4 ms·

If the poorest in society can no longer buy food or medicine, the problem becomes very medical very quickly.

• Someone1234 6y ago
  Which is where social safety nets, socialized medicine, and a stronger minimum wage come into play, but this same economic think tank as argued against all of them. They've been on record, numerous times, arguing against benefits to the poor/poorest, and now suddenly we've meant to believe that they're looking out for the poor when it also benefits the wealthiest for the poor to sacrifice themselves? Seems more than a little disingenuous if you look at whom we're discussing here.
  • newcomputer 6y ago
    Stealing from people to help the poor is very different from helping the poor by granting wider freedoms to the entire population. It's not hypocritical to support the latter but not the former. Your argument basically boils down to: "Rich people refuse to slit their throats to give blood to the poor, therefore rich people aren't allowed to complain that lockdowns hurt the poor." It's intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant.
  • kevin_b_er 6y ago
    But the concept is run by Libertarians. The philosophy is rooted in the belief that avarice is greatest good. They don't actually care about the poor.