What can I say to a socialist that says libertarians don't care about poor people?

[ihsv]

Yep, just cite Hipocratic oath.

Doctors don't take that oath anymore, do they? I thought they stopped doing that... maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Kludge]

Government creates poor people.

Poor people create poor people. It's statistically proven over and over again.

 

[Mini-Me]

This is the most infuriating economic argument around, and I'm sorry you have to deal with someone arguing something so naive and ridiculous...there are no economic policies that would help the working poor more than libertarian policies. I'm too worn out to elaborate at length, but if I were you, I'd develop arguments around the following basic points:

• Inflationary monetary policies hurt the middle class and poor people more than anybody else, because they discourage savings, encourage borrowing and spending, water down the buying power of every saved dollar, and make prices rise much faster than wages in a way that wages cannot keep up.
• The economy is not a zero sum game, and there's not some fixed amount of wealth. The more efficient the economy is at producing the most goods and services for the cheapest, the more there will be to go around in the first place.
• Following from that, read up on why central planning and redistribution makes markets more inefficient, leading to much less wealth to go around the more and more central planning and redistribution are used.
• It's really naive to think that business regulations are a net positive for poor people, small business, and the working class. Here's one of my better posts on explaining why: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1723944&postcount=26

Does he not think it suspicious that candidates like Obama - supporting "the poor people" and universal health care - are given soooo much damn money from corrupt financial companies like Goldman Sachs and from the pharmaceutical industry?

• Look at all of the bigass financial companies supporting Obama! Do some names not ring a bell from the bailout? Recall that bailout recipients are spending a lot of that money on mergers, acquisitions, employee bonuses, and golden parachutes, rather than what it was "supposedly" intended for - loosening up credit to "help Main Street."
• Now, in comparison, look at their contributions to John McCain, who is himself a corporate fascist! Notice also that all 20 of Obama's top contributors gave him more money than McCain's #1 contributor gave him.
• Now check out the contributions from big pharma. That chart is from January. Check out the more recent list of who the pharmaceutical industry gave their money to. The universal health care proponents sure raised a whole shit ton of money by the end, didn't they? Obama raised more than twice as much from big pharma than John McCain, and he raised almost twice as much as Hillary - who still raised more than John McCain, despite the fact that she didn't even make it to the general election. John McCain in turn raised way more than any of the other Republicans.

There's a reason for this. Your friend has been misled by the corrupt, who benefit more than any others from centralized and socialized systems, and he's been duped about the true purpose of liberal and socialist economic policies. He's been misled into thinking we've been a "free market," when we really have not...we've been a corporatist market, which is very different from free market capitalism, and we're now moving into more firmly established socialism or national socialism...which will only make things worse in the long run. The corporate elite want people thinking along one of two lines: Either the way he's thinking, or the way that Faux News Republicans tend to think (you know, the ones who are oblivious to the wealth gap, corporate welfare, etc., and who support John McCain and George Bush's fascist version of the "free market"). He's been herded into controlled opposition...or really, I think it's actually the Faux News Republicans that have been herded into controlled opposition. After all, they were fooled into believing in a fake and heavily manipulated fascist version of the free market that is so indefensible and broken that the obvious and predictable reactionary movement of others would be towards full-blown socialism.

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

I would think the obvious answer would be to get as many hearts and minds over to our cause as possible.

Yes, starting with the receptive ones FIRST!!

 

[dannno]

Yes, starting with the receptive ones FIRST!!

If somebody debates you on the topic, that doesn't neccessarily make them un-receptive. Un-receptive means they don't want to listen to you at all.

 

[dannno]

Doctors don't take that oath anymore, do they? I thought they stopped doing that... maybe I'm wrong.

They still do it, or at least they did 5 years ago when I took a debate/logic class.

 

[RCA]

Socialism makes everyone poor eventually by removing the incentive to be successful.

Ex: If Homeowner A can't afford is mortgage anymore and is bailed out by Homeowner B, what reason does Homeowner B have to pay his own mortgage?

 

[Mini-Me]

Dammit, meant to edit, and my browser screwed up and kicked me into a double-post :/

 

[Krugerrand]

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Government subsidizes poverty by throwing money at it. We get more poverty.

Also, go ask the five million Ukrainians how socialism worked out for them. Oh wait, you can't; they're all dead.

Wow. That's some page. I'm not a gun owner ... but that's as clear an example as I have ever read as to why people should be allowed to own ANY type of gun and not worry about registration.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Since you are talking about "poor" people, we'll assume we are talking about some sort of government handout. Handouts drain people's motivation. It drains their sense of pride. Handouts do the opposite of what is intended. It makes them dependent and weak, instead of making them stronger. You can't grow muscle if you are carried around like an invalid. You won't value anything if everything is just given to you.

And many politicians want people to be dependent on them. It increases their personal power, and saps that power from the "poor" people you are trying to help.

If you are a parent, how do you want to raise and motivate your children? Just give them money forever? Have them live in your basement?

 

[TonySutton]

socialism removes a person's self esteem, without it they may as well remain poor.

libertarianism builds their self esteem so they can better themselves.

Private groups do a better job of providing charity to others. Their contributors and volunteers are not obligated to continue giving their money and/or time if they feel the charity is not using the assets wisely.

When a government program is ineffective, they throw more money at it. The money they are coercing from you and me!

 

[Mini-Me]

By the way, StormCommander, I've been editing my post above, and I added a whole bunch of links to campaign donations for Obama vs. McCain. It should be eye-opening for anyone who thinks he or his policies are meant to help "the little people."

 

[SeanEdwards]

And everyone knows those timeless words from the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of being a patriarchal meddler in the affairs of the little people.

 

[constitutional]

But if we let charity handle everything, people won't donate much in the first place.

How do you argue that?

Handouts drain people's motivation. It drains their sense of pride. Handouts do the opposite of what is intended. It makes them dependent and weak, instead of making them stronger. You can't grow muscle if you are carried around like an invalid. You won't value anything if everything is just given to you.

But the person I'm arguing says he would not have made it (a successful teacher or any other profession) if it wasn't for the government. How do you argue that?


Thanks a lot, I always fall short against these arguments.

 

[fletcher]

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." – Frederic Bastiat

 

[danberkeley]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?

Kick him in the nuts then take his wallet. Then ask him, "where was the government to protect you?" And laugh at him for a minimum of two hours.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

But the person I'm arguing says he would not have made it (a successful teacher or any other profession) if it wasn't for the government. How do you argue that?


Thanks a lot, I always fall short against these arguments.

What if that person could make it without the government? People have always made it without the government, so a little government help doesn't prove that it was necessary, or even really helpful.

If I give your friend a little money, will I get eternal gratitude and a cut of his future profits? (of course I already did "donate": the government stole it from me, and gave a very small cut to him, after they took a huge cut for overhead)

All of that being said, I am not personally against a good, "basic" public education at the State/Local level. One of the very few things government can do to promote the general competence of it's citizens. But it should NOT be a replacement for all others forms of education and learning.

 

[mport1]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?

Economic and fact based arguments won't work on most people. You can try explaining that the free market and private charity are the best things for the poor but I have found this to be ineffective. Explain that it is wrong to steal people's money to fund programs to help the poor and that libertarians care deeply about the poor but think that this should be done on a voluntary basis.

 

[Soccrmastr]

give him a book to read

+10

 

[torchbearer]

How much did Obama spend on his bid from president?
How many people could he have fed and sheltered for that money?
How can anyone who ask "but what about the children?" even eat a slice of bread before they spend their own incomes on the poor starving children.
If they don't.... then they don't care about the poor people.