Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been a huge advocate for abolishing all government programs for many years now. But to understand why you need to imagine what would happen if we woke up tomorrow and all government assistance was cut off.
Most poor people would have no choice but to go to churches for assistance. Not just the food banks, but everything. The net outcome would be a much more church-centric society.
The problem is that there are a lot of different churches, and some churches are much richer than others. By making a society church-centric you are creating not only an unequal society, but a segregated society.
Government-assistance creates a less fractious and more secular society.
When the vast majority of Americans were rural, and before the Federal Reserve and massive inequality, not having government assistance was acceptable. But if you tried to do it today you would either end up in revolution or dissolution.
We can't have poor depending on churches. They MUST turn to the government.
Why do a lot of people complain about taxes and govt interference so much these days ?
because they are smart enough and honest enough to understand that big government fails at almost everything they do.
Adults understand the concept of money. Children do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad01
Do they not realize the securities they have today to go to work, live in safety and conduct business is due to the govt and involves taxes
Yes I'm all about not wasting tax money and thats a separate debate but just being generally against govt and taxes is sheer lunacy guess these people have never lived in a country with weak institutions and ineffective govts
Guess you've never read the Constitution or taken a course on economics.
I've been a huge advocate for abolishing all government programs for many years now. But to understand why you need to imagine what would happen if we woke up tomorrow and all government assistance was cut off.
Most poor people would have no choice but to go to churches for assistance. Not just the food banks, but everything. The net outcome would be a much more church-centric society.
The problem is that there are a lot of different churches, and some churches are much richer than others. By making a society church-centric you are creating not only an unequal society, but a segregated society.
Government-assistance creates a less fractious and more secular society.
When the vast majority of Americans were rural, and before the Federal Reserve and massive inequality, not having government assistance was acceptable. But if you tried to do it today you would either end up in revolution or dissolution.
Most poor people would work instead of relying on government handouts. Your last statement is silly.
Most poor people would work instead of relying on government handouts. Your last statement is silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl
We can't have poor depending on churches. They MUST turn to the government.
One of the main criticisms of libertarianism is that it would leave the poor to die in the streets
That is completely wrong. What would actually happen is the poor would murder the rich.
I don't think you appreciate the difficulty of maintaining a country. This country already wants to rip itself apart. Governments cannot stay together without social integration and economic dependency.
God knows I'm not here to defend the welfare-state. But you need to understand that governments CANNOT do things to be nice. They can only do things that serve the national interests. If the welfare-state exists, it does not exist for the benefit of the people. It exists for the benefit of the state.
Most poor people would work instead of relying on government handouts. Your last statement is silly.
No they wouldn't. When you now have several generations of people that has had no one in their family hold a job for any length of time and where the lack of successful role models is a problem you aren't going to have people finding a job.
One of the main criticisms of libertarianism is that it would leave the poor to die in the streets
That is completely wrong. What would actually happen is the poor would murder the rich.
I don't think you appreciate the difficulty of maintaining a country. This country already wants to rip itself apart. Governments cannot stay together without social integration and economic dependency.
God knows I'm not here to defend the welfare-state. But you need to understand that governments CANNOT do things to be nice. They can only do things that serve the national interests. If the welfare-state exists, it does not exist for the benefit of the people. It exists for the benefit of the state.
Paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte by replacing 'religion' with 'libertarianism'?
Quote:
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.â€
~Napoleon Bonaparte
Personally, I sortof agree with your take. Granted, it's a wishy-washy sortof agreement because I don't agree with what you say is 'one of its main criticisms'.
American styled libertarianism is a quasi-religious faith-based system which has created its own American styled caste system. Its catechism begins with faulty premises & causes some of it adherents to be 'immune' from logic or reason, & its proselytizers come from all walks of life, i.e. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, as well as from all religious faiths, including atheism. American styled libertarianism values property over people, & in fact, many times confuses the two with legal fictions, fr'instance 'corporations are people' ad nauseum ad infinitum. American styled libertarianism is our very own sacred cow. Its faith based believers hold their various nonsensical religions beliefs, unreasonably, to be above criticism.
Many of the various religious belief systems make much more sense, imho.
Paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte by replacing 'religion' with 'libertarianism'?... "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." - Napoleon Bonaparte
I've never seen that quote. And although I agree with it, it might not be for the same reason as Napoleon. I don't think it is the preaching that keeps the poor from murdering the rich, but rather the welfare assistance provided by the church.
The church is a welfare-state. Or more pointedly, the church is a state. And thus the church will always fill any void left by our government. When you look around the world you'll find the same thing. Take something like the Muslim Brotherhood. Most people think of it as a terrorist organization. In reality, it is a politically-active relief society.
Either the poor will turn to the government for relief, or they'll turn to the church. From a moral perspective it is better for them to turn to the church, but from a political perspective you need them to turn to the government.
For two reasons...
1) If they are dependent on the government they won't overthrow it.
2) By removing the people's dependency on the Church, the Church becomes powerless and irrelevant. Which in a multicultural/multiethnic/multireligious country, you need to keep the Church as politically-impotent as possible.
To unite Afghanistan you need to increase the power of secular institutions while diminishing the role of religion. A truly united Afghanistan would require complete secularization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
American styled libertarianism is a quasi-religious faith-based system which has created its own American styled caste system. Its catechism begins with faulty premises & causes some of it adherents to be 'immune' from logic or reason, & its proselytizers come from all walks of life, i.e. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, as well as from all religious faiths, including atheism. American styled libertarianism values property over people, & in fact, many times confuses the two with legal fictions, fr'instance 'corporations are people' ad nauseum ad infinitum. American styled libertarianism is our very own sacred cow. Its faith based believers hold their various nonsensical religions beliefs, unreasonably, to be above criticism.
The failure of libertarian philosophy is that it presupposes the only human imperative is making money. That might be true for "the rich", since the rich are ambitious people, usually with narcissistic personality disorder, who need to make money to prove their worth. But most people really just want to be comfortable. They want to be happy. They want to live a good life.
The second failure of libertarianism is that is presupposes the existence of the state without appreciating the difficulty of state formation. In short, it never asks why we're together, or why we would want to be together. It just assumes that we're together, and that we'll always be together.
A libertarian state would destroy itself. The moment segregation was made legal again, this country would fracture into a thousand pieces.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-28-2021 at 06:53 AM..
No they wouldn't. When you now have several generations of people that has had no one in their family hold a job for any length of time and where the lack of successful role models is a problem you aren't going to have people finding a job.
They will either work to support themselves or commit crimes and be jailed. We need to bring back Victorian work houses.
No they wouldn't. When you now have several generations of people that has had no one in their family hold a job for any length of time and where the lack of successful role models is a problem you aren't going to have people finding a job.
People don't really like to starve when given the option to work and eat.
But yes the rise in single parent families is a huge problem. Having 2 parents is the biggest indicator on if one makes it in life. Guidance.
One of the main criticisms of libertarianism is that it would leave the poor to die in the streets
That is completely wrong. What would actually happen is the poor would murder the rich.
I don't think you appreciate the difficulty of maintaining a country. This country already wants to rip itself apart. Governments cannot stay together without social integration and economic dependency.
God knows I'm not here to defend the welfare-state. But you need to understand that governments CANNOT do things to be nice. They can only do things that serve the national interests. If the welfare-state exists, it does not exist for the benefit of the people. It exists for the benefit of the state.
I think you misunderstood my post. I was being facetious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
