Oh, bloody hell!
Thanks for the reply, LS. In case you’re not aware, I do agree with you on just about everything you’re written there.
One of the things which has contributed to so many people living off of welfare checks has been the proliferation of “disabilities”. By claiming a “disability”, they can claim that they aren’t able-bodied instead of just being lazy.
This actually strikes rather close to home for me. I happen to have a niece who’s in a relationship with a guy who gets “disability” checks from the government. From what I’ve been told, they’re both perfectly happy to live off of that money instead of being productive.
Of course, I agree here. I hope you didn’t think otherwise.
What bothers me is the entitlement attitude that people get. It’s one thing to get help and be grateful for it; it’s another thing entirely to consider it your due. As far as I’m concerned, no one prima facie deserves any help.
Again, there’s nothing I can dispute with this. We’re in complete agreement here.
I think you’re right that a lot of it is anachronistic. It also appeals to the notion of “cosmic justice” (to use Thomas Sowell’s term) – everything in the universe must ultimately conform to a given moral vision. Of course, the universe can only be truly just if it’s just at all points in its history. Yet we can’t change the past. What is to be done? (Pun intended.)
On the other hand, though, I think the left-libertarian position in particular concerns opposing the idea that certain people are irredeemable. That’s what I meant earlier with the word “condemn”. I think it’s more an issue of moral/ethical standing than anything else. But I could be wrong.
There debates seem to be merely semantic. In the future (if you would like to avoid these kinds of encounters), ask not “what is equality?”, but “equality of what?”.
geez, we are still with this debate?
“If we don’t believe that we (the other 99%) won’t care for that one percent, whether because we’re social creatures capable of compassion, or some higher enlightenment we’re capable of or whatever, then we’re totally frakking screwed. We might as well all join a death cult before society comes flying apart at the seams because we’re incapable of even the most basic kindness WHERE KINDNESS IS DUE.”
That’s thick libertarianism and rather close to left libertarian aspects.
" It’s all about what has happened, not what is happening now."
- What happened affects what’s happening.That’s history.Likewise statism in the fact affects things today.That’s what Carson means by ’ the subsidy of history’.You seem to suggest they are unrelated.No historian or thinker can sensibly say such a thing.
“It’s so rare to find a visible minority or woman in the left-lib ranks in particular”
To some extent this is true but it’s a problem in libertarianism in general and one many left libertarians and non left libertarians have discussed and said is unfortunate.
It is directly proportional to the righteous indignation of half wits.
If they choose to take welfare, then it is their fault they are on welfare. Also, I am not judging people based on their class, I am judging them by their actions. Does taking welfare make you a loser? I say yes. It sure doesn’t make you a winner!
There is no poverty inheritance in the west. Poverty affects lots of people. I wasn’t born wealthy. I became a successful producer when I stopped making excuses for myself and blaming everyone else. Self-esteem starts with accountability.
On the contrary, I want to see them thrive and succeed. I don’t treat them like wards, incompetents or unfortunate. I don’t make excuses for them.
And, I am not white.
Your appearing unconcerned with the poor and ordinary people making An-cap seem like anarchism for rich white males
Should we force or subsidize people to be concerned for ordinary people? Should we force or tell people they ought to break the bakers window, to pay the glass repair man? What is this “ordinary people” anyway, I thought all things were unique and perhaps even extraordinary in their own way. Describe these ordinary people for me. Is what is rich what you classify as rich, or is there an objective classification of rich?
Personally,I feel somewhat sorry for those on welfare not that I approve of the welfare state at all.
So is it our goal to insist on odd political labels because we both don’t approve of welfare, but you feel people must feel sorry for people on welfare? Which “people” do you feel sorry for? All of them? Are these not individuals on welfare, and not some robotic static class? Do we feel sorry for people on welfare for their sake, or is it to feed some political or moral stance? Do we feel sorry for them because they are on welfare, or because we just happen deem them to be too poor that day?
Anyway last post on this topic for me.
It is one thing to say that government - or anybody - shouldn’t use force to deal with a problem. It’s another to say that there is no problem all together.
Would you agree with this statement?
Equality means “NO GOVERNMENT”
Not in any universal way. It can’t be stated. The thing that creates, contextualizes and values the problems is the individual. A little seemingly insignificant quote that I have loved lately is from Ludwig Lachmann paraphrasing Karl Popper saying “we are in the world of perspectivism, the world of Nietzsche”. This holds true when we speak of the ontological self, or sciences that have to deal with this fact.
An entrepreneurial hot dog vendor sees a problem of the lack of hot dog sales so he opens a hot dog stand. A kindly priest may see a problem with poverty, so he opens a shelter based off of charitable donations. We can not tell the priest or the hot dog vendor what the problem is in any “logical” or political sense, it is a purely personal/egoistic/spiritual affair, it is up to them or you to identify and cause action to the state around them.
Left-libertarianism is libertarianism + white guilt. If its confused, amorphous and highly personal, it is no more so than white guilt
+1
This is true of all purveyors of nonsense ideas. They live and die by the shifting sands of their definitions. You will ask, they will evade, and eventually the definitional issue will be forgotten and the thing never can be squashed. The only way is to insist, like Voltaire, that arguers define their terms. Not ask, not beg, not hope. Insist. Otherwise the whole debate is just more wasted time.
Meanwhile…2 pages of posts and no egalitarian managed to give their definition of equality…in a post about defining equality.
Esuric said above that some people are too stupid to talk to. I’m a little more optimistic; after all, I would sound stupid too if I were always equivocating like a crazy monkey on the terms that make or break my arguments. And if I allowed that to happen inside my own mind, I would probably be stupid. No one can reason intelligently about something until they have nailed down the actual concepts they are working with, and no one can communicate coherently until the key definitions are clear to the readers.
I feel no guilt for slavery. Save us your straw man ad hominem…
T’would be sad if someone never thought he could fix a situation in no way caused by him… purely a self-centered way of living.
I’m not sure this is directed at me but yes.
Epicurus ,I apologize for times in the past when I criticized your rejection/criticisms of An-cap as apologetics for rich people or such things as I am criticizing here.You were entirely correct.I was blind and now I see.An-cap as portrayed here and in a majority of cases when it strays beyond simple libertarianism/ anarchism is disgusting. However insofar as me and An-caps have similiar ends I am still willing to work with them.