Top 10 Jobs in Libertarian Paradise
Posted 25 December 2010 - 09:10 AM
Fund raiser to collect funds for the needy.
Posted 25 December 2010 - 12:52 PM
I mean, if you believe that it's not the responsibility of a 1st world country to eliminate as much poverty as possible, that's your problem. The goal isn't to push everyone to the middle, so let's not act like it is. Putting money in the hands of those who need it to survive, at the expense of a millionaire who has, in all likelihood, never had to face such circumstances, isn't such a bad thing. Of course the rich resist this; they think they got to where they are on their own. lol. Why do you think billionaires are funding Libertarian movements? They think they're smarter, harder working, and deserve to take advantage of everyone beneath them because they did it all by themselves. They're wrong but, hey, it's not like America will ever shift to Libertarianism anyway so it's not something to get worked up about.
You're obsessed with what people deserve, and injecting a moral gauge into politics to justify that you're dislocating someone's wealth. Your logic is that a person is immediately entitled to the opposite of what they are born into; those born poor should be richer, and those born rich should be poorer. An admirable but flawed outlook on humanity. It's impossible to gauge what a person deserves monetarily by arbitrary moral implications, and it's reprehensible to think we should use these implications to legally reallocate wealth.
Equality isn't freedom? I mean, yeah, I guess it's not, if you seek to have the freedom to discriminate, or to take advantage of the disadvantaged. Also, it's disingenuous to imply that "conservative and liberal sycophants" do not value freedom over equality, considering how far we are from equality in America today.
Social equality isn't freedom. Economic equality isn't freedom. It's impossible in any society/market not run by a central authority for equality to exist. You will have the rich, the poor, and the middle class. To even approach equality, you must begin revoking negative liberties, and harshly. The idea of individualism gets thrown out the window.
Positive liberties, which are clearly your choice liberties, aren't really affected, since these only say what the government has a right to do for you, and have nothing to do with protecting individuals from tyranny. But I'm sure you know all this.
So maybe conservatives and liberals value that: positive liberty. This isn't something to boast about, though.
If you are advantaged and lack the desire to help the disadvantaged, you probably are pretty selfish. You know, "fug you, got mine." Rich people are generally rich because they were either born into the wealth or born with the advantages necessary to accumulate wealth. We don't live in a meritocracy. The lower-class and under-class aren't there because they didn't want to succeed. To use them to further your wealth, while resisting the idea that they need "involuntary welfare" to survive, is pretty "evil, selfish, and dangerous".
Of course you're selfish, and there's nothing wrong with that. Selfishness is what keeps us alive, strong, and ultimately happy. When you deny the self, you deny yourself any joy in life. Anyone who gives to charity voluntarily does so for selfish reasons; they gain satisfaction from helping the needy. This is no more or less moral than doing something else that brings you satisfaction, but Platonic views I've outlined above (and that religious and community leaders cling to) state that man is a filthy animal undeserving of wealth or pride. This is also the underlying reason you hate undeserved wealth. You view man as evil until proven good, so anyone that is born into a fortunate circumstance has immediately been granted favor despite what is in your eyes inherent depravity.
And now, the million dollar question.
Why are they entitled to more, simply because they won the genetic lottery?
Oh, because "freedom", right?
Nothing is entitled to anyone. We all live by trading value for value, working to gain happiness by trading lesser values for greater ones. Rich parents that are satisfied with their children return that satisfaction with money. Poor parents tend to do the same, only obviously with less of a return.
You want a meritocracy, but you fail to acknowledge what establishes merit. Merit is not decided arbitrarily by a central government, and it's not a question of what someone deserves based on your altruistic moral compass. It's a question of what a person can legally and fairly acquire by trading their skills or abilities. If Paris Hilton can get lots of money by satisfying her parents (God knows how) and signing on to poo television shows, then she receives the return her traders can and are willing to provide. Whether you or I like Paris Hilton should have no bearing on what she can do for money (assuming it's legal).
You're utopian, and a lot of what you promote is indicative of a truly idealistic person with the good of mankind at heart. But you want to award people based on their needs and their abilities no matter what kind of degenerate human filth (in your eyes) you have to steamroll over in the process. You despise the self and characteristics like selfishness or greed, because you see these things as necessarily leeching off the poor, needy, and overworked masses. You assume a moral high ground because you've accepted that man is inherently immoral and that you're smart enough to realize your own worthlessness.
But I'm not going to get into another political discussion on this board. If you think that what you're promoting is right, keep promoting it. Everyone has to reach conclusions about the world and their philosophy through independent thought, and diversity is what keeps us strong and competitive.
Posted 25 December 2010 - 02:01 PM
I don't think people are inherently evil; rather, I think they're inherently selfish. That being said, I'm totally fine with the idea of there being an upper, middle, and lower class. I'm not anti-capitalism. Every significant argument I've had on here can be summed up by this statement: Upward mobility is severely limited in America. I don't like that, if you're born into poverty, you're fuged for life. However, I don't advocate "robbing from the rich" and forcefully bringing the under and lower class up to what is now the middle; I instead propose that we make it possible for the under and lower class to pick itself up. Call it Utopian if you want, but it is difficult to believe that it is impossible to provide the same advantages that I, and many others here, have enjoyed, to those who comprise the lower- and under-class. I mean, yeah, in America's current state, it sounds Utopian; we're spending trillions on war while the right calls for an end to entitlement programs. I'm talking long-term. But I assure you, if the government doesn't work to slow the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, or the government were to be limited to the point of libertarian ideal, the problem will fix itself, and it won't be pretty for those at the top.
Posted 28 December 2010 - 09:54 PM
Yes, I'm making jokes about my own dead child. I've gotten over it.