Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Telconi]

When I was much younger, some libertarians would defend voluntary segregation, as in the right to deny people of a certain service in a restaurant for example. Is that still part of the libertarian movement?

Freedom of association purists would suggest that you do not have to do business with anyone you don't want to, but the slavers won the civil war.

I support freedom of association, and believe that a business should have the ability to serve, or not serve, whoever the owner wishes. But representing the Union victory in the civil war as a victory FOR slavery? That's a bit of a stretch don'tcha think?

[Nulla Bellum]

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it. Starvation happens to people too picky to eat bugs and road kill.

And that's an entirely unreasonable cost-benefit analysis to most. While I may dislike the 'welfare leech' the simple fact is a small tac and a bit of waste is a small price to pay to make sure people aren't forced to eat "bugs and roadkill".

I'm not so sure it's a "small price to pay." Toss in the costs of every other form of taxpayer funded welfare subsidies and we're well past 60% of combined US federal and state government spending.

[Nulla Bellum]

Freedom of association purists would suggest that you do not have to do business with anyone you don't want to, but the slavers won the civil war.

I support freedom of association, and believe that a business should have the ability to serve, or not serve, whoever the owner wishes. But representing the Union victory in the civil war as a victory FOR slavery? That's a bit of a stretch don'tcha think?

It's against the law to skip school.

[Nulla Bellum]

It might make sense in a world where children don't exist, nor the disabled, nor the mentally handicapped, nor the incapacitated, or people who just have really shit luck.

We don't live in a world like that though.

We do however live in a world where people who can work don't, even if it's work to collect bugs to eat.

[Albrenia]

It might make sense in a world where children don't exist, nor the disabled, nor the mentally handicapped, nor the incapacitated, or people who just have really shit luck.

We don't live in a world like that though.

We do however live in a world where people who can work don't, even if it's work to collect bugs to eat.

I agree on that.

I'm under no delusion that my argument isn't based on emotion (in this case, compassion), but I'm not willing to let the honestly in need die just to spite the slackers by forcing them to find another way to mooch off the world.

[Nulla Bellum]

We do however live in a world where people who can work don't, even if it's work to collect bugs to eat.

I agree on that.

I'm under no delusion that my argument isn't based on emotion (in this case, compassion), but I'm not willing to let the honestly in need die just to spite the slackers by forcing them to find another way to mooch off the world.

I don't see it as compassion to treat the truly in need and the moochers equally, and then rationing the limited resources accordingly.

[36 Camera Perspective]

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Taxation is one of the determinants that raises prices. Welfare is funded by taxation. If there is no welfare, taxes and thus prices can be cut.

You introduced the word "free", not me. In any case, the SNAP program has a minuscule influence on rising food prices. Food prices are mostly related to the cost of energy, which impacts the cost of manufacturing and transporting food. The tax you pay for SNAP is not very significant in determining price, because the tax is not very large.

[36 Camera Perspective]

I agree on that.

I'm under no delusion that my argument isn't based on emotion (in this case, compassion), but I'm not willing to let the honestly in need die just to spite the slackers by forcing them to find another way to mooch off the world.

I don't see it as compassion to treat the truly in need and the moochers equally, and then rationing the limited resources accordingly.

Who's doing that?

[Albrenia]

I agree on that.

I'm under no delusion that my argument isn't based on emotion (in this case, compassion), but I'm not willing to let the honestly in need die just to spite the slackers by forcing them to find another way to mooch off the world.

I don't see it as compassion to treat the truly in need and the moochers equally, and then rationing the limited resources accordingly.

I'm not against measures to kick moochers off welfare, as long as said measures don't make the truly in need spend all their time jumping through hoops instead of giving them the chance to get back on their feet (if possible).

[Elwher]

When I was much younger, some libertarians would defend voluntary segregation, as in the right to deny people of a certain service in a restaurant for example. Is that still part of the libertarian movement?

The purists do, those who are looking at the possibility of actually getting elected keep quiet about such things.

[Telconi]

When I was much younger, some libertarians would defend voluntary segregation, as in the right to deny people of a certain service in a restaurant for example. Is that still part of the libertarian movement?

The purists do, those who are looking at the possibility of actually getting elected keep quiet about such things.

Yeah, my issues with the concept center more around it's potential for abuse.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Taxation is one of the determinants that raises prices. Welfare is funded by taxation. If there is no welfare, taxes and thus prices can be cut.

You introduced the word "free", not me. In any case, the SNAP program has a minuscule influence on rising food prices. Food prices are mostly related to the cost of energy, which impacts the cost of manufacturing and transporting food. The tax you pay for SNAP is not very significant in determining price, because the tax is not very large.

Does SNAP get funded through food taxes pre-outlet? Because (at least here) we don't pay any sales tax on grocery items.

[Tekeristan]

It's fine and all that, but the real poor and the real rich don't pay the same in taxes. A dollar is a lot more useful to the former than the latter. The former benefits a lot more because they get more out of SNAP- since it's the whole purpose to begin with. In exchange, the poor don't overthrow and eat the rich.

I'd love the program to be re-worked myself. A decent chunk of it is just subsidy to large food corps, such as soda.

[The Parkus Empire]

It is better to err on the side of the moochers getting, than on the side of the needy being deprivrd.

[Tekeristan]

It is better to err on the side of the moochers getting, than on the side of the needy being deprivrd.

Welfare-Watch programs usually end up costing more than they save anyway. So I hardly see the point in the 'money saving' ideals usually pushed for it.

It's either this or bread riots, really, and it's only going to get worse.

[The Parkus Empire]

It is better to err on the side of the moochers getting, than on the side of the needy being deprivrd.

Welfare-Watch programs usually end up costing more than they save anyway. So I hardly see the point in the 'money saving' ideals usually pushed for it.

It's either this or bread riots, really, and it's only going to get worse.

It is because people cannot stop their consumption. Super high levels of consumption means everything has to be as cheap and mass produced as possible (leading to a decline in quality for the sake of quanity). So things like shoes have to be made overseas, and instead of repairing them locally they are just tossed.

[Tekeristan]

Welfare-Watch programs usually end up costing more than they save anyway. So I hardly see the point in the 'money saving' ideals usually pushed for it.

It's either this or bread riots, really, and it's only going to get worse.

It is because people cannot stop their consumption. Super high levels of consumption means everything has to be as cheap and mass produced as possible (leading to a decline in quality for the sake of quanity). So things like shoes have to be made overseas, and instead of repairing them locally they are just tossed.

Well, there's a difference in consumption regarding food than shoes fundamentally, I feel. Just a gut feeling.

[The Parkus Empire]

It is because people cannot stop their consumption. Super high levels of consumption means everything has to be as cheap and mass produced as possible (leading to a decline in quality for the sake of quanity). So things like shoes have to be made overseas, and instead of repairing them locally they are just tossed.

Well, there's a difference in consumption regarding food than shoes fundamentally, I feel. Just a gut feeling.

I am talking about unemployment from outsourcing, which causes poverty.

[Tekeristan]

Well, there's a difference in consumption regarding food than shoes fundamentally, I feel. Just a gut feeling.

I am talking about unemployment from outsourcing, which causes poverty.

I know: farm incomes are down 50% since 2013, and I live in a rural community. We all feel it.

[The Parkus Empire]

I am talking about unemployment from outsourcing, which causes poverty.

I know: farm incomes are down 50% since 2013, and I live in a rural community. We all feel it.

So the issue is getting consumers to pay more and live with less. Unfortunately we have an entire industry working relentlessly to get them to want more new things.

[Tekeristan]

I know: farm incomes are down 50% since 2013, and I live in a rural community. We all feel it.

So the issue is getting consumers to pay more and live with less. Unfortunately we have an entire industry working relentlessly to get them want more new things.

It'll straighten out with the next deflationary spiral some, whenever it finally occurs.

[The Parkus Empire]

So the issue is getting consumers to pay more and live with less. Unfortunately we have an entire industry working relentlessly to get them want more new things.

It'll straighten out with the next deflationary spiral some, whenever it finally occurs.

No, that will just lead to increased pressure for cheapness. The problem we have is trying to couple minimal to no tariffs (once the main source of state revenue) with supply-side economics. This is suicidal.

[Nulla Bellum]

I don't see it as compassion to treat the truly in need and the moochers equally, and then rationing the limited resources accordingly.

I'm not against measures to kick moochers off welfare, as long as said measures don't make the truly in need spend all their time jumping through hoops instead of giving them the chance to get back on their feet (if possible).

This is where we differ. I define the truly in need as those who can't support themselves, such as young children or the disabled. As for the rest, why shouldn't they spend time "jumping through hoops," say 40 hours a week completing paperwork declaring that they are insolvent, financially irresponsible, have kids they can't feed that they want to give up for adoption, etc.?

[Tekeristan]

I'm not against measures to kick moochers off welfare, as long as said measures don't make the truly in need spend all their time jumping through hoops instead of giving them the chance to get back on their feet (if possible).

This is where we differ. I define the truly in need as those who can't support themselves, such as young children or the disabled. As for the rest, why shouldn't they spend time "jumping through hoops," say 40 hours a week completing paperwork declaring that they are insolvent, financially irresponsible, have kids they can't feed that they want to give up for adoption, etc.?

Because that is utterly ridiculous!
That is time they can spend looking for a job, or attend services to prepare them for one, and that is just a tremendous waste of time, resources, and causing stress that taxes us all. I wonder who has to review all that paper work.

-cut- (What is sop worth anyway?)

The majority of welfare goes where it needs to. Unemployment welfare is a necessity for the capitalist system, especially in its modern state and more so as time goes on.

I understand 'compassion' is not high up on the list for profitability, but that had me literally turn my head away in disgust. Sure, let's mentally and emotionally abuse the impoverished, because they're poor and 'lazy'. I'm sure that helps them. What is the ideal here?

[Nulla Bellum]

This is where we differ. I define the truly in need as those who can't support themselves, such as young children or the disabled. As for the rest, why shouldn't they spend time "jumping through hoops," say 40 hours a week completing paperwork declaring that they are insolvent, financially irresponsible, have kids they can't feed that they want to give up for adoption, etc.?

Because that is utterly ridiculous!
That is time they can spend looking for a job, or attend services to prepare them for one, and that is just a tremendous waste of time, resources, and causing stress that taxes us all. I wonder who has to review all that paper work.

-cut- (What is sop worth anyway?)

The majority of welfare goes where it needs to. Unemployment welfare is a necessity for the capitalist system, especially in its modern state and more so as time goes on.

I understand 'compassion' is not high up on the list for profitability, but that had me literally turn my head away in disgust. Sure, let's mentally and emotionally abuse the impoverished, because they're poor and 'lazy'. I'm sure that helps them. What is the ideal here?

They can't get jobs reviewing welfare applications for fraud, waste, and abuse?

[Tekeristan]

Because that is utterly ridiculous!
That is time they can spend looking for a job, or attend services to prepare them for one, and that is just a tremendous waste of time, resources, and causing stress that taxes us all. I wonder who has to review all that paper work.

-cut- (What is sop worth anyway?)

The majority of welfare goes where it needs to. Unemployment welfare is a necessity for the capitalist system, especially in its modern state and more so as time goes on.

I understand 'compassion' is not high up on the list for profitability, but that had me literally turn my head away in disgust. Sure, let's mentally and emotionally abuse the impoverished, because they're poor and 'lazy'. I'm sure that helps them. What is the ideal here?

They can't get jobs reviewing welfare applications for fraud, waste, and abuse?

Don't welfare fraud programs cost the government more than they save?
Also, I thought you'd be against government excess, and that's practically the definition of it.