[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[Samantha Atkins]

On 05/11/2011 08:25 PM, Mr Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Kelly Anderson 
> <kellycoinguy at gmail.com <mailto:kellycoinguy at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     2011/5/10 Mr Jones <mrjones2020 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:mrjones2020 at gmail.com>>:
>     > Particularly interesting to me were these few sentences...
>     >>
>     >> Yes, I believe that coercion
>     >> is a prima facie bad.  But I also believe that it is prima
>     facie bad
>     >> for people to fail to get what they deserve, or for their basic
>     needs
>     >> to be unmet.  These moral beliefs, to my mind, have just as firm a
>     >> standing as my opposition to coercion.  I see no reason to believe
>     >> that in a conflict between them, the opposition to coercion should
>     >> always trump.
>     >
>     > I agree the govt doesn't get to dig into your pocket for any
>     lil' ole thing
>     > they want/need/desire.  But until people have their basic needs
>     met, society
>     > deserves the burden, as a whole.
>
>     I agree with this, except for the "as a whole" part. I think there are
>     enough generous people, at least in a country like America, to care
>     for the truly indigent. 
>
>
> I would love to think that's true.  And if I knew it to be true, I'd 
> be all for govt being shrunk beyond belief.  But that'd require more 
> than just meals/shelter for the indigent.  We'd still need roads, 
> water, etc.

Are you claiming people cannot get all those things without making them 
a government project?

>     The problem with government is you end up with
>     a program like Food Stamps that now serves 35 million people (12% of
>     the population). These are not all indigent. I know, I was on Food
>     Stamps myself for a while and I was by no means indigent at the time.
>     I just qualified for the program. I'm pretty sure I would qualify now.
>     I am not indigent, but I could steal money from all of you (at least
>     the Americans who pay taxes) by going down and applying.
>
>
> In order to qualify for foodstamps, you've got to have a fairly 
> minimal income.  A 4 person family (2 adults/2kids) has to have an 
> income under something like $36k/yr to qualify (not certain, but I'm 
> fairly close I believe).  That's a pretty low income.  Unless you're 
> living in some crime ridden inner-city, with horribly performing 
> school systems, you'd have a hard time getting by.  Is this really how 
> we should expect our families to live?

Irrelevant.  Anyone who wants to help anyone they consider poorer than 
they can stand can.  They just can't use a gun to force those that don't 
feel as they do to do the same.  Which is where government is a bad idea 
in that government has legalized force available to it and does 
precisely this sort of thing with it.  Goodbye freedom.   To add insult 
to injury you get more poverty instead of less by involving the government.

- samantha



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110512/7285257a/attachment.html>