Mr. Fusion says:

#118, Loser,

Personally, I find the idea of wealth redistribution so anti-American,

I find the opposite, equality suppression, abhorrent. Elsewhere on this blog is the story of a 93 yr/o that froze to death. Several comments blatantly said it is the old codgers own fault. This was a man that served his country during WWII. He gave his youth to keep this country safe. After the war he worked making America strong. Not by himself, but he did his part.

His taxes built the schools you attended. His taxes built the roads you drive on. His taxes built the city you live in. His taxes paid for the military to be strong and vigilant. His taxes paid for the police to take criminals off the street.

In short, he and millions of others just like him built the America you live in. The millions that came before him. The millions that came after him. And the millions that are yet to come.

So far from his welfare being “his own damned problem”, his welfare is all of our problem. Because that is America. That is the America he, and the millions of others, built.

When Libertarians want to ignore his contributions, they demonstrate their own selfishness. For some reason paying the taxes on the tank full of gas entitles Libertarians to claim they own the road. They don’t. It is our road. It belongs to all the people.

Libertarians are among the most unAmerican group I can think of.

LibertyLover says:

#121, Poison Twin,

I find the opposite, equality suppression, abhorrent.

As do I.

However, do you think it is truly equal to take from one and give to another? If you believe the government is making everyone equal, you are sadly mistaken. They are making people more UNequal through their different charity programs.

His taxes built the schools you attended. His taxes built the roads you drive on. His taxes built the city you live in. [...] His taxes paid for the police to take criminals off the street.

These are all local/state and that is where they belong. Do not get confused with what is a state issue and what is a federal issue. The federal government has no right in school, roads, or local law enforcement.

Re: Selfishness

BTW . . . have you adopted any homeless people yet to use your house?

Probably not, but let’s move on past that for now.

The following is paraphrased from another source but is still a valid outlook I hold.

This argument is based on the fact that libertarians do not want the government to take their money and give it to a “charity” chosen by the government. I believe the thought process goes something like: “Those ‘selfish’ libertarians want to keep the money they earn!” I see this as wrong on two levels: (1) It implies that the welfare state that libertarians oppose is selfless or generous in some way; and (2) It implies that libertarians in fact want to keep their wealth.

The “Generosity” of the Welfare State

The welfare state necessarily requires involuntary contributions to causes that the government deems “good”. When someone supports the welfare state they want the government to direct where someone else’s money goes. So when they call libertarians “selfish” they seem to think that taking someone else’s money to give to something they think is a good cause is somehow selfless? Or generous? This is absurd on its face.

Imagine a charity-seeking downtrodden man comes to your door and says “Can you spare a dime?” You respond, “No but my neighbor keeps his door unlocked so why don’t you just go in there and take whatever you want.” This is generosity!? This is the “generosity” that the welfare state provides… not to mention the admin costs they skim off the top and the strings they inevitably attach to exert control over those to whom they “donate” the resources.

The Meaning of “Keep”

When libertarians say they want to “keep” their money instead of giving it to government, what they really mean is that they want to direct how their own resources are used. The word “keep” makes it sound like the libertarian wants to just hold his money and roll around in a bed made of cash like that movie Indecent Proposal. This bed of cash is preferred to spending it on [insert welfare state "charity" here]. This sounds kind of selfish… of course, this is not what the libertarian means by “keep”.

By “keep” the libertarian means “control” or “direct”. This certainly could be a cash-bed. Or, perhaps the libertarian could spend the money on things like watches, cars and iPods. Some people may label that use as selfish. But maybe… just maybe… the libertarian wishes to give the money to cancer research or starving children in Africa. How could anyone call that selfish?

Conclusion

The libertarian does not wish to “keep” his cash and roll around in it, he merely wishes to control how it is used. If this is selfish, then what do you call someone who wants to control how someone else’s money is used?

Personally, I donated over three man-months of my free time last year to charity — in spite of the money looted by the government. Am I being selfish because I don’t donate more?

bobbo says:

123–LL==should society have a social safety net to help people like this guy who froze to death, only rely on the charity of individuals giving freely of their time and money, or do you have a third way ?

Mr. Fusion says:

#123, Loser,

The welfare state necessarily requires involuntary contributions to causes that the government deems “good”. When someone supports the welfare state they want the government to direct where someone else’s money goes. So when they call libertarians “selfish” they seem to think that taking someone else’s money to give to something they think is a good cause is somehow selfless?

This is the crux of your whole error.

The “government” is not some monolithic thing. It is you, me, Bobbo, and everyone else. It is all of us. We chose representatives to run our communal business. We pay for that communal business through taxes. We do get to pick and chose though, through our elected representatives. We do have a voice in telling the representative which ideas we need done. If your position finds enough common ground then it will probably end up being chosen.

The problem with Libertarians though is that for some reason if the democratic process doesn’t go their way they should be given an out. They will scream and shout that it is THEIR money and they should have a say. So, they want the benefits of society without paying for it. That, to me, is selfish.

I am so tired of this “welfare state” argument. One of the last areas any right wing nut wants cut is the military yet they are the biggest welfare outfit there is.

Personal responsibility? Ya right. How often do I have to hear that speeding tickets are just money makers for the government. I don’t hear these same selfish Libertarians admit they broke the law by speeding. E. Coli is their spaghetti sauce? Sure, they are responsible for not checking the product first in their home laboratory for the E. Coli, Salmonella, Lysteria, Campylobacter as well as lead, MBTB, biphynels, melamine, and whatever else is being added.

Sorry, I don’t buy your apology.

… what do you call someone who wants to control how someone else’s money is used?

Well he could be called a Libertarian, a control freak, or, as is quite common, politician.

Mr. Fusion says:

#126, SL,

I don’t think very many people would agree with Madison today.

Paddy-O says:

# 126 Sea Lawyer said, “Well, if FDR is considered to be the authority of what is “American” then I suppose so.”

FDR on “what America is”:

from a private conversation with Leo Crowley, the Catholic economist and wartime Alien Property Custodian. One day in January 1942, Roosevelt proclaimed to a shocked Crowley: “Leo, you know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and the Jews are here on sufferance. It is up to both of you [Crowley and Henry Morganthau, a Jew and Secretary of the Treasury] to go along with anything that I want at this time.”

Paddy-O says:

# 132 Mr. Fusion said, “Remember when you told us that Pelosi wanted to settle the Gitmo detainees in America.”

No. Perhaps you can point to my non-existent post where I said she wants to have them “settle in America”?

I asked you to point it out a day or so ago and you still can’t…

LibertyLover says:

#127, Poison Twin,

We do get to pick and chose though, through our elected representatives.

The problem with our elected representatives, though, is they have a really large pork barrel to swim in. Those reps cannot stay honest when so many special interests are throwing money at them. The Republican Government (not the party) as been tainted by excessive special interests, causing the government to stick their noses in everything.

I rant and rave against these kinds of injustices. Look at the bailout bill? Did the reps represent “the people?” Of course not. Over 90% of their constituents said NO but they voted yes any anyway. Why? There was money to be had.

Local services I support, within reason. Roads, schools, law enforcement, etc. I detest the fact the federal government sees fit to tax me, bribe the state government with that same money to get something some bureaucrat in Washington wants, and then takes 25% off the top for the service of doing the bribing. And then they get AWARDS for directing money that isn’t theirs to these special interests.

If the federal government wasn’t taking that much money from the individual citizens, the local and states governments could handle it all.

The problem with Libertarians though is that for some reason if the democratic process doesn’t go their way they should be given an out. They will scream and shout that it is THEIR money and they should have a say.

Then why do you continue to rant and rave against Bush? He was duly elected, all the republicans were duly elected, they made choices they thought “the people” wanted. It seems kinda hypocritical to gripe about one party and then back the other and claim it is the will of people (especially when the programs look nearly identical).

Remember when I said that being selfish was one of the two arguments against Libertarianism?

You cliched the second one: So, they want the benefits of society without paying for it.

This is not true. The Beneficiaries of socialist redistribution are being “selfish.”

What libertarians want (or at least this one) is to keep the federal government doing what it is supposed to so: Protect Life, Liberty, and Property.

I am so tired of this “welfare state” argument. One of the last areas any right wing nut wants cut is the military yet they are the biggest welfare outfit there is.

I want it cut. Down low. We could save $1T/yr if we brought our forces home.

And what do you call congress’ $400B to the banks? Windfall Profits? No. It is welfare.

Re:Personal Responsibility

There are numerous government programs out there providing information services for companies that would best be handled via private entities. Consumer Reports, Consumer Product Research and Testing, UL, etc., handle testing and they are all privately funded. Some things are NOT allowed in a private setting. Why does the government think private companies can’t compete with government agencies? Are they afraid of the competition?

… what do you call someone who wants to control how someone else’s money is used?

Well he could be called a Libertarian

Again, a misconception. I have no interest whatsoever in how you spend your money.