We all know that most of our peers do not agree with our political ideals. In my experience, their views are usually based on compassion, ultimately. They see our philosophy as leaving out the poor. They think that the poor would starve without the government, etc. We’ve all heard the claims.
Any argument I offer against positive rights is usually met with the “what about the poor” response. Arguments that government intervention works against the poor usually meets with incredulity. They equate “the left” with compassion and the free-market with coldness.
It is true that we hear more rhetoric on the poverty issue from the left. Most of us would agree, however, that freedom and private property are the friends of the poor. My concern is that we libertarians don’t stress this issue enough, and it is precisely the one that undermines our position with most people (in my experience). The concerns we voice usually relate to rights infringements and oppression, or government inefficiency. I think that it would be most helpful to take aim at the poverty/compassion issue.
So, I want to look deeper into this. Does anyone know of any good literature on this? I did take a look at Hazlitt’s “The Conquest of Poverty” and it is great (despite that the stats are a little dated).
You’d have to ask - why are the poor, poor? Government regulation of such things as minimum wage laws and unions creates unemployment. Taxes also dissuade employment creation.
I haven’t read MvWS, but it probably has what you’re looking for:
Rothbard’s “For a new Liberty”
Which I also have not read probably is what you’re looking as well.
yeah, Rothbards “For a New Liberty:…” provides statistics showing how the State’s intervention and thus the so called “Welfare State” has cause way more harm than good.
That’s a good one. I used that one on somebody the other day actually. I said to them why don’t we just give the poor the money ourselves. We could even call it a charity, plenty of those around. It baffled the other individual. They moved onto another topic. That usually means now they have to think about it more and you shattered their static perspective, which is a good thing.
Bring up government legislation, which puts a gun at your head, then pat themselves on the back saying what good people they are, of course. That’s real compassion and making a difference
I don’t understand how people can be so dense! Government was never invented to feed the poor. It was created to feed itself. Until you understand that, you are not going to understand how anarchy works.
It goes to show how great the left is at propaganda. There is no way someone could rationaly confuse leftist thought with genuine compassion, yet somehow leftist propaganda has worked well to perpetuate that myth. The propaganda they have is probably among the best and most effective ever established.
People on the left tend to see the economy as a static, zero-sum game, where the rich “hoard” the wealth and the poor have to sell their labor to them to get a small slice of it back. But the laborers produce more wealth than they are paid, so the evil capitalists just get richer and richer! Oh, the humanity!
Of course, there are have been a great number of responses to these fallacious arguments, especially by Austrians. I’ve compiled some of them here:
Long story short: their arguments don’t hold water.
I wholeheartedly agree. It is this precise issue, which ultimately convinced me that my formerly held leftist views were wrong and that a free-market capitalist society is superior to a society based on a socialist system. Once I realized that the “well-intentioned” welfare-state policies in fact had destructive consequences, I changed my views.
The poor can only be helped by the government if the government steals those resources by force from other citizens.
For those who say it is compassionate (for government) to help the poor…just ask, “by force”?
taking it away from someone else by force?
by force?
by force?
“2Pac: “Memories of a past time/givin up cash/to the leaders/knowing damn well they ain’t gon feed us”” But even if they did feed the poor, the best food in the world…its wrong…and the question to ask such a person who wants that is:
give them the food by taking it from someone else by force?
but…its good to help people…
by force?
we should help the poor…
by force?
Jesus helped the poor…he preached going out and helping them…
by force?
someone needs to do it…what if noone helps them…
by force?
what about the kids?..its not their fault…
by force?
Given that so many people obviously care for the poor (for a given definition of “poor”), surely removing regulation and taxation would free them up so they can decide directly how to help out. Is that not the purest form of democracy - letting the individual decide how to allocate welfare for the poor?
Of course this approach often exposes the hypocrisy of those who bring up the “poor” as an argument against free markets.
I think a vote for leftism, is admitting you are incapable or unwilling of solving a problem and you want to pass the buck to someone else, while still seeming “smart, edgy, and making a difference” to your peers and the person you passed the buck to as an evil son of a bitch. It really is a brilliant little way to go about life.