Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

People cooperating selflessly?

Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

While there may be some individuals who might have understandably shied away from personally helping to move a burning car, but would they also object to paying taxes for rescue workers who do such things?

If some of these folks had been injured in the attempt, how many people would say that they deserved fair compensation for it?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 3:19:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

While there may be some individuals who might have understandably shied away from personally helping to move a burning car, but would they also object to paying taxes for rescue workers who do such things?

If some of these folks had been injured in the attempt, how many people would say that they deserved fair compensation for it?

A libertarian would most certainly lend a hand rather than expect to wait for Government to come and solve the problem.

Why do you think that a libertarian wouldn't help? What part of libertarianism do you not understand to make you think this?
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 3:52:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 3:19:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

A libertarian would most certainly lend a hand rather than expect to wait for Government to come and solve the problem.

Why do you think that a libertarian wouldn't help? What part of libertarianism do you not understand to make you think this?

That IS the part I don't understand. I was not implying and particular answer when I asked it. I was sincere. As you are aware, there are libertarians on this site who use their valuation of liberty to justify not helping. As a result of these attitudes,, I admit to a certain amount of confusion about the matter.

You'll note, if you watch the video, that there were rescuers on the scene and helping as well. Rescuers that might not have been there under the policies of about half of the libertarians on this site because it is not possible to maintain a group of people trained to respond to such emergencies 24/7 without it being an all-inclusive proposition.

We recently saw a huge outcry against the response (or lack thereof) of a fire department in Tennessee, who stood by while a home burned.
http://www.alternet.org...

These are two sides of the same coin in the libertarian mindset on this site. The example in this post shows us a different, but equally acceptable libertarian response to an emergency, as I am given to understand it.

It seems like that viewpoint introduces an unnecessary level of mistrust and uncertainty in the community. I think most would much prefer that such protections extend to all, even if some small portion of it's beneficiaries have not contributed to its maintenance, and for them this is a matter of valuing the moral and ethical choice over the right to property (i.e. not being taxed for it). Libertarians, then by refusing to pay taxes for it become free riders in a system that is certain to be maintained by those who feel morally obligated to do so, whether the government is involved or not.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:01:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 3:52:38 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:19:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

A libertarian would most certainly lend a hand rather than expect to wait for Government to come and solve the problem.

Why do you think that a libertarian wouldn't help? What part of libertarianism do you not understand to make you think this?

That IS the part I don't understand. I was not implying and particular answer when I asked it. I was sincere. As you are aware, there are libertarians on this site who use their valuation of liberty to justify not helping. As a result of these attitudes,, I admit to a certain amount of confusion about the matter.


If a man gives another person charity, would you consider that person good?

If a man threatens to kill or harm another man if he or she does not give to charity, would you consider that person good?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:33:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

While there may be some individuals who might have understandably shied away from personally helping to move a burning car, but would they also object to paying taxes for rescue workers who do such things?

If some of these folks had been injured in the attempt, how many people would say that they deserved fair compensation for it?

This is a blatant strawman.

Libertarians believe in free will and the lack of Government coercion. They object to money being 'stolen' and sieved through a corrupt and inefficient system. That does not mean that they would not sacrifice their own efforts or give money to charity.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:38:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why is this person not in Africa where there are more people he can save?

oh, that's right. He's not selfless, he's just a confused chump :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:44:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've just watched the video, that was a pretty incomptent intervention, but then I suppose people are like that. Hats off to them.

But wait if they were socialists would they have intervened? Because afterall their money is stolen so they don't have to function as full humans right?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:52:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 4:33:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
Libertarians believe in free will and the lack of Government coercion. They object to money being 'stolen' and sieved through a corrupt and inefficient system. That does not mean that they would not sacrifice their own efforts or give money to charity.

But it does mean that anyone who refused to sacrifice their own efforts or give money to charity can be free riders in any system supported by those who believe they have a moral obligation to extend protection to those who cannot afford it. A libertarian might never lift a finger for anyone else and maintain it is their right, but if the system is there for them, even though they refuse to support it, then so much the better? That's a profitable perspective.

The alternative, that people should only receive the protections they pay for themselves, poses even greater potential problems.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:59:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 3:52:38 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:19:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

A libertarian would most certainly lend a hand rather than expect to wait for Government to come and solve the problem.

Why do you think that a libertarian wouldn't help? What part of libertarianism do you not understand to make you think this?

That IS the part I don't understand. I was not implying and particular answer when I asked it. I was sincere. As you are aware, there are libertarians on this site who use their valuation of liberty to justify not helping. As a result of these attitudes,, I admit to a certain amount of confusion about the matter.

You'll note, if you watch the video, that there were rescuers on the scene and helping as well. Rescuers that might not have been there under the policies of about half of the libertarians on this site because it is not possible to maintain a group of people trained to respond to such emergencies 24/7 without it being an all-inclusive proposition.

We recently saw a huge outcry against the response (or lack thereof) of a fire department in Tennessee, who stood by while a home burned.
http://www.alternet.org...

These are two sides of the same coin in the libertarian mindset on this site. The example in this post shows us a different, but equally acceptable libertarian response to an emergency, as I am given to understand it.

It seems like that viewpoint introduces an unnecessary level of mistrust and uncertainty in the community. I think most would much prefer that such protections extend to all, even if some small portion of it's beneficiaries have not contributed to its maintenance, and for them this is a matter of valuing the moral and ethical choice over the right to property (i.e. not being taxed for it). Libertarians, then by refusing to pay taxes for it become free riders in a system that is certain to be maintained by those who feel morally obligated to do so, whether the government is involved or not.

I think you have some confusion as to libertarianism and its application. It is true that a libertarian values his liberty, and this does mean that it is of higher value than that of the collective that he lives in. However, this doesn't transcend necessarily into the moral code of the individual, but rather his choice of governance. In fact, i would guess most libertarians would endorse the concept of charity, and it's benefits to both the individual and it's use in society versus that of government. In fact if you look at those countries that are most socialist, they contribute the least to charity. The blanket condemnation of the morality and ethics of the libertarian due to their value of individual liberities is unfounded.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:01:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 4:52:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:33:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
Libertarians believe in free will and the lack of Government coercion. They object to money being 'stolen' and sieved through a corrupt and inefficient system. That does not mean that they would not sacrifice their own efforts or give money to charity.

But it does mean that anyone who refused to sacrifice their own efforts or give money to charity can be free riders in any system supported by those who believe they have a moral obligation to extend protection to those who cannot afford it.

Well that is an issue for the libertarian who gives to charity isn't it?

A libertarian might never lift a finger for anyone else and maintain it is their right, but if the system is there for them, even though they refuse to support it, then so much the better? That's a profitable perspective.

A libertarian might be selfish yes, you have said nothing to suggest that Libertarians are naturally more selfish.

The alternative, that people should only receive the protections they pay for themselves, poses even greater potential problems.

Libertarians don't seek to ban charity, just theft.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:11:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 4:59:21 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:52:38 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:19:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

A libertarian would most certainly lend a hand rather than expect to wait for Government to come and solve the problem.

Why do you think that a libertarian wouldn't help? What part of libertarianism do you not understand to make you think this?

That IS the part I don't understand. I was not implying and particular answer when I asked it. I was sincere. As you are aware, there are libertarians on this site who use their valuation of liberty to justify not helping. As a result of these attitudes,, I admit to a certain amount of confusion about the matter.

You'll note, if you watch the video, that there were rescuers on the scene and helping as well. Rescuers that might not have been there under the policies of about half of the libertarians on this site because it is not possible to maintain a group of people trained to respond to such emergencies 24/7 without it being an all-inclusive proposition.

We recently saw a huge outcry against the response (or lack thereof) of a fire department in Tennessee, who stood by while a home burned.
http://www.alternet.org...

These are two sides of the same coin in the libertarian mindset on this site. The example in this post shows us a different, but equally acceptable libertarian response to an emergency, as I am given to understand it.

It seems like that viewpoint introduces an unnecessary level of mistrust and uncertainty in the community. I think most would much prefer that such protections extend to all, even if some small portion of it's beneficiaries have not contributed to its maintenance, and for them this is a matter of valuing the moral and ethical choice over the right to property (i.e. not being taxed for it). Libertarians, then by refusing to pay taxes for it become free riders in a system that is certain to be maintained by those who feel morally obligated to do so, whether the government is involved or not.

I think you have some confusion as to libertarianism and its application. It is true that a libertarian values his liberty, and this does mean that it is of higher value than that of the collective that he lives in. However, this doesn't transcend necessarily into the moral code of the individual, but rather his choice of governance. In fact, i would guess most libertarians would endorse the concept of charity, and it's benefits to both the individual and it's use in society versus that of government. In fact if you look at those countries that are most socialist, they contribute the least to charity. The blanket condemnation of the morality and ethics of the libertarian due to their value of individual liberities is unfounded.

I would argue that correlation does not mean causation. Religious people tend to be more capitalist oriented and right-wing. Atheists tend to be more socialist oriented and left-wing. Religous people donate more than atheist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:15:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:11:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:59:21 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:52:38 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:19:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

A libertarian would most certainly lend a hand rather than expect to wait for Government to come and solve the problem.

Why do you think that a libertarian wouldn't help? What part of libertarianism do you not understand to make you think this?

That IS the part I don't understand. I was not implying and particular answer when I asked it. I was sincere. As you are aware, there are libertarians on this site who use their valuation of liberty to justify not helping. As a result of these attitudes,, I admit to a certain amount of confusion about the matter.

You'll note, if you watch the video, that there were rescuers on the scene and helping as well. Rescuers that might not have been there under the policies of about half of the libertarians on this site because it is not possible to maintain a group of people trained to respond to such emergencies 24/7 without it being an all-inclusive proposition.

We recently saw a huge outcry against the response (or lack thereof) of a fire department in Tennessee, who stood by while a home burned.
http://www.alternet.org...

These are two sides of the same coin in the libertarian mindset on this site. The example in this post shows us a different, but equally acceptable libertarian response to an emergency, as I am given to understand it.

It seems like that viewpoint introduces an unnecessary level of mistrust and uncertainty in the community. I think most would much prefer that such protections extend to all, even if some small portion of it's beneficiaries have not contributed to its maintenance, and for them this is a matter of valuing the moral and ethical choice over the right to property (i.e. not being taxed for it). Libertarians, then by refusing to pay taxes for it become free riders in a system that is certain to be maintained by those who feel morally obligated to do so, whether the government is involved or not.

I think you have some confusion as to libertarianism and its application. It is true that a libertarian values his liberty, and this does mean that it is of higher value than that of the collective that he lives in. However, this doesn't transcend necessarily into the moral code of the individual, but rather his choice of governance. In fact, i would guess most libertarians would endorse the concept of charity, and it's benefits to both the individual and it's use in society versus that of government. In fact if you look at those countries that are most socialist, they contribute the least to charity. The blanket condemnation of the morality and ethics of the libertarian due to their value of individual liberities is unfounded.

I would argue that correlation does not mean causation. Religious people tend to be more capitalist oriented and right-wing. Atheists tend to be more socialist oriented and left-wing. Religous people donate more than atheist.

I think I read somewhere that atheist libertarians are actually less charitable then right-wing christians and socialists, but I have to find the source.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:18:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:15:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:11:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:59:21 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:52:38 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:19:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

A libertarian would most certainly lend a hand rather than expect to wait for Government to come and solve the problem.

Why do you think that a libertarian wouldn't help? What part of libertarianism do you not understand to make you think this?

That IS the part I don't understand. I was not implying and particular answer when I asked it. I was sincere. As you are aware, there are libertarians on this site who use their valuation of liberty to justify not helping. As a result of these attitudes,, I admit to a certain amount of confusion about the matter.

You'll note, if you watch the video, that there were rescuers on the scene and helping as well. Rescuers that might not have been there under the policies of about half of the libertarians on this site because it is not possible to maintain a group of people trained to respond to such emergencies 24/7 without it being an all-inclusive proposition.

We recently saw a huge outcry against the response (or lack thereof) of a fire department in Tennessee, who stood by while a home burned.
http://www.alternet.org...

These are two sides of the same coin in the libertarian mindset on this site. The example in this post shows us a different, but equally acceptable libertarian response to an emergency, as I am given to understand it.

It seems like that viewpoint introduces an unnecessary level of mistrust and uncertainty in the community. I think most would much prefer that such protections extend to all, even if some small portion of it's beneficiaries have not contributed to its maintenance, and for them this is a matter of valuing the moral and ethical choice over the right to property (i.e. not being taxed for it). Libertarians, then by refusing to pay taxes for it become free riders in a system that is certain to be maintained by those who feel morally obligated to do so, whether the government is involved or not.

I think you have some confusion as to libertarianism and its application. It is true that a libertarian values his liberty, and this does mean that it is of higher value than that of the collective that he lives in. However, this doesn't transcend necessarily into the moral code of the individual, but rather his choice of governance. In fact, i would guess most libertarians would endorse the concept of charity, and it's benefits to both the individual and it's use in society versus that of government. In fact if you look at those countries that are most socialist, they contribute the least to charity. The blanket condemnation of the morality and ethics of the libertarian due to their value of individual liberities is unfounded.

I would argue that correlation does not mean causation. Religious people tend to be more capitalist oriented and right-wing. Atheists tend to be more socialist oriented and left-wing. Religous people donate more than atheist.

I think I read somewhere that atheist libertarians are actually less charitable then right-wing christians and socialists, but I have to find the source.

It would be more helpful to see if atheist socialist are more or less charitable than atheist libertarians.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:35:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:18:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:15:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:11:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:59:21 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:52:38 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/13/2011 3:19:13 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/13/2011 1:38:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
My goodness! A rescue from which no one profited?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com...

If these folks had been libertarians, would they still have pitched in? The impulse to risk ones self (or even take any action at all, for that matter) with no gain forthcoming seems to be something libertarians on this site seem to have some trouble understanding.

A libertarian would most certainly lend a hand rather than expect to wait for Government to come and solve the problem.

Why do you think that a libertarian wouldn't help? What part of libertarianism do you not understand to make you think this?

That IS the part I don't understand. I was not implying and particular answer when I asked it. I was sincere. As you are aware, there are libertarians on this site who use their valuation of liberty to justify not helping. As a result of these attitudes,, I admit to a certain amount of confusion about the matter.

You'll note, if you watch the video, that there were rescuers on the scene and helping as well. Rescuers that might not have been there under the policies of about half of the libertarians on this site because it is not possible to maintain a group of people trained to respond to such emergencies 24/7 without it being an all-inclusive proposition.

We recently saw a huge outcry against the response (or lack thereof) of a fire department in Tennessee, who stood by while a home burned.
http://www.alternet.org...

These are two sides of the same coin in the libertarian mindset on this site. The example in this post shows us a different, but equally acceptable libertarian response to an emergency, as I am given to understand it.

It seems like that viewpoint introduces an unnecessary level of mistrust and uncertainty in the community. I think most would much prefer that such protections extend to all, even if some small portion of it's beneficiaries have not contributed to its maintenance, and for them this is a matter of valuing the moral and ethical choice over the right to property (i.e. not being taxed for it). Libertarians, then by refusing to pay taxes for it become free riders in a system that is certain to be maintained by those who feel morally obligated to do so, whether the government is involved or not.

I think you have some confusion as to libertarianism and its application. It is true that a libertarian values his liberty, and this does mean that it is of higher value than that of the collective that he lives in. However, this doesn't transcend necessarily into the moral code of the individual, but rather his choice of governance. In fact, i would guess most libertarians would endorse the concept of charity, and it's benefits to both the individual and it's use in society versus that of government. In fact if you look at those countries that are most socialist, they contribute the least to charity. The blanket condemnation of the morality and ethics of the libertarian due to their value of individual liberities is unfounded.

I would argue that correlation does not mean causation. Religious people tend to be more capitalist oriented and right-wing. Atheists tend to be more socialist oriented and left-wing. Religous people donate more than atheist.

I think I read somewhere that atheist libertarians are actually less charitable then right-wing christians and socialists, but I have to find the source.

It would be more helpful to see if atheist socialist are more or less charitable than atheist libertarians.

"Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to than to politics."

http://www.hoover.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:39:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 4:59:21 PM, innomen wrote:
I think you have some confusion as to libertarianism and its application.

Yes, I think I mentioned that part, already.

It is true that a libertarian values his liberty, and this does mean that it is of higher value than that of the collective that he lives in. However, this doesn't transcend necessarily into the moral code of the individual, but rather his choice of governance. In fact, i would guess most libertarians would endorse the concept of charity, and it's benefits to both the individual and it's use in society versus that of government. In fact if you look at those countries that are most socialist, they contribute the least to charity. The blanket condemnation of the morality and ethics of the libertarian due to their value of individual liberities is unfounded.

I am not condemning libertarian values and I'm certainly not trying to group all libertarians (or even the majority of them) under the type of behavior I am referencing. I am pointing out the ethical dilemmas that that I am seeing in the libertarian perspective, and the ways in which they might make the current situation worse, rather than better.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:56:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:01:27 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:52:36 PM, Just1Voice wrote:

A libertarian might be selfish yes, you have said nothing to suggest that Libertarians are naturally more selfish.

Nope, and I won't. I think they are about as selfish or not as anyone else is.


The alternative, that people should only receive the protections they pay for themselves, poses even greater potential problems.

Libertarians don't seek to ban charity, just theft.

There are a lot of liberals who consider taxes and charity to be roughly the same thing (especially since charity is tax deductible), and this may be where the greatest contention between the two groups lies. To a liberal, a person who doesn't want to pay taxes, can give that amount to charity and thereby avoid giving anything to the government, so they don't really understand how it is that Libertarians believe they are being stolen from.

To liberals, it looks like the libertarians are simply pissed of that they are given an amount of money that they are expected to give away each year, since they are not required to give it to the government, and this implies that what they really want is the right to be selfish.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:04:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:35:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
"Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to than to politics."

http://www.hoover.org...

These number can still be misleading. I what it shows to me, for instance, is that conservatives prefer to give more money to charity rather than government, and liberals prefer to give more of their income to government and so cannot afford to give as much to charity. The money Americans budget for Charity and Taxation is the pretty much same pool (i.e. the amount of taxes assessed by the government).

I would be very interested to find out, though, what the ratio of liberals to conservatives is for the amount given to charity that is beyond their tax assessment.