4 ms·

I've heard it said that "only the middle-class can afford to be communists". The implication being that "to each according to his needs, from each according to

I've heard it said that "only the middle-class can afford to be communists". The implication being that "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" only seems attractive when you equate "needs" with "middle-class standard of living". If you worked out what the actual standard of living would be if everyone's "means" were evenly distributed, communism suddenly becomes a lot less attractive. Similarly, I think only the middle-class or wealthy can afford to be libertarians. Take, for example, the case of firefighters letting a house burn over an unpaid fee: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefight... . This is the world libertarians envision, and I'd wager most of them respond to news like this with "It's only $75 per year! That's not much at all..." But what if it is?

XorNot 13y ago
They also tend to talk like people who've never had a payment get mislabeled or misfiled by either a company or the government. Harmless when you're ordering a computer and get delayed a week. Devastating when your house is on fire.
mseebach 13y ago
> This is the world libertarians envision I almost can't hear you over the strawman klaxon. EDITED to add (@1h): Sorry, I hate these one liners, I should elaborate. First, there is the grinding irony of highlighting the doings of a government body as a libertarian vision. I'm not sure exactly what a libertarian fire brigade would look like, but it must likely wouldn't have a monopoly over the high-density, thus profitable, city and indemnity to screw over the less profitable rural areas. Second, you speculate on the victim's hypothetical poorness. However, in the article it's stated unambiguously that they had made a conscious decision to forego the fire brigade subscription. I see the practicality, but I struggle with the ethics of forcing them to pay for a service they've made a conscious decision they don't want. Finally, and a little off-topic, there's a the question of contents insurance. If you've decided that the fire brigade isn't for you, you most likely did not take out insurance for the contents of what looks like a mobile home. A fire in a mobile home, even when doused with water, is unlikely to leave you very many useful possessions. Never mind the structure itself, which is likely to be a write-off, even if only half burned down. Given this, I assume you are as vigorous in campaigning for universal contents insurance as you are in blaming this family's fate on libertarians? Or are you happy with people loosing all their things, as along as the government makes sure to pour water on them (for free) first?
_glass 13y ago
Well the average income would be ~43000USD (bls.gov), which is not that bad. Also you should consider that communism would turn the world upside down, to stand on it's feet. Meaning a lot of professions would simply fade away, mainly the ones created solely because of the fetish of "making money." And the true product would arise. Science and technology could flourish as government grants, and so on would be of no use. Everybody could study without thinking about the useless dept. Financial bubbles that cost so much would simply be eradicated. But then again, it is the simple thing, that is hard to realize.

XorNot 13y ago

They also tend to talk like people who've never had a payment get mislabeled or misfiled by either a company or the government. Harmless when you're ordering a computer and get delayed a week. Devastating when your house is on fire.

mseebach 13y ago

> This is the world libertarians envision I almost can't hear you over the strawman klaxon. EDITED to add (@1h): Sorry, I hate these one liners, I should elaborate. First, there is the grinding irony of highlighting the doings of a government body as a libertarian vision. I'm not sure exactly what a libertarian fire brigade would look like, but it must likely wouldn't have a monopoly over the high-density, thus profitable, city and indemnity to screw over the less profitable rural areas. Second, you speculate on the victim's hypothetical poorness. However, in the article it's stated unambiguously that they had made a conscious decision to forego the fire brigade subscription. I see the practicality, but I struggle with the ethics of forcing them to pay for a service they've made a conscious decision they don't want. Finally, and a little off-topic, there's a the question of contents insurance. If you've decided that the fire brigade isn't for you, you most likely did not take out insurance for the contents of what looks like a mobile home. A fire in a mobile home, even when doused with water, is unlikely to leave you very many useful possessions. Never mind the structure itself, which is likely to be a write-off, even if only half burned down. Given this, I assume you are as vigorous in campaigning for universal contents insurance as you are in blaming this family's fate on libertarians? Or are you happy with people loosing all their things, as along as the government makes sure to pour water on them (for free) first?

_glass 13y ago

Well the average income would be ~43000USD (bls.gov), which is not that bad. Also you should consider that communism would turn the world upside down, to stand on it's feet. Meaning a lot of professions would simply fade away, mainly the ones created solely because of the fetish of "making money." And the true product would arise. Science and technology could flourish as government grants, and so on would be of no use. Everybody could study without thinking about the useless dept. Financial bubbles that cost so much would simply be eradicated. But then again, it is the simple thing, that is hard to realize.