11 ms·

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 troub

by 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.
- Dove 17y ago
  I don't honestly know the proper role for government in charity. I reject it rhetorically to illustrate that rejection of government charity is not rejection of charity overall, but I do not know if the extreme case is practical. You do seem to be right that it is not practiced. I had thought I would find counterexamples in places like the Antebellum south, or ancient Rome, and while I found a reduced emphasis on the state, I did not find it completely gone. And while my off the cuff memory is that there are places in the world, even today, where the obligation for children to care for their parents in old age is so complete that people have children for that very purpose, I don't have a citation for it. And I really don't have the experience to know whether it's preferable. On a personal level, I see very vividly the evils of institution and bureaucracy: the people it misses, the way it mistreats even the people it helps. I have helped homeless friends with transitions from shelter to shelter, even opened my home to them when it was appropriate; I don't think highly of the treatment they get, well out of the public eye. And I'm pretty sure if the city hadn't been there as an option, I'd have done more, and they'd have been better off. Is it good the city was there? I guess. But I hate the false dilemma that says it is the only way, and my instinct is that family, friends, and community are far better. I do not know what the correct role is for the state, but I cannot but hate anything that weakens the responsibility of a man to care for himself, or that seeks to replace the hospitality that family, friends and neighbors owe to each other.
  - MartinCron 17y ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful response. A lot of people don't seem to like to look to other countries as examples of how individuals, societies, and governments can interact. Either as examples or as counter-examples. NPR's excellent Planet Money podcast did a few shows on Denmark, which is like an economic bizarro-world. Employment law is such that it's really easy to fire people, but they have a very strong social safety net (2 years unemployment, or something like that) so the workforce is very fluid. Employers aren't as afraid to hire people (as they are in countries with strong labor laws like France) because they don't have the same fear of legal or interpersonal repercussions. Firing in Denmark is no big deal. Taxes are progressive, crazy high, support fully subsidized health care, and the people there are the happiest in the world. Note: I'm not trying to say every country should be just like Denmark, but just that the way we've always done things isn't the only way that can work. On the other hand, you see people who complain about how "government can't do anything right" and "all regulation is bad" yet they don't realize the only reason that their houses survive earthquakes without killing them is that their houses comply with government designed and enforced building codes. There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades. It's easy to paint limited government as a moral ideal, and it's easy to find prominent examples of government failures. I personally hate bureaucracy as much as anyone else. The fact remains that a lot of people (often quietly) get meaningful help from our overall society via democratically elected governments.

by Dove 17y ago

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.

Dove 17y ago
I don't honestly know the proper role for government in charity. I reject it rhetorically to illustrate that rejection of government charity is not rejection of charity overall, but I do not know if the extreme case is practical. You do seem to be right that it is not practiced. I had thought I would find counterexamples in places like the Antebellum south, or ancient Rome, and while I found a reduced emphasis on the state, I did not find it completely gone. And while my off the cuff memory is that there are places in the world, even today, where the obligation for children to care for their parents in old age is so complete that people have children for that very purpose, I don't have a citation for it. And I really don't have the experience to know whether it's preferable. On a personal level, I see very vividly the evils of institution and bureaucracy: the people it misses, the way it mistreats even the people it helps. I have helped homeless friends with transitions from shelter to shelter, even opened my home to them when it was appropriate; I don't think highly of the treatment they get, well out of the public eye. And I'm pretty sure if the city hadn't been there as an option, I'd have done more, and they'd have been better off. Is it good the city was there? I guess. But I hate the false dilemma that says it is the only way, and my instinct is that family, friends, and community are far better. I do not know what the correct role is for the state, but I cannot but hate anything that weakens the responsibility of a man to care for himself, or that seeks to replace the hospitality that family, friends and neighbors owe to each other.
- MartinCron 17y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. A lot of people don't seem to like to look to other countries as examples of how individuals, societies, and governments can interact. Either as examples or as counter-examples. NPR's excellent Planet Money podcast did a few shows on Denmark, which is like an economic bizarro-world. Employment law is such that it's really easy to fire people, but they have a very strong social safety net (2 years unemployment, or something like that) so the workforce is very fluid. Employers aren't as afraid to hire people (as they are in countries with strong labor laws like France) because they don't have the same fear of legal or interpersonal repercussions. Firing in Denmark is no big deal. Taxes are progressive, crazy high, support fully subsidized health care, and the people there are the happiest in the world. Note: I'm not trying to say every country should be just like Denmark, but just that the way we've always done things isn't the only way that can work. On the other hand, you see people who complain about how "government can't do anything right" and "all regulation is bad" yet they don't realize the only reason that their houses survive earthquakes without killing them is that their houses comply with government designed and enforced building codes. There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades. It's easy to paint limited government as a moral ideal, and it's easy to find prominent examples of government failures. I personally hate bureaucracy as much as anyone else. The fact remains that a lot of people (often quietly) get meaningful help from our overall society via democratically elected governments.