4 ms·

Pure capitalist libertarianism like that works really well if you live in a society willing to stand back and let people die as a result of different decisions

Pure capitalist libertarianism like that works really well if you live in a society willing to stand back and let people die as a result of different decisions or even circumstances outside their control. History has shown that's not really the society that civilized humans want to live in.

eru 17y ago
I would just take the grand-parent post as a satire of the grand-grand-parent post about the need for a farm policy. There are good arguments for having some services provided by the state (though we may argue whether they are good enough arguments). I did not take the grand parent as making the argument that everything the state does is evil.
koanarc 17y ago
It might not be the world we want to live in, but that's life. Natural selection is the name of the game. It baffles me that people think social development can be somehow exempted from evolutionary processes. Call it callous or compassionless, if you want, but there will always be less fit members of a species/society. Humans didn't get to this spot on the food chain by subsidizing failure. If we want to increase prosperity, we should stop encouraging the propagation of actions/ideas/genes that would otherwise be unsustainable without throwing short-sighted policy and/or tax money at it.
- DannoHung 17y ago
  The late 19th century called, they want their rationalized institutional cruelty back.
  - koanarc 17y ago
    Heh, I'm not suggesting institutional anything. Precisely the opposite. I'm saying that in the bigger picture, welfare and subsidies and coercive interference in general hurt more than they help. E.g., aid to North Korea might keep impoverished North Koreans alive longer, but it will do nothing for their long term prosperity. It just gives them a chance to give birth to more impoverished North Koreans. Farm subsidies, etc, are arrogant, over-simplistic meddling with extremely complex natural systems that will have -- as the article in question was pointing out -- any number of unpredictable consequences. I just don't buy the idea that the short-sighted whims of politics can make the world a better place. [edit: adding for clarity: "stop encouraging" DOES NOT translate as "start discouraging"]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
Dove 17y ago
Pure capitalist libertarianism is a society where government is willing to stand back and let people die. Not society. There's a difference. In time of trouble, you can turn for help to family, friends, neighbors, private charity, or government. In roughly descending order of efficiency and humanity. Including government at the end of that chain is a noble attempt to make sure no one falls through the cracks--like the federal reserve as a "lender of last resort". The problem is that, like the federal reserve, the guarantee at the end of the chain changes the dynamics at the front. We respond to a government guarantee to care for the old and infirm by not doing it ourselves. Why plan to care for your mother when the government will do it? Why support private orphanages when you pay taxes to support institutionalizing them? The result is emaciated expectations of family, friends and neighbors, and sickly private charity. Government may be inefficient and inhumane, but it's cheap--spending someone else's money--and it's guaranteed. So it dominates the space. And when the other options die away through disuse, it looks like there are no other options. And all that's left is dependence on the state. The idea that it's government care or no care is an illusion created by a couple generations of government dependence. I am convinced that our way -- institutions, beaurocrats -- is really the inhumane way to care for the poor. I want to get rid of it, not because I don't care, but because I do.
- rue 17y ago
  Or it might be possible to somehow have a government of the people. Not a separate bolt-on installation consisting of some type of aliens not in any way related to people with whom it constantly wars.
  - koanarc 17y ago
    It's a neat idea in theory, but a lot of smart, well-meaning people have tried it, and that's rarely what you get.
- MartinCron 17y ago
  I like this concept, I really do, but I'm wondering if it's a sort of idealized utopia. Are there any societies that take care of their most desperate members without that being a government function? Almost all of the industrialized nation have some sort of safety net and/or universal health care. On the other side of the spectrum you get countries like Somalia, where they, you know, do let people die.

eru 17y ago

I would just take the grand-parent post as a satire of the grand-grand-parent post about the need for a farm policy. There are good arguments for having some services provided by the state (though we may argue whether they are good enough arguments). I did not take the grand parent as making the argument that everything the state does is evil.

koanarc 17y ago

It might not be the world we want to live in, but that's life. Natural selection is the name of the game. It baffles me that people think social development can be somehow exempted from evolutionary processes. Call it callous or compassionless, if you want, but there will always be less fit members of a species/society. Humans didn't get to this spot on the food chain by subsidizing failure. If we want to increase prosperity, we should stop encouraging the propagation of actions/ideas/genes that would otherwise be unsustainable without throwing short-sighted policy and/or tax money at it.

DannoHung 17y ago
The late 19th century called, they want their rationalized institutional cruelty back.
- koanarc 17y ago
  Heh, I'm not suggesting institutional anything. Precisely the opposite. I'm saying that in the bigger picture, welfare and subsidies and coercive interference in general hurt more than they help. E.g., aid to North Korea might keep impoverished North Koreans alive longer, but it will do nothing for their long term prosperity. It just gives them a chance to give birth to more impoverished North Koreans. Farm subsidies, etc, are arrogant, over-simplistic meddling with extremely complex natural systems that will have -- as the article in question was pointing out -- any number of unpredictable consequences. I just don't buy the idea that the short-sighted whims of politics can make the world a better place. [edit: adding for clarity: "stop encouraging" DOES NOT translate as "start discouraging"]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

Dove 17y ago

Pure capitalist libertarianism is a society where government is willing to stand back and let people die. Not society. There's a difference. In time of trouble, you can turn for help to family, friends, neighbors, private charity, or government. In roughly descending order of efficiency and humanity. Including government at the end of that chain is a noble attempt to make sure no one falls through the cracks--like the federal reserve as a "lender of last resort". The problem is that, like the federal reserve, the guarantee at the end of the chain changes the dynamics at the front. We respond to a government guarantee to care for the old and infirm by not doing it ourselves. Why plan to care for your mother when the government will do it? Why support private orphanages when you pay taxes to support institutionalizing them? The result is emaciated expectations of family, friends and neighbors, and sickly private charity. Government may be inefficient and inhumane, but it's cheap--spending someone else's money--and it's guaranteed. So it dominates the space. And when the other options die away through disuse, it looks like there are no other options. And all that's left is dependence on the state. The idea that it's government care or no care is an illusion created by a couple generations of government dependence. I am convinced that our way -- institutions, beaurocrats -- is really the inhumane way to care for the poor. I want to get rid of it, not because I don't care, but because I do.

rue 17y ago
Or it might be possible to somehow have a government of the people. Not a separate bolt-on installation consisting of some type of aliens not in any way related to people with whom it constantly wars.
- koanarc 17y ago
  It's a neat idea in theory, but a lot of smart, well-meaning people have tried it, and that's rarely what you get.
MartinCron 17y ago
I like this concept, I really do, but I'm wondering if it's a sort of idealized utopia. Are there any societies that take care of their most desperate members without that being a government function? Almost all of the industrialized nation have some sort of safety net and/or universal health care. On the other side of the spectrum you get countries like Somalia, where they, you know, do let people die.