This is an argument that I was given way back (years) ago by someone basically trying to justify government social welfare programs such as food stamps, welfare, access to basic medical care, and so on. At the time I agreed with the statement (doh!), but now I don't.
I have my own (long, verbose) responses of course but I'm having trouble figuring out how to respond to such a silly statement in a succinct, accurate way that is useful in casual conversation to shoot the idiocy down.
Anyone have any suggestions for brief retorts that would really knock this idea out?
Don't rebuke him. Threaten suicide to extort money from him.
Ansury:Anyone have any suggestions for brief retorts that would really knock this idea out?
I would say, "then help me with your money, and leave mine alone."
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Marko:Don't rebuke him. Threaten suicide to extort money from him.
27/10
Say something along the lines of... "I agree, I wouldn't want people starving in the streets either. So that is why I will gladly VOLUNTARILY donate to places which help sick and disabled. Wouldn't you agree that a lot of people truly care about others? We have thousands of non profits which do exactly that at present... Imagine how many more we would have if everyone got a 200% raise. Plus, when government helps people, it's with a check in the mail, it lacks the personal contact needed to really get someone back on their feet/feeling good. When individuals help people, their is a relationship which is formed that is really beneficial to both."
Hope that helps! :) Always remember- honey attracts more flies than vinegar. Be friendly, positive and agreeable-- no one wants to be proven wrong. Persuade, don't argue.
Ansury: This is an argument that I was given way back (years) ago by someone basically trying to justify government social welfare programs such as food stamps, welfare, access to basic medical care, and so on. At the time I agreed with the statement (doh!), but now I don't. I have my own (long, verbose) responses of course but I'm having trouble figuring out how to respond to such a silly statement in a succinct, accurate way that is useful in casual conversation to shoot the idiocy down. Anyone have any suggestions for brief retorts that would really knock this idea out?
Start by accepting your friend's premise for the sake of argument (it is based on a correct moral intuition), then note that one moral duty (save lives) does not abrogate other moral duties (don't steal). People, in our morally relativistic modern world, often have difficulty with this because they make the knee-jerk assumption that you're just being a hardline moral absolutist. Moral absolutism is fairly easy to debunk with moral dilemmas... if you had to rape someone to save the lives of 100 people, would you? Etc. Most such moral dilemmas are absurd but the principle they highlight is valid... some moral duties take priority over others, that is, some "oughts" are more important than other "oughts". I would steal to feed my children, for example.
But when it comes to the law, things are different. We are no longer talking about my ranking of moral oughts. We are talking about a conflict between my actions and the property rights of another person. I value my children's lives infinitely more than I value my self-perception as a non-thief. I will steal to feed them if I have no other choice. But the victim of my theft has an absolutely valid property claim against me, no matter the nobility of my motives for stealing. In other words, law deals with real conflicts (property conflicts) between people. Appeals to my private moral ranking of stealing from the individual that I stole from versus the other courses of action available to me, is irrelevant to settling the dispute between me and my victim.
The only difference between direct plunder and socialism is that we have proxies do the stealing for us and we enjoy the benefits of absolution via group psychology - an individual behaving immorally in a group of individuals behaving likewise never feels as much guilt or moral restraint as he would acting alone. When you really think about it, it's actually pretty sickening just how evil socialism really is. When you look at the outworking of modern, democratic socialism - the half portion of human productivity plundered and squandered by the organized parasites of society - the tragedy is immeasurable. Surely, many more people have died from socialism than from all the wars and murders in history added together.
Read Bastiat to get the final word on socialism... Bastiat is an OG.
Clayton -
ask him how it feels to be your prisoner.
It's a complex issue. If libertarian rights theory is correct, then positive rights can only exist at the expense of negative rights. And if negative rights are true, there cannot be a right (i.e. a legitimately enforceable claim) to welfare, medical care, etc. (On this see "Why Libertarians Believe There Is Only One Right".)
But if we want to say that things like welfare are important, it seems to me there should be an unenforceable moral claim to welfare. (And we have to remember that there's no necessary correlation between enforceability and moral seriousness; that is, there's no necessary reason why enforceable moral claims are more important than unenforceable ones).
Also make the consequentialist argument: the market can provide social welfare programs more efficiently than can government.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Don't bother trying to convince him he's devilish, or that you're angelic. Liberalism needs to move beyond the holy halo tug-of-war.
Accept the premise that avoiding widespread early death is truly his objective. Then just explain to him how economics demonstrates that interventionism runs counter to that objective.
I like the positive/negative rights angle. I think that's a pretty strong point that shouldn't be hard to prove. But I think what would happen is that it'd devolve into one of the "wealth disparity" discussions where they'd try to argue that sacrificing some negative rights is okay in "some cases" if it helps people more than it hurts the others. i.e. Taking away 50% of someone's million dollar income is okay because they'll still have "a lot left", and the stolen money would help people living on the street or whatever. In other words I think they'll brush off such a logical/philosophical argument as an unpractical academic exercise.
Using the "government sucks at helping people" argument is a good point too but it's a tough one to finish convincingly in a short conversation because it broadens the topic so much. There's such a strong tide of misinformation and anti free market propaganda out there, people can't easily comprehend that a free society will be a more prosperous and wealthy society.
There may not be any counter arguments with a high shock value. That's okay, just not as fun as seeing someone's reaction when you accuse them of being wasteful because they support recycling, telling them Lincoln was a terrible president or that government is less accountable than a privately owned company, and so on.
Although, maybe a statement like "welfare programs hurt the poor", followed by some good backing logic would be effective... but is the evidence strong enough?
I think the same people have the same belief in making Euthanasia legal.
My slightly witty response is "I'm going to die eventually whether you want me to or not."