I often encounter this argument against me. Now, I know it’s basically ad hom, but it’s also very effective in debate. Basically, I can’t be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy because I’ve never been poor, so I don’t know what it’s like to be hungry. They’re right, I don’t know what it’s like to be hungry. But that doesn’t make what I’m saying right or wrong. I’m sure there are other people on this site who experience this argument, thoughts?
EDIT: My other favorite retort goes something to the effect of “you’re just living off an inheritance, which is basically a form of welfare, therefore you are a hypocrite for criticizing the government welfare program.”
Tell them they’re making assumptions; they have no idea if you’ve actually ever been poor (even if you haven’t), unless you told them you haven’t.
Honestly it’s not even an argument. Just because you may not have been poor doesn’t mean you can’t promote the freedom and prosperity of those who are.
Who are you arguing against, poor, starving Africans? If not, then they’re basically on the same level as yourself. Most “crazy leftists” that I’ve encountered have been fairly well off.
What policy are you criticizing? The welfare state? If so, then I would have to assume you are just lacking in Austrian economics education. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not enrich the poor, it impoverishes the rich. If the government were not taking from the rich, the rich would employ the poor with that money resulting in wealth producing activities instead of wealth destruction activities. Everyone would be enriched.
I may be lacking in Austrian economics education, I tend to think these people are set in their ways. I could post articles from this website all day, they won’t read them. Or they’ll attack the philosophical premises underlying them. Block says that people have a hard time understanding implicit aid. People, for whatever reason, understand explicit aid. So they see government handouts as being the best way to help the poor. They’re explicit. What they don’t understand is what you just said, which is that by allowing the rich to keep their money, they can then employ people. But that’s implicit aid, a concept they’re not comfortable with.
Even the rich will often skip a meal to get some work done. Everyone has been hungry at some point. I get hungry several times a day, personally. It is no great leap of the imagination to think, “Gee, perhaps being hungry all the time is not fun.” To say that one cannot understand because one is not in that situation isn’t even an argument. It is a dodge. The logic breaks down immediately, because it implies that one person cannot have understanding of any other person’s experience, and therefore the person who accuses someone of “not knowing what it is like” can be accused of the same as it concerns the one they accuse. How can they know whether or not the accused understands if they have never been the accused? The accused may have some experience, or spiritual insight, or may have found a book in a cave describing the human experience of poverty in detail. It is an argument backed by no logic. Anyone can imagine what something is like, especially given that we all need certain things, and specifically work toward taking care of those needs. If we had no idea what it was like, we might not work as hard, and would soon find out.
I’ve been homeless and virtually broke on the streets of socialist London. Not being a citizen I wasn’t entitled to a welfare handout. Did I helplessly waste away on the side of the road? No. I had a job and a place to stay within a week. And this was in late 2008 when the markets had tanked and the recession hit.
So being poor, homeless and unemployed at one point I guess I can say I have the “right” to tell those folks they’re wrong.
Just fabricate shit. They have no means of verifying it. When someone is so stupid as to rely on ad homines attacks, there’s no reason not to exploit their ignorance.
Alternately, of course, you could point out to them that they are attacking the source rather than the argument, and this is the first sign of a terrible debater.
It is a matter of how you define “poor”. I think all of us are dirt poor compared to Bill Gates or Johnny Depp but most of us are filthy rich when compared to a street urchin in Bucharest. For example I may declare myself poor compared to Mr Gates and ask for his wealth to be “redistributed more equally” in the same way as the street urchin would ask my wealth to be “redistributed more equally”.
Then there’s another point: under the influence of St Carlo Borromeo Church institutions around here used to divide poor in two categories. The “shameful poor” and the “shameless poor”. The former were just people down on their luck who often were too ashamed (hence the name) to ask for help. The latter where those who usually flocked around aristocratic palaces and religious institutions waiting for handouts and clamoring for more and had no shame (hence the name, again) of their condition. While the first could be expected to redeem themselves with a little help (for example teaching their children a profession or helping them find an honest job), the latter were considered a lost cause and could be done for them was giving them bread (to prevent them from rioting) and pray for their souls.
Right now we have plenty of “shameless poor” clamoring for handouts without giving as much as hint of wanting to better themselves. These “poor” are not starving on the streets, they’ve just come to expect government dole, and more of it with each passing day, be it free schooling, zero-interest loans, free healthcare. Like St Carlo Borromeo we should ask ourselves if it’s really worth keep on helping these people who show absolutely no intention of changing their evil ways.