What drives people towards libertarianism?

[Neo Art]

Neo Art...you seem to act like a petulant child yourself, shouting down everyone that isn't in complete agreement with you.

"I know you are but what am I"? Really? That's how you want to come out of the gate? That's the best foot forward? "No you"?

Libertarians are in the end motivated by a fear of coercion- they fear that if the government can tax, they can eventually start regulating other parts of your life, until it reaches a totalitarian state. They want to make government smaller to keep it from having that kind of power.

Painting them as children huddled in fear of the monsters under the bed does little to demonstrate against the claim that it it, fundamentally, a childlike ideology predicated primarily, if not universally, on prepubescent sense of selfishness.

Problem is, to have society, you have to have taxes. And if the government that can tax you can also restrict your behavior- you can't do a damn thing about it, because they're the government and have a monopoly on power. That's why we have a democracy- so governments have to follow what the majority says. But the majority, if they so choose, can trample on minority rights- that's why there's a constitution and a republican form of government. In the end...it's all about dependence. We depend on the government for our protection, and since government isn't infallible...they want to get rid of it to advocate self-reliance.

So government is necessary for protection of basic human rights, and because it's necessary for those protections we should...abolish it. I remember reading something about what one should not do to ones nose in order to spite their face, can't quite recall at the moment...

It's an understandable, but misguided mindset to have,

That's your defense of libertarianism? That it's understandable, as long as you ignore the fact that it's completely wrong?

Wow, maybe that WAS your best foot forward.

if you started listening and stopped acting like an intolerant asshole.

This...um...so this is how you react when people call your ideology childish?

Wow, sorta proof of concept isn't it?

[Genocidonia]

"WHY IS EVERYONE SO ANGRY AT ME FOR HAVING HORRIBLE BELIEFS"

[Eridu IV]

They're most certainly not concerned about the welfare of the poor, they're concerned with the welfare of their pocketbooks. As far as I see it, the rich (as a whole) are apathetic about the conditions of those working under them. This is why wages have stagnated and production has moved to take advantage of sweatshop labor in Asia, because it's more profitable to pay workers less.

Question. If you employed people, would you care about the welfare of your employees? Would it matter to you that you paid them enough to live on? It certainly would to me, were I in that position.

If your choice is, 1) Work at this crappy job and try to make a living, or 2) Don't take the crappy job, I'll become a homeless bum but I'm too principled for this job! You will pick the former option almost always.

For the poor, there isn't a choice. They HAVE to work for less, because working for less is necessary in order to avoid not working at all.

You clearly need a history lesson if you seriously think that.

If you have to work for less because there aren't currently any other options, then you keep looking for something better while you do so. Or you take a part-time course and learn a more marketable skill. You do something to improve your lot instead of just whining that your job is crappy.

Read an introduction to Das Kapital then go back to how BP should have the right to hire extreme-right militias in the third world to kill unionists.

I'm getting really tired of reiterating that freedom doesn't mean killing people (or hiring others to kill people, whatever). I think unions are a great idea, for what it's worth.

If you want another argument, let's move into the practical, Tell me why it is that under the current system, I work full-time and yet people I know who claim benefits are better off than me in terms of having more disposable income, more consumer goods and far fewer financial worries about the future (because their plan is to keep on claiming benefits forever). Their rent is paid for them, their council tax is paid, they get free medicine and dental treatment, heavy discounts on adult education courses...I work, and get none of that. How is that fair?

[Meryuma]

I'm not a mutualist any more but there's no need for this kind of sectarian bullshit.

Look, I like small businesses/worker cooperatives, but the existence of markets restricts who can and who can't get what they need. It is inevitable that any form of capitalsm, without strict regulation, will devolve into the capitalism that exists today.

I'm not against all markets, but no society should be based around them.

That doesn't mean mutualists aren't anarchists. Mutualism is not capitalism.

In other words, you don't know the history of capitalism and you probably don't know the definition of a corporation either.

What, the dictionary definition? Accusing people who disagree with you of being plain uneducated is a nice tactic.

Corporations consist of individuals with rights. Limited liability and suchlike doesn't change that fact.

I wasn't accusing you of being uneducated because you disagree, I was accusing you of being uneducated because what you say reflects common misconceptions.

Throughout the history of capitalism, major businesses have used subsidies, corporate personhood, artificial scarcity, barriers to entry, restrictions on labor organizing and economic imperialism to secure power in collaboration with the state.

If people don't like the employment contract offered, they won't sign. Simple as that. If you agree to work for less than a living wage, because that's the value you place on your labor, that's up to you.

In other words, there are hundreds of thousands of people in America and millions in impoverished countries who are masochistic or suicidal and all happen to born to poor families/marginalized groups.

[Jinos]

They're most certainly not concerned about the welfare of the poor, they're concerned with the welfare of their pocketbooks. As far as I see it, the rich (as a whole) are apathetic about the conditions of those working under them. This is why wages have stagnated and production has moved to take advantage of sweatshop labor in Asia, because it's more profitable to pay workers less.

Question. If you employed people, would you care about the welfare of your employees? Would it matter to you that you paid them enough to live on? It certainly would to me, were I in that position.

Given that neither you or I are in that position, either of our opinions are irrelevant. Power changes people's perspective, and according to historical evidence, those people with power are more inclined to give workers dangerous jobs, low pay, high hours, and cut corners when it comes to safety standards, pollution, and even product quality.

The above conditions were mitigated by the creation of Unions to force corporations and their owners to set decent standards with regards to those issues. Those terrible working conditions were not ended out of the good hearts of those corporate owners.

If you have to work for less because there aren't currently any other options, then you keep looking for something better while you do so. Or you take a part-time course and learn a more marketable skill. You do something to improve your lot instead of just whining that your job is crappy.

See, the thing is, people do that. Stop acting like people are sitting on their hands whining. Those people are out there, and those options do not exist. You live in a fairy tale land where better options are just hanging everywhere like low hanging fruit and those lazy poor people just aren't trying hard enough.

The truth is, all the options suck. Because wages are stagnating all across the board. Even white collar jobs just aren't safe anymore. It's possible for people to find good steady jobs with decent pay, but not for most of America, and certainly not against all that competition for work.

job sets are not just competing with large amounts of people domestically, they're competing for that job globally with sweatshop labor in Asia and Latin America, against people who are working for a fraction of their wage out of sheer desperation.

If you want another argument, let's move into the practical, Tell me why it is that under the current system, I work full-time and yet people I know who claim benefits are better off than me in terms of having more disposable income, more consumer goods and far fewer financial worries about the future (because their plan is to keep on claiming benefits forever). Their rent is paid for them, their council tax is paid, they get free medicine and dental treatment, heavy discounts on adult education courses...I work, and get none of that. How is that fair?

Probably because they work full time in addition to claiming benefits? If you're trying to argue that they're claiming benefits and living off that, I'll laugh and tell you that is not possible. I don't pretend to understand he nuances of your life, but I do have a few theories about what could be happening, such as I imagine you qualify for some kind of assistance program and refuse to take help out of pride. Or that you misunderstand the financial situation of these 'people.' etc.

[Genocidonia]

@Meryuma
Oh. Well, please give me some sort of site that tells me what Mutualism is, the wikipedia page has been coopted by a bunch of goddam libertarian right-wingers.

[Neo Art]

Question. If you employed people, would you care about the welfare of your employees? Would it matter to you that you paid them enough to live on? It certainly would to me, were I in that position.

Hi. Have we met?

Seriously, no wonder libertarianism has been co-opted by the far right. It's the only place where one can live where things like "feelings" matter more than "facts" or "history".

It's this absurdly nonsensical idea that if we just deregulated the industries, got rid of standards, safeguards, and mandatory minimums, that the blessed job creators (peace be upon them) won't commit horrific abuses of human rights and basic civility.

Which is in direct opposition to the fact that back when we had a more dergulated industry, that's exactly what they did. Which, in fact is the reason we created those regulations in the first fucking place.

If you have to work for less because there aren't currently any other options, then you keep looking for something better while you do so. Or you take a part-time course and learn a more marketable skill. You do something to improve your lot instead of just whining that your job is crappy.

And how are you going to afford that class? Well, just borrow money from your parents, right? That's what poor people do right? Borrow from their parents?

Or maybe sell of some stock.

If you want another argument, let's move into the practical, Tell me why it is that under the current system, I work full-time and yet people I know who claim benefits are better off than me in terms of having more disposable income, more consumer goods and far fewer financial worries about the future (because their plan is to keep on claiming benefits forever). Their rent is paid for them, their council tax is paid, they get free medicine and dental treatment, heavy discounts on adult education courses...I work, and get none of that. How is that fair?

If life is so much better for them, why haven't you quit your job, gone on the dole, and gotten all this wonderful stuff? Is it because you're a Randian superman, who would never dream of accepting one penny of public assistance (which, ironically, can't be said of Ayn Rand), who is thus morally and ethically superior to those filthy moochers?

Or is it because that you don't for one second actually believe this line of crap?

[Grave_n_idle]

"WHY IS EVERYONE SO ANGRY AT ME FOR HAVING HORRIBLE BELIEFS"

It's hilarious when people choose to claim an ideology that can be easily defined by the term 'fuck all a y'all', and then get upset when other people don't hug them and tell them their particular brand is shiny and special and worthy.

[Grave_n_idle]

If you honestly think freedom is meaningless, we have no basis on which to continue this conversation.

It's not a matter of what I 'think' - freedom has no objective meaning.

If you have unfettered liberty to move from place to place - but doing so requires money, then 'freedom' is an illusion. If you live in a box, but you LIKE living in a box, and it provides everything you need - then 'freedom' is a cage.

It's a meaningless concept.

You're right, though - there's no way you're going to be able to comprehend my arguments if you can't get beyond the idea that your subjective 'feelings' are a substitute for objective reality.

[Genocidonia]

FREEDOM

Thia is just one wrong thing after another. Most of these arguments can be rebuffed if you just read an introduction to Das Kapital.

And that last one? That means that more people should be getting benefits so as to prevent anyone (like yourself) slipping through the cracks. The fact that this neds to happen has nothing to do with wanting to abolish all benefits and letting business transform into fiefs.

[Eridu IV]

I wasn't accusing you of being uneducated because you disagree, I was accusing you of being uneducated because what you say reflects common misconceptions.

Throughout the history of capitalism, major businesses have used subsidies, corporate personhood, artificial scarcity, barriers to entry, restrictions on labor organizing and economic imperialism to secure power in collaboration with the state.

Yes. Yes they have, and many of those practices are fraudulent and/or coercive and not in keeping with libertarian ideals.

It's certainly not my intention to argue that all corporations are shiny happy and lovely. Some are downright awful. But not all businesses are bad, and letting them trample over everyone else's rights is not what libertarianism is about.

In other words, there are hundreds of thousands of people in America and millions in impoverished countries who are masochistic or suicidal and all happen to born to poor families/marginalized groups.

In developed countries, at least, the opportunities are always there. Developing countries are in a different situation mostly because of the legacy of colonialism and such. I don't believe that most people in a developing country who are very poor are so because of lack of initiative or effort. The infrastructure isn't there in the same way and, yes, there are some unethical megacorporations who won't pay living wages even by that country's standard. It's a practice I find morally repugnant, but in the real world, enforcing minimum wage laws there would just cause those unethical companies to find another country to operate out of. It wouldn't actually help.

[Mavorpen]

Yes. Yes they have, and many of those practices are fraudulent and/or coercive and not in keeping with libertarian ideals.

Those practices are the RESULT of libertarian ideals.

It's certainly not my intention to argue that all corporations are shiny happy and lovely. Some are downright awful. But not all businesses are bad, and letting them trample over everyone else's rights is not what libertarianism is about.

And yet libertarianism causes such situations. And we can do shit about it because libertarians continue to insist that it's the government, and not the results of libertarian ideals itself.

[Eridu IV]

You're right, though - there's no way you're going to be able to comprehend my arguments if you can't get beyond the idea that your subjective 'feelings' are a substitute for objective reality.

Now you're the one who sounds Randian.

Therefore, as she put it better than I can, Ayn Rand on freedom:

"What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion."

Objective enough for you?

[Grave_n_idle]

You're right, though - there's no way you're going to be able to comprehend my arguments if you can't get beyond the idea that your subjective 'feelings' are a substitute for objective reality.

Now you're the one who sounds Randian.

Therefore, as she put it better than I can, Ayn Rand on freedom:

"What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion."

Objective enough for you?

Ayn Rand was a blind, deluded fool. She even misused the word 'objective', and her stupid alternative interpretation is as meaningless as any other attempt to try to provide an objective definition for something as inherently subjective as freedom.

[Mavorpen]

Therefore, as she put it better than I can, Ayn Rand on freedom:

"What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion."

Objective enough for you?

Because you know, slave holders can't just condition their slaves until they have a slave mentality.

[The walkers]

Its because I don't like having people in my business when I did not ask for it, and I don't like being legally required to be a good person or requiring the same of others.

[The Reasonable]

Neo Art...you seem to act like a petulant child yourself, shouting down everyone that isn't in complete agreement with you.

"I know you are but what am I"? Really? That's how you want to come out of the gate? That's the best foot forward? "No you"?

Libertarians are in the end motivated by a fear of coercion- they fear that if the government can tax, they can eventually start regulating other parts of your life, until it reaches a totalitarian state. They want to make government smaller to keep it from having that kind of power.

Painting them as children huddled in fear of the monsters under the bed does little to demonstrate against the claim that it it, fundamentally, a childlike ideology predicated primarily, if not universally, on prepubescent sense of selfishness.

Problem is, to have society, you have to have taxes. And if the government that can tax you can also restrict your behavior- you can't do a damn thing about it, because they're the government and have a monopoly on power. That's why we have a democracy- so governments have to follow what the majority says. But the majority, if they so choose, can trample on minority rights- that's why there's a constitution and a republican form of government. In the end...it's all about dependence. We depend on the government for our protection, and since government isn't infallible...they want to get rid of it to advocate self-reliance.

So government is necessary for protection of basic human rights, and because it's necessary for those protections we should...abolish it. I remember reading something about what one should not do to ones nose in order to spite their face, can't quite recall at the moment...

It's an understandable, but misguided mindset to have,

That's your defense of libertarianism? That it's understandable, as long as you ignore the fact that it's completely wrong?

Wow, maybe that WAS your best foot forward.

if you started listening and stopped acting like an intolerant asshole.

This...um...so this is how you react when people call your ideology childish?

Wow, sorta proof of concept isn't it?

You obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say.

Notice I said "they" in all my addresses towards libertarians. I'm not one anymore, nor am I defending them.

Libertarianism is wrong, but it's understandable why they believe in it. And it's not MY ideology, at least not anymore it isn't. I'm not defending it either- you can attempt to understand the motivations behind someone else's actions or beliefs without necessarily agreeing with it or thinking it's right. But of course, to you, the concept of understanding sounds quite foreign, so I guess there's no point. There's a reason why you're considered an asshole on NSG- and you seem so proud of it that you sigged some of those people's reactions towards you. I salute you.

[Eridu IV]

Question. If you employed people, would you care about the welfare of your employees? Would it matter to you that you paid them enough to live on? It certainly would to me, were I in that position.

Hi. Have we met?

That was a terrible tragedy, made much worse by stupid managerial practices.

Seriously, no wonder libertarianism has been co-opted by the far right. It's the only place where one can live where things like "feelings" matter more than "facts" or "history".

It's this absurdly nonsensical idea that if we just deregulated the industries, got rid of standards, safeguards, and mandatory minimums, that the blessed job creators (peace be upon them) won't commit horrific abuses of human rights and basic civility.

Which is in direct opposition to the fact that back when we had a more deregulated industry, that's exactly what they did. Which, in fact is the reason we created those regulations in the first fucking place.

Because attitudes towards people poorer than oneself haven't changed a bit in the last century? I have at least a little faith in human progress.

And how are you going to afford that class? Well, just borrow money from your parents, right? That's what poor people do right? Borrow from their parents?

Or maybe sell of some stock.

Under the current system, a lot of classes are free if you don't have a certain level of qualifications or you're under a certain age. Otherwise? Take a cut in standard of living for a bit. And before you dismiss me as heartless, the 'poor' in this country all have mobile phones and cable TV. Again, in developing countries it's different. I strongly believe that charitable work in such countries helping those who want to better their lot is critically important.

If life is so much better for them, why haven't you quit your job, gone on the dole, and gotten all this wonderful stuff? Is it because you're a Randian superman, who would never dream of accepting one penny of public assistance (which, ironically, can't be said of Ayn Rand), who is thus morally and ethically superior to those filthy moochers?

Or is it because that you don't for one second actually believe this line of crap?

Much as I wish I was a Randian superman, no. It's because I have principles and I'm not about to mooch off the state. I do take pride in the fact that what I do have, I earned. Also, I enjoy my work. It holds value for me other than the obvious monetary payment.

[Eridu IV]

See, the thing is, people do that. Stop acting like people are sitting on their hands whining. Those people are out there, and those options do not exist. You live in a fairy tale land where better options are just hanging everywhere like low hanging fruit and those lazy poor people just aren't trying hard enough.

The truth is, all the options suck. Because wages are stagnating all across the board. Even white collar jobs just aren't safe anymore. It's possible for people to find good steady jobs with decent pay, but not for most of America, and certainly not against all that competition for work.

job sets are not just competing with large amounts of people domestically, they're competing for that job globally with sweatshop labor in Asia and Latin America, against people who are working for a fraction of their wage out of sheer desperation.

Let's say for argument's sake that you're absolutely right. There aren't enough jobs. What should be done about it, in your opinion?

Probably because they work full time in addition to claiming benefits? If you're trying to argue that they're claiming benefits and living off that, I'll laugh and tell you that is not possible. I don't pretend to understand he nuances of your life, but I do have a few theories about what could be happening, such as I imagine you qualify for some kind of assistance program and refuse to take help out of pride. Or that you misunderstand the financial situation of these 'people.' etc.

I see where you'd get that idea from, but no, I wouldn't qualify for any kind of assistance, my salary's too high for that. (Though you're also right to say I wouldn't take it if I did). These people don't work full time, but they do lie and cheat on the benefit forms, claiming disabilities they don't actually have, children who don't live with them (for a bigger taxpayer-funded house) and that sort of thing. Also, are you in the US? I'm in the UK, where the benefit system is somewhat different.

[Eridu IV]

Okay, I'm now getting offline for the night. I'm also stepping out of the debate. Thank you, everyone who was civil and raised interesting points of contention. It's very easy to get complacent about what you believe and a little challenge now and then is good.

If anyone's got any really pressing questions, you can TG me, but I'm not going to rehash stuff I've already said in-thread.

I'll leave it to some other libertarian to pick up and address your concerns, if anyone wants to.

PS: In conclusion, FREEDOM.

[Greed and Death]

This is a thread partially made out of my curiousity, and partially out of my intense guilt for my former political views.

I used to be a libertarian- advocated minarchism, small government, free markets, privatized social services, and all that- I wasn't extreme about it but saw it as an ideal. All of that changed over the course of a few months with the help of a liberal AP US History teacher who explained the value of government in the economy, and a near-fatal illness that even Medicaid was loath to cover. What was worse about it? I'm a lower-middle-class immigrant teen. I'm now a moderate leaning left, don't currently have a coherent ideology and have tried to distance myself from that shameful past as much as possible- I couldn't believe how lacking in empathy I was with my politics.

But it leads me to these questions: Why are people driven towards libertarianism, when it sounds so much like anarchism? Is it the concept of rights? Is it the relaxed social views? Is it the frustration from US-style 2-party politics? Is it lack of empathy? Is it the idea of self-determination? Or is it just simple selfishness and greed?

As for your teacher changing your views, might I suggest it was your lack of researching them, and for ever view of history there is a contrasting view. Might I suggest reading the unbound Prometheus my David Landes.

As for privatized social services it seems your view of libertetarism was underdeveloped and over simplified. Most ( not all) schools of libertarian thought have a concept called a natural monopoly, which says there are certain things a government should do. Roads/police/ etc. What fits into a natural monopoly varies widely, myself I have in the last 4 years added healthcare to that list. The argument that there is inefficiency when the government does it to me seems out weighed by the facts.

What leads people to this philosophy the concept of rights yes, Self determination yes.

Lack of empathy ? No. In fact I find some of the most empathetic people to be libertarians. Indeed the general argument of libertarians is that people help each other out and that is far better than the government doing it through bureaucracy, presupposes that people are very emphatic. Indeed I find the faith in humanity to be an ever present theme of libertaranism.

As for Greed ? most certainly not, no easier source of wealth than the government troth, Whether your talking government bailouts, contracts, Insurance issued by the government, or cheap loans to mega corps, those are where the money is at. Both the Democrats and the Republicans support those policies. and indeed most corporations donate to both parties specifically for the sake of influence.

[Jinos]

Let's say for argument's sake that you're absolutely right. There aren't enough jobs. What should be done about it, in your opinion?

-Increase tariffs or other anti-global market initiatives, specifically targeting countries with low working wage industries like China. The more expensive it is to import cheaply made products using sweatshop labor, the less likely corporations will 'export' jobs.

-Increase taxes on the rich while lowing taxes on the lower classes. 90% of America now pays close to 40% of the tax burden while controlling only about 20% of the wealth. As you can see, the tax burden undoubtably falls hardest on the middle and lower stratas. Reversing this trend will close the income gap and shift America back to a demand-side economy. If the rich want to be rich, they'll have to invest their wealth for a smaller return instead of simply inheriting or hoarding it.

-Increase government spending on works projects, like infrastructure renewal. Organizations like the WPA, TVA, and CCC are a major reason we got out of the Great Depression. They put people to work and got money in the hands of consumers while revitalizing American infrastructure.

-Implement a Universal Health Care, or similar, model. Sudden healthcare complications are the #1 cause by far of Bankruptcies in America. Having a health complication should not be financially devastating. People should not be forced to forgo Preventative care due to financial concerns. Additionally, lack of preventative care in America is one of the leading causes of expensive healthcare.

I see where you'd get that idea from, but no, I wouldn't qualify for any kind of assistance, my salary's too high for that. (Though you're also right to say I wouldn't take it if I did). These people don't work full time, but they do lie and cheat on the benefit forms, claiming disabilities they don't actually have, children who don't live with them (for a bigger taxpayer-funded house) and that sort of thing. Also, are you in the US? I'm in the UK, where the benefit system is somewhat different.

I am unfamiliar with the UK benefits system, but pointing out there are individuals who will commit fraud to take advantage of the system does not prove the system is impotent or unneeded. Nobody seriously suggests that fraud is okay, but the 'Welfare Queen' is mostly a myth. In the US, you would find that welfare benefits are not nearly substantive enough to actually live on by themselves.

[The walkers]

Let's say for argument's sake that you're absolutely right. There aren't enough jobs. What should be done about it, in your opinion?

-Increase tariffs or other anti-global market initiatives, specifically targeting countries with low working wage industries like China. The more expensive it is to import cheaply made products using sweatshop labor, the less likely corporations will 'export' jobs.

-Increase taxes on the rich while lowing taxes on the lower classes. 90% of America now pays close to 40% of the tax burden while controlling only about 20% of the wealth. As you can see, the tax burden undoubtably falls hardest on the middle and lower stratas. Reversing this trend will close the income gap and shift America back to a demand-side economy. If the rich want to be rich, they'll have to invest their wealth for a smaller return instead of simply inheriting or hoarding it.

-Increase government spending on works projects, like infrastructure renewal. Organizations like the WPA, TVA, and CCC are a major reason we got out of the Great Depression. They put people to work and got money in the hands of consumers while revitalizing American infrastructure.

-Implement a Universal Health Care, or similar, model. Sudden healthcare complications are the #1 cause by far of Bankruptcies in America. Having a health complication should not be financially devastating. People should not be forced to forgo Preventative care due to financial concerns. Additionally, lack of preventative care in America is one of the leading causes of expensive healthcare.

I see where you'd get that idea from, but no, I wouldn't qualify for any kind of assistance, my salary's too high for that. (Though you're also right to say I wouldn't take it if I did). These people don't work full time, but they do lie and cheat on the benefit forms, claiming disabilities they don't actually have, children who don't live with them (for a bigger taxpayer-funded house) and that sort of thing. Also, are you in the US? I'm in the UK, where the benefit system is somewhat different.

I am unfamiliar with the UK benefits system, but pointing out there are individuals who will commit fraud to take advantage of the system does not prove the system is impotent or unneeded. Nobody seriously suggests that fraud is okay, but the 'Welfare Queen' is mostly a myth. In the US, you would find that welfare benefits are not nearly substantive enough to actually live on by themselves.

Hey, I don't really care that much about your conversation, just wanted to let you know about that tax thing.

40% tax burden split amongst 90% of the population is actually more than fair, while 10% paying 60% is incredibly unfair. the percentage of wealth is irrelevant because we are taxed on percentages not specific dollar amounts. Anyways have a fun conversation

[Chestaan]

-Increase tariffs or other anti-global market initiatives, specifically targeting countries with low working wage industries like China. The more expensive it is to import cheaply made products using sweatshop labor, the less likely corporations will 'export' jobs.

-Increase taxes on the rich while lowing taxes on the lower classes. 90% of America now pays close to 40% of the tax burden while controlling only about 20% of the wealth. As you can see, the tax burden undoubtably falls hardest on the middle and lower stratas. Reversing this trend will close the income gap and shift America back to a demand-side economy. If the rich want to be rich, they'll have to invest their wealth for a smaller return instead of simply inheriting or hoarding it.

-Increase government spending on works projects, like infrastructure renewal. Organizations like the WPA, TVA, and CCC are a major reason we got out of the Great Depression. They put people to work and got money in the hands of consumers while revitalizing American infrastructure.

-Implement a Universal Health Care, or similar, model. Sudden healthcare complications are the #1 cause by far of Bankruptcies in America. Having a health complication should not be financially devastating. People should not be forced to forgo Preventative care due to financial concerns. Additionally, lack of preventative care in America is one of the leading causes of expensive healthcare.



I am unfamiliar with the UK benefits system, but pointing out there are individuals who will commit fraud to take advantage of the system does not prove the system is impotent or unneeded. Nobody seriously suggests that fraud is okay, but the 'Welfare Queen' is mostly a myth. In the US, you would find that welfare benefits are not nearly substantive enough to actually live on by themselves.

Hey, I don't really care that much about your conversation, just wanted to let you know about that tax thing.

40% tax burden split amongst 90% of the population is actually more than fair, while 10% paying 60% is incredibly unfair. the percentage of wealth is irrelevant because we are taxed on percentages not specific dollar amounts. Anyways have a fun conversation

If those ten percent control more than 60% of the wealth then it's definitely not fair.

[Vazeckta]

But it leads me to these questions: Why are people driven towards libertarianism, when it sounds so much like anarchism? Is it the concept of rights? Is it the relaxed social views? Is it the frustration from US-style 2-party politics? Is it lack of empathy? Is it the idea of self-determination? Or is it just simple selfishness and greed?

All of those, for me. Plus the fact that I can fail too if I suck at life, which just seems so much more fair to me.