[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[Kelly Anderson]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:04 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Kelly Anderson  wrote:
> <snip>
>> I support this statement. It is wrong to take $100 from a millionaire
>> to save the life of a starving child. If he wants to donate the $100,
>> that's super! But to force him at the point of a gun, with threat of
>> imprisonment if he does not comply, is indeed WRONG, imho.
>
> And that is exactly why 99% of the population regard hardline
> libertarians as insane.

That is only because 99% of the population has never been a
millionaire. I have been. I know a fairly large number of other people
who are. I even know a couple of people worth over $100,000,000. No
millionaire in my experience would EVER allow a child to go starving
if they could prevent it. I present as evidence the fact that I am no
longer a millionaire, having helped a number of children to the point
of losing it all.

> The child is starving because the billionaire and millionaire classes
> have left almost nothing for the rest of the population. Look around
> at the destruction of the USA by the wealthy, then tell me about
> charity again.

Please. You don't have a clue as to how the economy works if you think
that. Millionaires and particularly billionaires make jobs for the
poor among us. Without the rich, the poor would be REALLY screwed.
Having lived in Brazil and having worked in the slums there, I know
what real poverty is. That will never happen in America, unless we
start screwing around with the rich. Eat the rich, and you won't have
anything to eat tomorrow.

> Unfortunately, no amount of discussion will change your emotionally
> rooted belief. It is impossible to argue someone out of a position
> that they were not argued into in the first place.

If I can change from a Mormon to an atheist, then I think I have a
pretty good capacity for changing my point of view of the world.

It's not that I hate disadvantaged children. Hell, I adopted ten of
them! It's that taking money by force is not the BEST way to help
disadvantaged children. Creating a geopolitical environment in which
each disadvantaged child has the chance to become rich himself,
without being taxed into oblivion, That is the best way to help the
disadvantaged.

> We'll have to agree to differ on this one.

Surely you can't believe that sequestering the African American in
ghettos every bit as disgusting as Warsaw is the best way to help him
succeed? Yet, that is what our society, including art, drug dealers,
the NAACP, and most of the Washington crowd has allowed our country to
become.

I know you're a smart guy Bill. Let's keep working this through. This
isn't emotional for me, this is entirely rational. It is a very
slipper slope that the socialists have pushed us down. We can and must
climb out, or we will have no country at all very soon because all of
the rich will eventually move to China.

The problem with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other
people's money.

-Kelly