3 ms·

Everything needed for you to post that comment had to be heavily subsidized by your local government, almost every single piece of infrastructure involved, even

Everything needed for you to post that comment had to be heavily subsidized by your local government, almost every single piece of infrastructure involved, even the protocol itself was subsidized by the US government. It reminds me of that great quote: "Libertarians are like house cats, they naively believe in their fierceness and independence while being fully dependant in a system they don't understand or appreciate".

lumb63 4y ago
Can you really blame libertarians for wanting a smaller government? Sure, the government subsidizes some useful activities, but more than half of US government tax dollars go to income redistribution or welfare programs.
- creata 4y ago
  Sorry, I don't know anything about the US, but according to this one 2020 pie chart [1], 15% of the federal budget was spent on pensions/social security, and 12% was spent on welfare (the "Other" is "Agriculture, Energy, General Government Services, and International Affairs"). That doesn't add up to "more than half", so can you clarify? Edit: and, I suppose, it's a little weird to insinuate that welfare programs aren't "useful activities". [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Govern...
  - lumb63 4y ago
    My apologies. You’re right, my math was off. I based my data off that exact chart and counted “healthcare”, “social security”, and “welfare” in my statement and just had my math incorrect. The healthcare is Medicare/Medicaid which workers pay into to give themselves health insurance in old age and for the disabled, etc. Social security works similarly. I suppose it is unfair to classify them as not “useful activities”. I just think that they’re by definition negative for society. Individuals can get higher rates of return in private accounts than they can in the governments coffers. They don’t have to pay as high of administrative fees (since they are the administrators). From the perspective of people who are always having wealth redistributed away from them, these programs are unlikely to be perceived as “useful”, is what I meant. I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. EDIT: now that I think about it, there is another dimension to this. It’s not fair to say the above about high income earners without mentioning that a portion of US spending is financed entirely by debt and has been for many years. We are forcing future generations to subsidize our present-day spending. This is some of why there is a common anti-boomer sentiment amongst millennials: they prospered racking up the national debt, ignoring climate change, etc., and millennials are left to foot the bill. I’d imagine this causes a non-negligible anti-government lean to some younger folks.
    - chongli 4y ago
      I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. Don’t libertarians drive on public roads? Don’t they shower and do laundry with water from public utilities? Don’t they shop at Walmart where the employees are subsidized by welfare? I’m sure plenty of libertarians own businesses whose foot traffic is brought to their door on public sidewalks and roads. This is what is meant by the cat quote. All of the infrastructure of society is paid for by public spending. Libertarians ignore all this and complain about misappropriation and government waste. Very few libertarians talk about what it would really be like to live in an “anarcho-capitalist paradise”. The answer is it wouldn’t exist for long. Pay a private corporation for everything the government does and it becomes the new government. Don’t be surprised when it starts pushing you around. I think the reality is that most libertarians don’t want that. They want to benefit from the status quo but find ways to escape paying for it. That’s fine, everyone does that to some extent. It’s just annoying when they get so self-righteous about it.
      - lumb63 4y ago
        I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. For the upper half of taxpayers who pay 97% of the cost of those public goods, they’re losing. Regarding subsidization of low-income earners by welfare, I see it as a moot point. The cost of their labor has been artificially decreased by the presence of the welfare system. Society as a whole still pays the cost of that labor, just Walmart gets to get away with not being the one paying it. I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason.
        chongli 4y ago
        I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. I’m talking about the same thing. If you’re a business owner, you’re getting far more out of infrastructure and stable government than an average person. Without all of that, you have no business at all! I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason. Of course not! Because anarcho-capitalists are principled in their stance. Libertarians just want to get rid of anything they, personally, don’t benefit from directly. In other words, they want to tear up the social contract. It’s not a valid philosophy at all, it’s just naked hypocrisy.
- peterashford 4y ago
  Would you rather that unemployed people just starve?
- mattigames 4y ago
  People who think like that are exactly the kind of people I don't want around, among many reasons is that I'm certain that the cities where they are the majority are not doing well compared to their neighbors.

lumb63 4y ago

Can you really blame libertarians for wanting a smaller government? Sure, the government subsidizes some useful activities, but more than half of US government tax dollars go to income redistribution or welfare programs.

creata 4y ago
Sorry, I don't know anything about the US, but according to this one 2020 pie chart [1], 15% of the federal budget was spent on pensions/social security, and 12% was spent on welfare (the "Other" is "Agriculture, Energy, General Government Services, and International Affairs"). That doesn't add up to "more than half", so can you clarify? Edit: and, I suppose, it's a little weird to insinuate that welfare programs aren't "useful activities". [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Govern...
- lumb63 4y ago
  My apologies. You’re right, my math was off. I based my data off that exact chart and counted “healthcare”, “social security”, and “welfare” in my statement and just had my math incorrect. The healthcare is Medicare/Medicaid which workers pay into to give themselves health insurance in old age and for the disabled, etc. Social security works similarly. I suppose it is unfair to classify them as not “useful activities”. I just think that they’re by definition negative for society. Individuals can get higher rates of return in private accounts than they can in the governments coffers. They don’t have to pay as high of administrative fees (since they are the administrators). From the perspective of people who are always having wealth redistributed away from them, these programs are unlikely to be perceived as “useful”, is what I meant. I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. EDIT: now that I think about it, there is another dimension to this. It’s not fair to say the above about high income earners without mentioning that a portion of US spending is financed entirely by debt and has been for many years. We are forcing future generations to subsidize our present-day spending. This is some of why there is a common anti-boomer sentiment amongst millennials: they prospered racking up the national debt, ignoring climate change, etc., and millennials are left to foot the bill. I’d imagine this causes a non-negligible anti-government lean to some younger folks.
  - chongli 4y ago
    I doubt you’d see a libertarian who is a beneficiary of government programs, is more what I meant to say. Don’t libertarians drive on public roads? Don’t they shower and do laundry with water from public utilities? Don’t they shop at Walmart where the employees are subsidized by welfare? I’m sure plenty of libertarians own businesses whose foot traffic is brought to their door on public sidewalks and roads. This is what is meant by the cat quote. All of the infrastructure of society is paid for by public spending. Libertarians ignore all this and complain about misappropriation and government waste. Very few libertarians talk about what it would really be like to live in an “anarcho-capitalist paradise”. The answer is it wouldn’t exist for long. Pay a private corporation for everything the government does and it becomes the new government. Don’t be surprised when it starts pushing you around. I think the reality is that most libertarians don’t want that. They want to benefit from the status quo but find ways to escape paying for it. That’s fine, everyone does that to some extent. It’s just annoying when they get so self-righteous about it.
    - lumb63 4y ago
      I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. For the upper half of taxpayers who pay 97% of the cost of those public goods, they’re losing. Regarding subsidization of low-income earners by welfare, I see it as a moot point. The cost of their labor has been artificially decreased by the presence of the welfare system. Society as a whole still pays the cost of that labor, just Walmart gets to get away with not being the one paying it. I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason.
      - chongli 4y ago
        I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. I’m talking about the same thing. If you’re a business owner, you’re getting far more out of infrastructure and stable government than an average person. Without all of that, you have no business at all! I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason. Of course not! Because anarcho-capitalists are principled in their stance. Libertarians just want to get rid of anything they, personally, don’t benefit from directly. In other words, they want to tear up the social contract. It’s not a valid philosophy at all, it’s just naked hypocrisy.
peterashford 4y ago
Would you rather that unemployed people just starve?
mattigames 4y ago
People who think like that are exactly the kind of people I don't want around, among many reasons is that I'm certain that the cities where they are the majority are not doing well compared to their neighbors.