Can Libertarianism take care of the involuntarily poor and vulnerable?

No, I am referring to perception.

That is a marketing issue, not a philosophical one. Because boobus thinks of libertarianism as Stirner/Randian Egoism, is indeed one issue to address, but again, that wasn't what the thread was about. Libertarianism like Austrian Economics does not say what one should do, or how a culture should be. It merely says what relationships are valid, and which ones aren't.

As for the thread, if people value charity and helping others, then that will be taken care of. Historically, there has never been a free society who let the sick, old, young, or handicapped die. It wasn't that long ago that doctors and other medical personnel used to treat paupers for free and worked for free in such clinics. At this rate though, we will all be paupers because of the State and the parasites who feed off each other.
 
Wrong Question

The question is not "Can libertarianism take care of the involuntarily poor and vulnerable" but will YOU?
 
^^^Yes.

If government is taken out of the charity equation, it doesn't mean that charity won't exist, it means that coercive theft will not exist, and charity will again be how it is supposed to be - voluntary.
 
You guys seem to be discussing this in the context of our society, but what about a 3rd world country? Say, Haiti, for example. I'm talking like, bringing some of the poorest people in the world out of poverty. Prosperity doesn't just come out of thin air, and i'm just saying - would the same principle still apply? Would you say the best way to help these millions of people would be to just leave them alone and let the market work? Just let private charities help them?

What would you do if you were the newly-elected president of Haiti (or a similar country)? What would be your plan of action?
 
Libertarian's lack of understanding social interaction may be why many people do not embrace the liberty movement. Libertarians want to end security and replace it with nothing! No Thanks!

Libertarian's fully understand social interactions between the state and the people. Libertarians want to end the violent theft of people private property and replace it with voluntary love and caring. No thanks?

Are you scared that the majority of people will allow their fellow man to die without coercive force? If so, do you believe these same people are creating a benevolent society for the benefit of the poor and the helpless?
 
You guys seem to be discussing this in the context of our society, but what about a 3rd world country? Say, Haiti, for example. I'm talking like, bringing some of the poorest people in the world out of poverty. Prosperity doesn't just come out of thin air, and i'm just saying - would the same principle still apply? Would you say the best way to help these millions of people would be to just leave them alone and let the market work? Just let private charities help them?

What would you do if you were the newly-elected president of Haiti (or a similar country)? What would be your plan of action?


Yes, you're right. Prosperity doesn't come out of thin air....and government "charity" is the reason countries like Haiti remain impoverished.
 
Last edited:
Libertarian's fully understand social interactions between the state and the people. Libertarians want to end the violent theft of people private property and replace it with voluntary love and caring. No thanks?

Are you scared that the majority of people will allow their fellow man to die without coercive force? If so, do you believe these same people are creating a benevolent society for the benefit of the poor and the helpless?
I was trying to play the devil's advocate but it didn't work well. I'm not at all scared. I live a more free life than most of the people I've ever met, and I've been a limited government advocate longer than most of the RPF members have been alive. I'm trying to find ways to promote liberty, peace and prosperity. My point was that we are not getting anywhere by telling people that we are going to remove Social Security, Medicare, and Government pensions and replace it with nothing. Do you want the liberty movement to grow, or do you want to keep beating your head against the wall because nobody understands your philosophy? As AED pointed out, it is a marketing issue, not a philosophical one.
 
The moral question of social security has always been the issue that stuck out in my mind with libertarianism.

I have always believed in self-reliance and against the welfare state.

I guess I can never call myself a full libertarian as I still cannot let go of the need for some social security and welfare though. I know a lady who recently had her husband leave her and is a single mother of 3 children. She came from the Philippines years ago and it was fine for the first few years as a nanny (legal nanny), until she really got financial issues as her husband ran off and is now reliant on the government for her public housing (i'm from canada). The charities she goes to does support her somewhat with some aid, but the real big thing that is helping her is the public housing. She still lives in the ghetto though.

I really think she got dealt a bad hand in life and never had the money in philippines or Canada to pursue a proper education, and that she isn't like other people who are poor out of laziness or other counter-productive behavior.

So the question that sticks out in my mind is, can the adoption of libertarianism in the government take care of people like her who are the most vulnerable in society? Is it proper to take away such welfare from these kinds of law abiding citizens?

Likewise, I too have had conflicting ethical arguements as to how far should we assist or not. Over the years through personal experience I really think people would be much better off without a government handout. Somebodys situation regardless of how it happened to manifest does not give the government the authority to stomp on others by reducing thier income or freedoms. The extra money saved by eliminating welfare could be given to charities of individuals own choosing rather than what the government decides for you. I think of it like this, people would be free to decide where to give money too and people needing help can decide which charity to get help from. Through welfare nobody has a choice. Not only that but the welfare state breeds resentment and divides people because those paying taxes for it can be resentful to those receiving while those receiving can be resentful to those paying for not giving enough. Through charity and personal donations and personal receipt people have a clearer picture of what needs people desire. Thus, someone out there in a free market will fill that need in the form of a business.
 
Last edited:
You guys seem to be discussing this in the context of our society, but what about a 3rd world country? Say, Haiti, for example. I'm talking like, bringing some of the poorest people in the world out of poverty. Prosperity doesn't just come out of thin air, and i'm just saying - would the same principle still apply? Would you say the best way to help these millions of people would be to just leave them alone and let the market work? Just let private charities help them?

What would you do if you were the newly-elected president of Haiti (or a similar country)? What would be your plan of action?

Haiti, right now, does not have any sort of economy to speak of. There are few trees. One of the big cities was just pretty much turned to dust a little over a year ago. The nation cannot help itself right at this moment.

Now, should other nations force their citizens to pay for that? No. Other nations, however, do have charities that swarm to the place. Even before the earthquake, there were numerous charities trying to make a difference in mortality and standard of living. It's very difficult, though, because of Haiti's UNSTABLE GOVERNMENT. It's obvious the island can sustain a fairly healthy nation (one need only look next door). It's obvious that other nations are fine with voluntarily helping.

If I were the new President of Haiti, I'd be very likely a corrupt individual with the health and wealth of the nation very low on my list of priorities. That's the sort of person who generally wins. However, taking your hypothetical in good faith, I would seek to promote the island as a good place to set up shop. Puerto Rico recently made itself more business-hostile, and Haiti's location is not bad. There are a lot of opportunities to ship from there to other islands, the US, Mexico, and South America. With so much land pretty much cleared of people and trees, it'd be a matter of one or two developers creating their own little "city" somewhere. The local folks would, of course, be employed in building these new structures and staffing the simpler things. People who've left the island would be urged to come back and staff the jobs which require more education. I would speak to universities, especially in the SE USA, about sending doctors to Haiti to gain experience and awarding credit to such programs. I would reach out to the Little Haiti community churches, and beyond, and talk to them about stewardship and missions to the island. I would beseech charities to visit the island and set up shop, and provide support to them in any way possible. I would consult with people who have great experience in civil engineering and city design, and see what could be done to take this opportunity to start from the mud and build upward.

All of that can be done without taxing other nations for my rebuilding project.
 
I can't speak for all Libertarians, but Libertarianism is not about social justice. Surely, Libertarians' do not want to see people on the streets begging for money, but it happens. It's part of human nature, people are going to fall through the cracks and make mistakes in life. Ending slavery, where one works and pays for useless programs that they never agreed to chip in, is what Libertarians' are really focused on. So of course the Corporate run media and partisan hacks are going to spin it and say "Libertarians don't care about poor people or the underprivileged", when that is not what Libertarians want or ever planned on.

Remember too, Libertarianism isn't a utopia where everyone is happy and friendly. It surely won't solve every problem in the world.
 
How can anything be justified by using violence to take the property of peaceful individuals?

Also. My family and I were homeless for about a month or so at the age of 16. We lived out of a van. Not once did we get welfare, or food stamps or any government assistance. I worked at a restaurant and they'd give me a free meal every night I worked there, and I became friends with a few people there who let me take a shower at their place every few days. Churches also are very charitable organizations, many are very willing to help those who need help.
Eventually we were able to save enough for the deposit for an apartment and first months rent.

I now live on my own. I'm a full time college student and work around 30-35 hours a week. I make around 800-900 a month. This is plenty enough to survive and even have some extra money for myself. I could live on much less if I had to.

I don't think it applies to all people whom are poor, but I think many of them are lazy. Not lazy in finding working, mind you, but rather too lazy to ask around from other people, from churches, from private charities. Rather they'd just get the anonymous checks from the government and not have to worry about asking others for help(which can be very hard sometimes, it always takes a hit from my pride to do so)
 
Yes, you're right. Prosperity doesn't come out of thin air....and government "charity" is the reason countries like Haiti remain impoverished.

The government in Haiti is almost nonexistent. Most of these countries have no real welfare at all.
 
Regarding Social Security, I'm not against it being there, I'm against forcing people to be a part of it. If I don't want to pay into it, then I shouldn't have to.

- ML
 
Why should I help others? That's what the government is for. Why use my own time and money when government can hire more aid workers and has unlimited money?

The needy prefer govt money, as I might require some effort from them if I was helping.
 
Interesting discussion. I also have a knee jerk reaction to not wanting to end all govt intervention in the poor situation, then I realize that there are plenty of charitable organizations and people that would and do currently help. The churches are great at this for instance. Also, if you know the person you are getting help from you will be more motivated to get on your feet or the person will be more motivated to stop helping you. It isnt just getting money from a faceless entintey such as the govt that people don't mind taking advantage of.
 
why bother.. wimpy op hasn't even got the balls to stick around to debate his beliefs
 
Last edited:
Regarding Social Security, I'm not against it being there, I'm against forcing people to be a part of it. If I don't want to pay into it, then I shouldn't have to.

- ML


For sure. Is it too much to ask to live in a society where as one can make a personal decision without being threatened at gun point by their own government?
 
By the time the government takes your money, passes through the IRS, various other bureaucratic organization, and mixing it with a "little pork" (theft) along the way, the needy receive a very small percentage of what we could have given them ourselves in the first place. Ranchers say it this way: "It is like receiving the grass after it passes through the cow."

Before welfare we took care of each other through family, neighbors, churches, volunteer work, ext. It is far more cost effective, efficient, and did not make the needy dependent on a welfare system.

Star Parker who once was a welfare recipient talks about how the welfare system enslaves people. Here is her website:
http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/ She speaks from experience, and is very eloquent in telling what is wrong with the welfare system.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top