i have some questions regarding libertarian party issues. if i were to tell you that these questions weren’t the questions that stumped me by talking about libertarian issues, i’d be a liar. they are probably so simple that any bloke could figure them out on their own, but i could never get my head around these subjects.
social security: whenever i speak with someone about social security and how it would benefit someone more if they could handle their own retirement, they always end up telling me, “you can’t trust people with their own money,” or, “what happens when those people spend that money and lose it, and then they can’t work and can’t feed themselves?”
environment: this is one of the issues that bugs me as well. even if the government did get rid of its polluters, wouldn’t that make room for private polluters? even if it didn’t, how would we stop the affect of polluters pumping out as much as they wanted?
i appreciate the quick response. i did counter with private charity, but that’s where the conversation stops. i am wondering, how effective do you think private charity would be without welfare?
and i will look at that essay now. thanks for mentioning it
If you can’t trust people with their own money, how can you trust people with other people’s money, which is what is going on with social security? And just retirement money? If you can’t trust them with their own money, why allow them to do anything at all with any money they have?
environment: If land were privatized, owners would defend it. Government is the biggest polluter, but most of business pollution occurs on government controlled property. The libertarian solution is merely to uphold property rights, though of course not through a monopoly agent.
This argument consistently applied would allow for complete slavery. And then the argument collapses because if all men should be ruled then what about the men who should rule them? They are men too.
Under libertarian principle, you are not allowed to damage someone else’s property. This goes a long way in keeping the environment clean. You can’t dump something in the river because either the river is owned or someone will trace property damages to you dumping things in it.
Secondly, a major cause of destruction of nature is through the tragedy of the commons. This is where public ownership is established and/or private ownership is forbidden. Then pollution or destruction doesn’t affect individuals as much as it would under private property.
Let’s look at the implications of this. If the state must take the money of people because the people might not know how to care for that money. then why stop there? Why should we trust people with anything regarding their lives? Should we not let them buy their own food because they might buy something unhealthy? Should we not let people leave their homes because the might get injured outside their homes? Should we not let people live in their homes because they might get injured? Should we not let people choose their own job because they might choose the wrong job? If the answer to these questions is “yes”, then should we also not let people manage the state because they might make the wrong decisions? If people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, then how does it make any to let other people manage those lives?
As an aside, for the next person to ask you the questions you put forth, ask him, should I take your money from you right now because we don’t trust you to manage it correctly? Also, what makes one person or group of persons more apt at managing the money the of others? How do you answer that question given that value is subjective, that wants are subjective, and that needs are subjective.
Furthermore, tell the statists to ask the people of California who have state pension if the state is better at managing their money than they are. Don’t forget to mention that the CalPERS (the state pension I am refering to) lost about 50% of its value over the past year.
Environment:
Let’s look at why polluters are allowed to pollute. Why are they allowed to pollute? Because the government itself said that they could during the industrial revolution. Let’s not forget that it is the government that dropped atomic bombs on civilians in Japan, that disposed of depleted urinium during Desert Storm, that crates massive amounts of pollution during its wars.
You can start by asking them if the current situation with SS seems fair to them:
You can’t can’t change the amount of the tax.
You can’t stop paying it (if they say that “everyone is paying it” point out to the Amish and ask why they’re allowed to opt out - aren’t we all supposed to be equal in this country?)
You die without a spouse, it’s all gone
You can’t receive your money back before the certain age, determined by the government, not you.
You can’t control on what the money is spent. Instead of saving or investing it, the government spends it on whatever it wants, including paying the current recipients.
Due to the above and the rising number of old people it’s going to be bankrupt soon (or did it happen already?), but the government doesn’t want to do anything about it.
Should this happen, I’m pretty sure that the government is simply going to stop paying anyone altogether. I wouldn’t be surpised to find out that they’re already preparing for the ensuing riots.
Finally, SS was never meant to be total replacement for your retirement income. Even the gov acknowledges it and encourages investing in 401(k) and other plants.
If you can’t trust yourself with your own finances or you’re worried about losing it, maybe you should let me handle it for you. And that goes for anyone else convinced by that argument.
Overall, social security is just a compulsory ponzi scheme. The program is not a retirement savings plan where individuals currently working have a portion of their paycheck transferred into an investment portfolio which they can draw upon when they retire. Its a transfer payment program where deductions are taken from individuals currently in the workforce and transferred to individuals who’ve retired. Right now, the US has an aging population. There are more people leaving the workforce than entering. The system is unsustainable and will eventually collapse with the current youth getting stuck with the bill.
Environment:
I suggest this. I hate to just provide a link, but it is a broad topic. There is no 5 second answer.