I often encounter this argument against me. Now, I know it's basically ad hom, but it's also very effective in debate. Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy because I've never been poor, so I don't know what it's like to be hungry. They're right, I don't know what it's like to be hungry. But that doesn't make what I'm saying right or wrong. I'm sure there are other people on this site who experience this argument, thoughts?
EDIT: My other favorite retort goes something to the effect of "you're just living off an inheritance, which is basically a form of welfare, therefore you are a hypocrite for criticizing the government welfare program."
Tell them they're making assumptions; they have no idea if you've actually ever been poor (even if you haven't), unless you told them you haven't.
Honestly it's not even an argument. Just because you may not have been poor doesn't mean you can't promote the freedom and prosperity of those who are.
Blueline976: Tell them they're making assumptions; they have no idea if you've actually ever been poor (even if you haven't), unless you told them you haven't. Honestly it's not even an argument. Just because you may not have been poor doesn't mean you can't promote the freedom and prosperity of those who are.
That's basically what I do say, but it's amazing how effective that little trick is.
Call it irrelevant and move on. They're just trying to goad you into deserting your original argument and pull you into a battle of emotions.
Who are you arguing against, poor, starving Africans? If not, then they're basically on the same level as yourself. Most "crazy leftists" that I've encountered have been fairly well off.
Angurse: Who are you arguing against, poor, starving Africans? If not, then they're basically on the same level as yourself. Most "crazy leftists" that I've encountered have been fairly well off.
Lol, you're right, they're probably just as comfortable as I am.
bloomj31:Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy
What policy are you criticizing? The welfare state? If so, then I would have to assume you are just lacking in Austrian economics education. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not enrich the poor, it impoverishes the rich. If the government were not taking from the rich, the rich would employ the poor with that money resulting in wealth producing activities instead of wealth destruction activities. Everyone would be enriched.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: bloomj31:Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy What policy are you criticizing? The welfare state? If so, then I would have to assume you are just lacking in Austrian economics education. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not enrich the poor, it impoverishes the rich. If the government were not taking from the rich, the rich would employ the poor with that money resulting in wealth producing activities instead of wealth destruction activities. Everyone would be enriched.
I may be lacking in Austrian economics education, I tend to think these people are set in their ways. I could post articles from this website all day, they won't read them. Or they'll attack the philosophical premises underlying them. Block says that people have a hard time understanding implicit aid. People, for whatever reason, understand explicit aid. So they see government handouts as being the best way to help the poor. They're explicit. What they don't understand is what you just said, which is that by allowing the rich to keep their money, they can then employ people. But that's implicit aid, a concept they're not comfortable with.
bloomj31:Lol, you're right, they're probably just as comfortable as I am.
Exactly, as soon as they stoop to such an argument, they must abandon their policy as they "don't know what its like."
Even the rich will often skip a meal to get some work done. Everyone has been hungry at some point. I get hungry several times a day, personally. It is no great leap of the imagination to think, "Gee, perhaps being hungry all the time is not fun." To say that one cannot understand because one is not in that situation isn't even an argument. It is a dodge. The logic breaks down immediately, because it implies that one person cannot have understanding of any other person's experience, and therefore the person who accuses someone of "not knowing what it is like" can be accused of the same as it concerns the one they accuse. How can they know whether or not the accused understands if they have never been the accused? The accused may have some experience, or spiritual insight, or may have found a book in a cave describing the human experience of poverty in detail. It is an argument backed by no logic. Anyone can imagine what something is like, especially given that we all need certain things, and specifically work toward taking care of those needs. If we had no idea what it was like, we might not work as hard, and would soon find out.
bloomj31: Spideynw: bloomj31:Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy What policy are you criticizing? The welfare state? If so, then I would have to assume you are just lacking in Austrian economics education. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not enrich the poor, it impoverishes the rich. If the government were not taking from the rich, the rich would employ the poor with that money resulting in wealth producing activities instead of wealth destruction activities. Everyone would be enriched. I may be lacking in Austrian economics education, I tend to think these people are set in their ways. I could post articles from this website all day, they won't read them. Or they'll attack the philosophical premises underlying them. Block says that people have a hard time understanding implicit aid. People, for whatever reason, understand explicit aid. So they see government handouts as being the best way to help the poor. They're explicit. What they don't understand is what you just said, which is that by allowing the rich to keep their money, they can then employ people. But that's implicit aid, a concept they're not comfortable with.
This is very true, people are very set in their ways. Some of them are almost impossible to debate, yet alone convert!
I've been homeless and virtually broke on the streets of socialist London. Not being a citizen I wasn't entitled to a welfare handout. Did I helplessly waste away on the side of the road? No. I had a job and a place to stay within a week. And this was in late 2008 when the markets had tanked and the recession hit.
So being poor, homeless and unemployed at one point I guess I can say I have the "right" to tell those folks they're wrong.
Just fabricate shit. They have no means of verifying it. When someone is so stupid as to rely on ad homines attacks, there's no reason not to exploit their ignorance.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
bloomj31:I could post articles from this website all day, they won't read them.
Ah. Well then yeah, if you are running across people like that, then yeah, it's hopeless.
Jon Irenicus: Just fabricate shit. They have no means of verifying it. When someone is so stupid as to rely on ad homines attacks, there's no reason not to exploit their ignorance.
Agreed.
Alternately, of course, you could point out to them that they are attacking the source rather than the argument, and this is the first sign of a terrible debater.
This is a good point.
Valject: Alternately, of course, you could point out to them that they are attacking the source rather than the argument, and this is the first sign of a terrible debater.
This seems to escape them.
Hard Rain: I've been homeless and virtually broke on the streets of socialist London. Not being a citizen I wasn't entitled to a welfare handout. Did I helplessly waste away on the side of the road? No. I had a job and a place to stay within a week. And this was in late 2008 when the markets had tanked and the recession hit. So being poor, homeless and unemployed at one point I guess I can say I have the "right" to tell those folks they're wrong.
I respect you for this.
It is a matter of how you define "poor". I think all of us are dirt poor compared to Bill Gates or Johnny Depp but most of us are filthy rich when compared to a street urchin in Bucharest. For example I may declare myself poor compared to Mr Gates and ask for his wealth to be "redistributed more equally" in the same way as the street urchin would ask my wealth to be "redistributed more equally".
Then there's another point: under the influence of St Carlo Borromeo Church institutions around here used to divide poor in two categories. The "shameful poor" and the "shameless poor". The former were just people down on their luck who often were too ashamed (hence the name) to ask for help. The latter where those who usually flocked around aristocratic palaces and religious institutions waiting for handouts and clamoring for more and had no shame (hence the name, again) of their condition. While the first could be expected to redeem themselves with a little help (for example teaching their children a profession or helping them find an honest job), the latter were considered a lost cause and could be done for them was giving them bread (to prevent them from rioting) and pray for their souls.
Right now we have plenty of "shameless poor" clamoring for handouts without giving as much as hint of wanting to better themselves. These "poor" are not starving on the streets, they've just come to expect government dole, and more of it with each passing day, be it free schooling, zero-interest loans, free healthcare. Like St Carlo Borromeo we should ask ourselves if it's really worth keep on helping these people who show absolutely no intention of changing their evil ways.
Tell them that they've never been poor either (assuming that they haven't) so therefore they aren't allowed to have any opinion on it. Furthermore you (I assume) believe that the end of these welfare programs will lead to a better standard of life for these people, so therefore it is they who are unkind.
They've never been soldiers, politicians, doctors, professors policemen, foreigners, or a animals so therefore they are not allowed to have opinions upon any of these things, and only those who have been a soldier, politician, teacher, policeman, doctor, foreign, or an animal can have an opinion on any of these. Indeed Obama cannot touch the welfare system, he cannot command any of the troops in the entirety of the United States, he cannot support medical reform, he cannot support education reform, he cannot pass law enforcement standards, he cannot have a foreign policy, and he cannot do anything about the environment because he has never been any of these things. The only thing that president Obama can do under the criteria set by those whom you are debating, is to be a politician, and not do anything that effects anyone.
Also, inheritance is a voluntary transfer of property, not a forced transfer of property. You do not oppose voluntary welfare, you encourage it.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Tell them that they've never been poor either (assuming that they haven't) so therefore they aren't allowed to have any opinion on it. Furthermore you (I assume) believe that the end of these welfare programs will lead to a better standard of life for these people, so therefore it is they who are unkind. They've never been soldiers, politicians, doctors, professors policemen, foreigners, or a animals so therefore they are not allowed to have opinions upon any of these things, and only those who have been a soldier, politician, teacher, policeman, doctor, foreign, or an animal can have an opinion on any of these. Indeed Obama cannot touch the welfare system, he cannot command any of the troops in the entirety of the United States, he cannot support medical reform, he cannot support education reform, he cannot pass law enforcement standards, he cannot have a foreign policy, and he cannot do anything about the environment because he has never been any of these things. The only thing that president Obama can do under the criteria set by those whom you are debating, is to be a politician, and not do anything that effects anyone. Also, inheritance is a voluntary transfer of property, not a forced transfer of property. You do not oppose voluntary welfare, you encourage it.
A very good post. Thank you for this.
Welcome to Germany America, my friend. Where being against the welfare state makes you a cruel human being (forget the fact that I have volunteered hundreds of hours of my time though).
However, it's funny here in America where certain people want welfare cut but nothing else. People generally don't realize how much monetary capital our military consumes. If you are against the warfare state in America, you're anti-American and you want to "gut" the military.
But then again, the poulace here doesn't care how many young Americans come back in body bags or maimed. Forget the fact that so many foreign lives have also been claimed because of the Military Industrial Complex.
EDIT: Directed at Kakugo
Maybe I can't define myself as being poor but when I where younger and lived with my mother we probably had less then 50$ to spend after paying rent and bills each month. I don't know if that is much money in America but in Sweden it's not enough to even buy food for a week so we constantly had to rely on family and friends to survive. Remember this is in Sweden, which at the time had the highest taxes in the world but I'm pretty sure we would have been much better of if they didn't take ~60% of my mothers salary every month because you're getting almost nothing back of that money.
To the OP:
Don't let them claim the moral high ground. Point out the gun.
loolY:Remember this is in Sweden, which at the time had the highest taxes in the world but I'm pretty sure we would have been much better of if they didn't take ~60% of my mothers salary every month because you're getting almost nothing back of that money.
What?! You are telling me you didn't get a Lamborghini and a fleet of personal courtesans?! You must be a bourgois shill.
bloomj31: Hard Rain: I've been homeless and virtually broke on the streets of socialist London. Not being a citizen I wasn't entitled to a welfare handout. Did I helplessly waste away on the side of the road? No. I had a job and a place to stay within a week. And this was in late 2008 when the markets had tanked and the recession hit. So being poor, homeless and unemployed at one point I guess I can say I have the "right" to tell those folks they're wrong. I respect you for this.
LOL. Bucking up and finding a job when you're homeless and hungry is hardly worthy of respect. I guess it's like Kakugo noted, the difference between the shameless poor and the shameful poor.
Tom Woods has a great lecture on the failures of jobs and welfare programs: Wealth Redistribution, Domestic and International
The Late Andrew Ryan:Tell them that they've never been poor either (assuming that they haven't) so therefore they aren't allowed to have any opinion on it. Furthermore you (I assume) believe that the end of these welfare programs will lead to a better standard of life for these people, so therefore it is they who are unkind.
They've also never been rich, so they can't say things like "the rich won't miss the money."
The Late Andrew Ryan:They've never been soldiers, politicians, doctors, professors policemen, foreigners, or a animals so therefore they are not allowed to have opinions upon any of these things, and only those who have been a soldier, politician, teacher, policeman, doctor, foreign, or an animal can have an opinion on any of these.
Actually, I've seen big government types say things like this...
LvMIenthusiast: However, it's funny here in America where certain people want welfare cut but nothing else. People generally don't realize how much monetary capital our military consumes. If you are against the warfare state in America, you're anti-American and you want to "gut" the military.
Agreed. I, of course, oppose the welfare state, but can hardly say that it's a priority in my view. (First thing I'd fix is education, it makes everything else possible to fix.) If I ran for office, I would not highlight welfare. It's miniscule compared to what we transfer to corporations. In fact, it's not really all that terrible to tax the ultra rich, considering that almost no people in that category earn their money anyway. (I'm an anarchist, I'm just saying it's not really theft to take back what you gave to the billionaire.)
JAlanKatz: In fact, it's not really all that terrible to tax the ultra rich, considering that almost no people in that category earn their money anyway. (I'm an anarchist, I'm just saying it's not really theft to take back what you gave to the billionaire.)
In fact, it's not really all that terrible to tax the ultra rich, considering that almost no people in that category earn their money anyway. (I'm an anarchist, I'm just saying it's not really theft to take back what you gave to the billionaire.)
I'm always a little concerned when libertarians indiscriminately scold rich people. Let's have a look at the Forbes list of billionaires. How did people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or Ingvar Kamprad not earn their money?
Sphairon:I'm always a little concerned when libertarians indiscriminately scold rich people. Let's have a look at the Forbes list of billionaires. How did people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or Ingvar Kamprad not earn their money?
Warren Buffett, really? You have to ask if Warrenn Buffett made money politically? Since you asked, though, let's look at IP, Government Employee's Insurance Company, investing in gold while having the ear of the president vis a vis bailouts, and so on. Let's look at exactly how his insurance companies benefitted from bailouts and monetary policy. Bill Gates - I'd suggest he'd make quite a bit less without IP laws, am I wrong?
Sure, let's go down that list. Let's see how many benefit from eminent domain, how many gained from bailouts and risk-taking behavior that they would not have taken without government protection, and so on.
JAlanKatz: Sphairon:I'm always a little concerned when libertarians indiscriminately scold rich people. Let's have a look at the Forbes list of billionaires. How did people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or Ingvar Kamprad not earn their money? Warren Buffett, really? You have to ask if Warrenn Buffett made money politically? Since you asked, though, let's look at IP, Government Employee's Insurance Company, investing in gold while having the ear of the president vis a vis bailouts, and so on. Let's look at exactly how his insurance companies benefitted from bailouts and monetary policy. Bill Gates - I'd suggest he'd make quite a bit less without IP laws, am I wrong? Sure, let's go down that list. Let's see how many benefit from eminent domain, how many gained from bailouts and risk-taking behavior that they would not have taken without government protection, and so on.
Do mom and pop shops not benefit from public side walks, public roads, street lighting, local police, regulated utility prices, zoning laws, etc?
I understand the point you are making, but it is difficult to run a businesses without necessarily engaging the state.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg:Do mom and pop shops not benefit from public side walks, public roads, street lighting, local police, regulated utility prices, zoning laws, etc?
Yes, they benefit, but I'm not particularly convinced that these are things they wouldn't have in a free market. I don't know that road owners would charge businesses for frontage, for instance. I do know that bailouts wouldn't exist. But, moving further, these things are available to anyone who makes use of them. Bailouts and government protection - not to mention government contracts, having friends at the Defense Department, etc. are not. Mom and pop stores don't have their friends go to war so that they can buy things from the mom and pop store. But, moving on:
Daniel Muffinburg: I understand the point you are making, but it is difficult to run a businesses without necessarily engaging the state.
Granting this, why would I particularly respect the current distribution of capital and income? If the current distribution rests on force, what's wrong with changing it?
JAlanKatz: Daniel Muffinburg: I understand the point you are making, but it is difficult to run a businesses without necessarily engaging the state. Granting this, why would I particularly respect the current distribution of capital and income? If the current distribution rests on force, what's wrong with changing it?
**shrugs**
JAlanKatz:Granting this, why would I particularly respect the current distribution of capital and income? If the current distribution rests on force, what's wrong with changing it?
There could be civil war.
scineram:There could be civil war.
War is never civil.
JAlanKatz: Granting this, why would I particularly respect the current distribution of capital and income? If the current distribution rests on force, what's wrong with changing it?
You don't have to respect anything. I do respect the current distribution and I will vote to not have it changed. You can do whatever pleases you.
bloomj31: I often encounter this argument against me. Now, I know it's basically ad hom, but it's also very effective in debate. Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy because I've never been poor, so I don't know what it's like to be hungry. They're right, I don't know what it's like to be hungry. But that doesn't make what I'm saying right or wrong. I'm sure there are other people on this site who experience this argument, thoughts? EDIT: My other favorite retort goes something to the effect of "you're just living off an inheritance, which is basically a form of welfare, therefore you are a hypocrite for criticizing the government welfare program."
This tactic is a lot more subtle than I think you imagine it to be.
What they are implying through this is that your policies are not sympathetic to the hungry. Sadly a few people's rhetoric lends towards the detachment towards less fortunate people's problems. The point you need to make is that what you advocate is intended to eliminate involuntary poverty.
If you want to be a dick for fun, you can reply with something like "because my parents were functioning human beings". To me this is similar to pretending to be racist when accused of being racist. It is kind of hilarious.
Also make sure to point out the as hom. It is hilariously transparent.
bloomj31:You don't have to respect anything. I do respect the current distribution and I will vote to not have it changed. You can do whatever pleases you.
I don't think it's a stretch to think that discussion takes place on a discussion board. I'm asking a question about libertarianism. In general, most libertarians seem pretty attached to the position I'm asking about - yet the only defenses of it that have been forthcoming have been a shrug and a tautology. Does anyone have a defense of what is usually seen as the default libertarian position in our society? Maybe you do - since you've at least identified that you believe the current distribution to be correct. Why do you respect it?
Maybe I can clarify the question. Suppose a pickpocket has just taken Bob's wallet. I think just about all of us here would agree, regardless of means, that the just response would be, in some way, that Bob should get his wallet back. No one here, I think, would say "we have to respect property rights, including the property rights of the pickpocket, so we can't just go seizing wallets from pickpockets." Correct me if I've gone wrong so far. What we have today, of course, is more complicated, and is ongoing, rather than a one-time event, but we'd expect most of the same principles to apply. Yet it seems that when the government steals and redistributes to crony capitalists, many of us hold that we have to respect property rights going forward, and can't do much about the situation. This equates to refusing to return the wallet.
We have a society where half of our income is taken, and most of it goes to a few firms designing weapons. We have a multitude of laws funnelling money from our hands into that of corporations in a variety of ways - tariffs, direct transfers, IP, barriers to entry, the list goes on and on. We have drug laws enriching pharm companies. We libertarians oppose all this, and we want people to listen to us, to take us seriously, and to fix these problems. I don't think it's wrong to ask what we think ought to be done, and I don't see defending the rights of the people who have been enriched by these laws to keep their ill-gotten gains as a good answer. Maybe it is - if it is, someone should have a defense of the current structure of capital ownership and property distribution.
Alan, I won't pretend to be smart enough or knowledgeable enough to really answer this issue. But I will ask another question that immediately occurs to me:
How do you know who is holding a "stolen wallet" and who's really earned most of their money? I mean even if someone might benefit by a few rules or regulations here or there, what if, for the most part, they've competed in the market and done quite well? How is anyone going to be smart enough to sift through all these rich people and say "you earned it but you didn't?"
I'm sure some cases are pretty obvious, but there's probably a lot of gray area here. Personally, I'd rather not open that can of worms. If that means some people don't get their wallets back, so be it.
Side note: I have money, what if you found out that somewhere in my family's history, we benefited from government assistance of even the smallest kind? Would you try to take my money from me?