4 ms·

> Anyone who lives in a country should feel supported and cared for by their government. That's literally why it exists. This is the opposite of the libertaria

> Anyone who lives in a country should feel supported and cared for by their government. That's literally why it exists. This is the opposite of the libertarian / conservative philosophy, which is that government should have no role in people's lives and people should support themselves -- government's just a referee for disputes.

sbarre 6y ago
And yet those same people still use the infrastructure, and benefit from the stability and security, that their government provides. So one could argue that it's an unrealistic "philosophy" that is just used to provide cover for said people's selfish bullshit.
- sneak 6y ago
  There’s nothing selfish about wishing to be left alone, and not be forced to do things to which one does not consent, and not be forced to buy things which one does not want to buy. Also, when born into a system that forces you, on threat of violence, to participate in it, there is no peaceful alternative that permits an opt out, so saying that those people benefit (in your view) when they have no other option, is extremely disingenuous. Do people also benefit from the war on drugs being waged against them? There are lots of legitimate critiques of libertarianism. Neither the false dichotomy nor the ad hominem you offered are among them. Not everyone agrees that that particular form of stability and security that you seem to think is such a huge benefit is worth the cost: specifically, that every person alive in a certain region must be forced, on threat of violence, to pay and participate in that stability-providing system, even if they vehemently do not consent to such. Perhaps you value stability and security above all else, and think it’s a good deal. Others that do not, and consider the price (morally, in the legitimization of armed robbery, to say nothing of the dollar figure) too high, are not being selfish by having those values. Libertarianism is not the opposite of “socially interdependent”. It’s the opposite of “forced at the point of a gun”.
  - sbarre 6y ago
    The tiniest fiddle in the world is playing for you. It's easy to have these bullshit opinions when you're a white male adult who didn't get eaten by wolves at 5 months old because there was a whole society and social structure that allowed you to safely grow up into the adult you are now. And now that you've benefited from all that society has given to you in order for you to be where you are today, you want to opt out? Pay back every dollar spent on you by everyone else, since you were born, and only then you can go live alone in the mountains..
- devcpp 6y ago
  So as a libertarian I should be expected to pay taxes I don't want to pay AND build my own roads on my own? Should I also produce my own water? This is ridiculous. These things become impossible to do precisely because we're in this situation.
Frondo 6y ago
I'd say we've been trying that in the US, and it hasn't been working. The richest have captured enough systems to further enrich them that there's no undoing that -- and reducing the government to a referee certainly won't do that. It honestly baffles me that libertarians can look at the US as it is now and think, "if the government were smaller, life would be better for everyone." I don't see the connection to the two at all, even if I try to follow the libertarian reasoning.
- kanyethegreat 6y ago
  The issue for me is that the federal government is notoriously inefficient. They have no external pressure to be efficient since they have no skin in the game. Don't misunderstand me; i'm not saying there aren't huge issues we need to solve in this country like the broken health care system or the rising inequality gap, but I've never seen any data that indicates giving the government more control and money would solve these societal problems. The US gov't already spends significantly more on health care per capita than other similarly wealthy nations[1]. [1]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-relative-size-wealth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

sbarre 6y ago

And yet those same people still use the infrastructure, and benefit from the stability and security, that their government provides. So one could argue that it's an unrealistic "philosophy" that is just used to provide cover for said people's selfish bullshit.

sneak 6y ago
There’s nothing selfish about wishing to be left alone, and not be forced to do things to which one does not consent, and not be forced to buy things which one does not want to buy. Also, when born into a system that forces you, on threat of violence, to participate in it, there is no peaceful alternative that permits an opt out, so saying that those people benefit (in your view) when they have no other option, is extremely disingenuous. Do people also benefit from the war on drugs being waged against them? There are lots of legitimate critiques of libertarianism. Neither the false dichotomy nor the ad hominem you offered are among them. Not everyone agrees that that particular form of stability and security that you seem to think is such a huge benefit is worth the cost: specifically, that every person alive in a certain region must be forced, on threat of violence, to pay and participate in that stability-providing system, even if they vehemently do not consent to such. Perhaps you value stability and security above all else, and think it’s a good deal. Others that do not, and consider the price (morally, in the legitimization of armed robbery, to say nothing of the dollar figure) too high, are not being selfish by having those values. Libertarianism is not the opposite of “socially interdependent”. It’s the opposite of “forced at the point of a gun”.
- sbarre 6y ago
  The tiniest fiddle in the world is playing for you. It's easy to have these bullshit opinions when you're a white male adult who didn't get eaten by wolves at 5 months old because there was a whole society and social structure that allowed you to safely grow up into the adult you are now. And now that you've benefited from all that society has given to you in order for you to be where you are today, you want to opt out? Pay back every dollar spent on you by everyone else, since you were born, and only then you can go live alone in the mountains..
devcpp 6y ago
So as a libertarian I should be expected to pay taxes I don't want to pay AND build my own roads on my own? Should I also produce my own water? This is ridiculous. These things become impossible to do precisely because we're in this situation.

Frondo 6y ago

I'd say we've been trying that in the US, and it hasn't been working. The richest have captured enough systems to further enrich them that there's no undoing that -- and reducing the government to a referee certainly won't do that. It honestly baffles me that libertarians can look at the US as it is now and think, "if the government were smaller, life would be better for everyone." I don't see the connection to the two at all, even if I try to follow the libertarian reasoning.

kanyethegreat 6y ago
The issue for me is that the federal government is notoriously inefficient. They have no external pressure to be efficient since they have no skin in the game. Don't misunderstand me; i'm not saying there aren't huge issues we need to solve in this country like the broken health care system or the rising inequality gap, but I've never seen any data that indicates giving the government more control and money would solve these societal problems. The US gov't already spends significantly more on health care per capita than other similarly wealthy nations[1]. [1]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-relative-size-wealth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...