- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,141
- Reaction score
- 58,881
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
One thing I have noticed, but does not compute for me is that Libertarians don't seem to care much about dangerous situations (the statement sounds absurd, but that is the impression I get). The reason I say that is because whenever the problematic side effects of capitalism are listed, the usual response is that "well I will be free", which, for me at least, completely misses the point.
For me, I can't see how this sort of freedom is much use if circumstances force me to starve, not have adequate medical care, or shelter. How can someone enjoy or take advantage of their freedom if their circumstances are ****? This is where the danger part comes in. I agree that freedom is a good thing, but I would like for everyone to have a reasonable chance to exercise it and not only those who are fortunate.
I guess this question is for anyone who doesn't like social spending, not just libertarians.
As a libertarian, I don't support no help to those in need, but the help should be minimal, degrading, and hard, tied to community service, etc. When I see folks who are on public assistance with big screen tv's and iphones, It gets a little irksome that the government is in debt, looking to spend more.
As a libertarian, I accept this is a hard tough world to live in, and the last thing I would want to do, it make it tougher for someone else because I am not pulling my own weight for me and mine.
Do you have the same position for people who are truly incapable of making it on thier own (the infirm, the handicapped, the elderly etc) or is the hard and degrading form of help only for able-bodied sorts?
I aks becuase making someone do something hard and degrading when they truly have no choice in their impairments just seems wrong to me. These people weren't explicitly included or excluded in your post, but they are currently recipients of public "help".
Of course not. I fully support first a private community donation system first, and government assistance to fill the void for the truly needy. I spend a good amount of money and more importantly time doing what I can to help those truly in need. I think as a libertarian, we should be the society we want, even if it's not the society we have.
The choices we make certainly have an affect on our lives, but in the end we must make choices within the constraints we find our lives in. This is what I consider fortune or misfortune.
As a libertarian, I don't support no help to those in need, but the help should be minimal, degrading, and hard, tied to community service, etc. When I see folks who are on public assistance with big screen tv's and iphones, It gets a little irksome that the government is in debt, looking to spend more.
As a libertarian, I accept this is a hard tough world to live in, and the last thing I would want to do, it make it tougher for someone else because I am not pulling my own weight for me and mine.
Wow, American welfare recipients make a hell of a lot more than Canadian ones! I have know quite a few, and have never witness any that had an array of electronics in their homes. I had a tenant on welfare who had $25 left over for the month after paying the rent. The welfare guy across the street from me bought a old 27 big-assed TV from me for $10 a few years back, and last I checked, he still uses it. What I do see is perhaps an overuse of vices, such as smoking and drinking. What I don't see--at least here in Canada--is welfare recipients stocking up at Best Buy because simply, in most cases, their cheques barely cover their basic necessities.
I do inner city work for several charities, it is commonplace here in the US. Sadly.
Well it could be that they had those things before they got into their situation, and didn't buy them with the welfare money.
i grew up in Newark, NJ, and the lower east side of Manhattan long before it was trendy. I've seen exactly what it was I state.
I do inner city work for several charities, it is commonplace here in the US. Sadly.
So what do welfare recipients in NJ get monthly?
TANF? about $500 a month.
That does not include food stamps.
Sorry, Rev, not sure what you mean by TANF.
It's one of our monthly welfare stipends offered.
Ah, okay. So does that include rent and utilities?
I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying both situations can happen. I know when we went on food stamps I had alot of stuff you think someone on food stamps shouldn't have. Luckily we are off those now.
I'm just saying that, to me, using fortunate implies that someone did not earn their situation in life, that luck had a larger hand to play.
While I do agree that chance favors some people, it doesn't mean that they will automatically makes the right choices in the direction of success.
We can see this with broke lottery winners, sure chance favored them, but they made all the wrong choices.
It didn't matter how fortunate they were.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?