more specific: the question should not be how do increase the scope of the (private) solution. It should be, why is the problem so damned big?
Let's face it: if you're living in a society in which anywhere from one-quarter to one-half of the population can't meet their basic needs through their own efforts -- where a half-trillion dollar enterprise is needed to "help the poor" -- then there is something fundamentally wrong with your society; and redistributing wealth, from those who have managed to succeed to those who have not, is avoiding the real problem. Whether the problem is the legions of overpaid bureaucratic parasites, the erosion of savings through inflation, confiscatory taxation, the countless costs of busybody legislation, or all of the above, you need to fix the underlying cause before you can ever really help people.
Put another way: if transfusing a few units of blood doesn't help the patient's condition, you'd better start looking for the bleeding....not look for more blood donors.
As a (small-l) libertarian, I am working toward a society where everyone can sustain himself/herself; where being poor is a misfortune and not a chronic condition; and where the needy will be at most a few percent of the population. In that society, private charity will be more than sufficient to help them. And I'll be there, contributing."
Good points. The ONLY thing the welfare state has created is a near-permanent dependency underclass. They have no stake in the future, so they trash theirs. Crime and bastard kids are their only legacy. Thanks so much LBJ you stupid liberal fuck.
Labels: liberal douchebags, liberty, philosophy, stupid people, taxes
posted by mmaier2112 at 2:51 AM
2 Comments:
A child without a father and crime don't always go hand in hand mister :)
Jump, jump, jumping...
Jump all you want. The statistics are ugly, but living in denial is hardly the way to deal with them.
Post a Comment
<< Home