You could also say you know poor people who take issue with the statist’s own arguments and are libertarians in their own right, and that you’re reliably informed by them, and as others have mentioned point out the fact that third-worlders are way poorer than the individuals you’re likely debating with, so if poverty is the measure of rectitude in economic affairs, your liberal friends also have biased, incorrect opinions… nonsense, all of it, but their own logic compels the result. They’re not fond of consistency for the most part and might try argue you fail to see the nuance in their arguments… nuance being lack of consistency.
You know what’s funny is that I often want to just be a total troll and be like “yeah, I hate poor people, I hope they all starve to death!” Because I think that’s what they are basically hearing/reading anyways.
They don’t seem to be able to fathom the possibility that giving these people handouts doesn’t necessarily help them in the long run.
You’re right, if one were to reduce their position into absurdity, the logical conclusion would be that only the poorest of the poor could have any knowledge of economics. Or really that the more poor you were the more you knew how things worked/should work.
Okay as probably one of the few poor schmoes here (as I am technically below the poverty line in the US), I’ll state for the fact that such arguments are invalid for only one reason alone: the devil can be right too. What that phrase is meant to convey is that the truth of an argument has no basis in the character of the argument’s supporter or opponent. It’s whether it’s valid on its premises and if those premises follow without contradiction. If your opponent plays the “You’re not X so you can’t say Y” card you can write them off as even a valid opponent altogether. These kinds of folks aren’t in the business to listen to new ideas or opposing points of view. They’re in the business of bullying you into submission with as many underhanded character attacks that they can muster.
So in the end, don’t bother with such fools, they’re not worth whatever energy you have. All you do is make them feel better because you’re arguing with them and they can use that time as a means to justify just about anything for their own position, even if it’s idiotic on its face.
Yeah, this whole “who has benefited from the government” thing seems rather unintelligible to me. I think there is a regulation that could be claimed to benefit most groups of people, so trying to figure out who is hurt the most and who is helped the most seems like an impossible task. I don’t get mad at the corporate elite or the welfare receivers. I can’t blame them really.
I think you’re right, it’s a massive waste of time. They’re as close minded as they claim I am.
Now that I’m thinking about it, since I’m close minded, I should be the ultimate authority on who is and is not close minded. Lol.
Fuck the poor. Poverty is mostly created and perpetuated by statism and socialism. Thse statist morons have no idea what they’re talking about.
What do you mean by this? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so if you could just clarify..
This is a wee bit harsh no?
Anyway, the REAL solution to poverty is private charities which help the unfortunate or “shameful” poor back on their feet. I’ve wiorked with various private organizations and I can tell you first-hand that we’re truly effective in what we’re doing. Most of the liberals you speak to will have nothing to do with the poor by the way. Many of them are snobs and will not spend more than a single cent helping the poor. They want everyone else to do the leg work, while they sit back and write up diatribes scolding everyone else.
Actually, what I’d really like is an argument as to why I don’t have to worry about such issues. In other words, I want your position to be right. However, if I had to design a system based on my tentative position here, I’d start with a presumption of regularity in most cases. In the obvious cases, as you mention, I would not start with a presumption of regularity. Now, I’d imagine there would develop, on the market, companies that will, for a fee, perform title search and research and such. Courts would, I expect, be open to such arguments, but skeptical. I’d expect to see in cases without malintent that compensation for improvements is required for a judgment.
There is no purity here. I’d want to do something about bailed out bankers and major corporations that take land frequently. It would also be harder the further back the issue occurs.
There is such a thing as twilight and dusk, but that doesn’t make sorting day from night impossible, does it? There is a difference, I think, between having your customers drive to you on roads, and actively lobbying the government to go to war so that they can buy your planes or give you a contract to fix the things they broke. How about having friends in government take people’s houses through eminent domain, or using your own media company to demand that the government give you billions of dollars?
I’d say that in the US, poverty is mostly created and perpetuated by poor people’s life choices.
I’d say that there would be much less poverty were it not so fun to be poor.
YOU WILL NEVER WIN THIS ARGUMENT.
Some people admire poverty and the impoverished. They admire weakness. They are not looking for solutions to put people to work. They are looking for a utopian paradise, where everyone is too weak to sustain themselves (let alone harm each other), yet magically they live forever. They are looking for a world without work. Your practical world has no value in their eyes.
These people have never bothered to consider that even a single poor person may have willingly chosen poverty. It is simply some social and/or natural blight cast upon them unwillingly. They seem to admire death, only that such would prevent them from observing plight.
According to Hoppe, the two go hand in hand. When the legal system is rigged against people with low time preference, you should expect time preferences to rise, in all areas of life. He mentions the criminals whose time preference is so high that working legitimately would take weeks to produce a reward compared to the instant gratification of theft.
While I agree with the rest of your statement, this is just a stupid thing to say.
I think one could effectivly argue that the two are effectivly linked in several ways.
Most basic truths can be realized simply by examining the world around you.
Ask them if they’ve ever known anyone who was willing to work 8 hours a day/6 days a week and was still unable to adequately provide for himself. I know I’ve never met a single person of this variety.
Poor people in even a slightly free market are poor because they choose to be. It’s not politically correct to say this of course, but even a cursory examination of your life and those around you will lead you to this conclusion.
I’ll grant that but only to an extent, because most people seem to earn a living just fine.
I totally agree with this. When I tell people that poor people tend to be poor for a reason, they get angry. But it’s obvious.
I think this statement has to be qualified a bit. Poor due to environment, or personal traits?