We all know that most of our peers do not agree with our political ideals. In my experience, their views are usually based on compassion, ultimately. They see our philosophy as leaving out the poor. They think that the poor would starve without the government, etc. We've all heard the claims.
Any argument I offer against positive rights is usually met with the “what about the poor” response. Arguments that government intervention works against the poor usually meets with incredulity. They equate “the left” with compassion and the free-market with coldness.
It is true that we hear more rhetoric on the poverty issue from the left. Most of us would agree, however, that freedom and private property are the friends of the poor. My concern is that we libertarians don’t stress this issue enough, and it is precisely the one that undermines our position with most people (in my experience). The concerns we voice usually relate to rights infringements and oppression, or government inefficiency. I think that it would be most helpful to take aim at the poverty/compassion issue.
So, I want to look deeper into this. Does anyone know of any good literature on this? I did take a look at Hazlitt’s “The Conquest of Poverty” and it is great (despite that the stats are a little dated).
You'd have to ask - why are the poor, poor? Government regulation of such things as minimum wage laws and unions creates unemployment. Taxes also dissuade employment creation.
I haven't read MvWS, but it probably has what you're looking for:
http://mises.org/books/manwelfarestate.pdf
Rothbard's "For a new Liberty"
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
Which I also have not read probably is what you're looking as well.
yeah, Rothbards "For a New Liberty:..." provides statistics showing how the State's intervention and thus the so called "Welfare State" has cause way more harm than good.
Ask them if instead of spending money on government programs to help the poor if the poor shouldn't have the choice of simply taking it as money.
If they say no denounce them for paternalism and using power to control the poor's lives.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Ask them if instead of spending money on government programs to help the poor if the poor shouldn't have the choice of simply taking it as money. If they say no denounce them for paternalism and using power to control the poor's lives.
That's a good one. I used that one on somebody the other day actually. I said to them why don't we just give the poor the money ourselves. We could even call it a charity, plenty of those around. It baffled the other individual. They moved onto another topic. That usually means now they have to think about it more and you shattered their static perspective, which is a good thing.
Ask them what they do for the poor.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Ask them what they do for the poor.
Bring up government legislation, which puts a gun at your head, then pat themselves on the back saying what good people they are, of course. That's real compassion and making a difference
So compassionate they give other people's money.
I don't understand how people can be so dense! Government was never invented to feed the poor. It was created to feed itself. Until you understand that, you are not going to understand how anarchy works.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
It goes to show how great the left is at propaganda. There is no way someone could rationaly confuse leftist thought with genuine compassion, yet somehow leftist propaganda has worked well to perpetuate that myth. The propaganda they have is probably among the best and most effective ever established.
Watch or listen to this
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=1192
It is the antidote for bleeding heart leftism.
Sphairon:
Wait, does this person love or hate strangers?
Schools are labour camps.
People on the left tend to see the economy as a static, zero-sum game, where the rich "hoard" the wealth and the poor have to sell their labor to them to get a small slice of it back. But the laborers produce more wealth than they are paid, so the evil capitalists just get richer and richer! Oh, the humanity!
Of course, there are have been a great number of responses to these fallacious arguments, especially by Austrians. I've compiled some of them here:
http://corktageous.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-i-am-not-mutualist.html
Long story short: their arguments don't hold water.
mitcjm:I think that it would be most helpful to take aim at the poverty/compassion issue.
I wholeheartedly agree. It is this precise issue, which ultimately convinced me that my formerly held leftist views were wrong and that a free-market capitalist society is superior to a society based on a socialist system. Once I realized that the "well-intentioned" welfare-state policies in fact had destructive consequences, I changed my views.
Indeed.
2Pac: "Memories of a past time/givin up cash/to the leaders/knowing damn well they ain't gon feed us"
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Given that so many people obviously care for the poor (for a given definition of "poor"), surely removing regulation and taxation would free them up so they can decide directly how to help out. Is that not the purest form of democracy - letting the individual decide how to allocate welfare for the poor?
Of course this approach often exposes the hypocrisy of those who bring up the "poor" as an argument against free markets.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
I think a vote for leftism, is admitting you are incapable or unwilling of solving a problem and you want to pass the buck to someone else, while still seeming "smart, edgy, and making a difference" to your peers and the person you passed the buck to as an evil son of a bitch. It really is a brilliant little way to go about life.
Not specifically about poverty, but the compassion from the dedication of Walter Block's new book really moved me:
This book is dedicated to my fellow Americans, some 40,000 of them per year who have died needlessly in traffic fatalities. It is my sincere hope and expectation that under a system of private roads and highways in the future, that this number may be radically reduced.
This is the compassion I feel when I passionately argue for anarcho-capitalism. I feel it when I think about the economy, and I feel it when I think about other issues, like the people dying from our socialized road system, the children whose brains are being killed by our socialized education system, the families that are being torn apart by our insane legal system, and the people dying from our socialized, regulated health care system.
I agree, we shouldn't have to convince people that freedom is a good thing on grounds of compassion. However, I think that we have to, as many people don't value freedom as much as they value something like "providing for the poor." That's why the force argument falls on deaf ears - they think that force is justified to provide welfare or whatever.
But if we can show that our freedom is the best way to bring about that which they value (provision for the poor) then we will at least be speaking the same language. Obviously, this is where economics comes in. Robert LeFevre's lecture on poverty in the media section presents a pretty good case.
I also like this response: You abhor the free-market because poor people won't be provided for. This proposition assumes that people are self-interested, do not readily share, etc. Yet, your solution is to allow certain people (these very same self-interested, selfish people) to employ coercive power to remedy this lack of humanity that private ordering exhibits. Do people suddenly become kind and generous once they obtain such power? You trust peolpe to use coercive power to help the poor yet distrust them to voluntarily help the poor?
Sort of a public choice type argument, I guess.
Similar to what Giles said, What do they do to help the poor?
Our desires don't change just cause a State is gone. Get rid of the middle man, the State, but your desire to help the poor will still exist. It's not difficult, but they aren't going to get it right away. Also they are in their own "bubble" of information so they will argue their way back into their mindset. I still find this whole argument about freedom to be similar to trying to convince a slave on a plantation in the 1800's, after abolition, that they are free. Imagine the older slaves, the ones that grew up on the plantation and that's all they knew for over 40 years of their life - slavery on the plantation. Would they really know what to do and where to begin? Sure they leave their plow and hoe behind, walk off the plantation, but then what? I would love to find books about this. Books with clear insight into a slave after they walked off the plantation and how they handled and came to realize what freedom meant. They still had winds in their face for the south didn't want to give up on their slaves just yet - Martin Luther King and all came along almost 100 years later to shake even more shackles from their legs. People get into a rut and lose historical focus. They just think this is reality and this is the way life is. It's not, it's just they gave up and don't realize what freedom really is about. It's like convincing a slave what it means to be free. I'm sure it was and we know it still is - mind boggling.
I know this was a movie and all, but I remember a scene in the most recent movie called Alamo. Two slaves were digging a well for those in the Alamo cause it became too dangerous to go get water out of the nearby stream anymore. So their master showed them where to dig a hole within the fort walls. This was the paraphrased conversation:
"Hey the master said if the Mexicans come into the Alamo he'll give me a gun." younger slave
"What?" older slave
"Yeah, he'll give me a gun to help fight them off." younger slave
"Listen to me. It's enough that we have to dig them a hole to find more water for them. It's enough that we prepare their food and clean up their shit and piss. But don't you ever start dying for them too!"
- this culture has a lot to learn still
limitgov:"This is the compassion I feel when I passionately argue for anarcho-capitalism." You shouldn't have to convince people that freedom is a good thing because of how compassionate it is. And what a nice well meaning person you are.
You're right; I shouldn't have to. But this doesn't change the fact that this is how I feel, and why I do what I do.
wilderness: I still find this whole argument about freedom to be similar to trying to convince a slave on a plantation in the 1800's, after abolition, that they are free. Imagine the older slaves, the ones that grew up on the plantation and that's all they knew for over 40 years of their life - slavery on the plantation.
I still find this whole argument about freedom to be similar to trying to convince a slave on a plantation in the 1800's, after abolition, that they are free. Imagine the older slaves, the ones that grew up on the plantation and that's all they knew for over 40 years of their life - slavery on the plantation.
A bit OT, but in the case of my own family, after 1865 most of our former slaves simply continued to live on the property, basically reverting to servants. Not ideal, but it was all they had known and many were too old to live on their own.
They still had winds in their face for the south didn't want to give up on their slaves just yet - Martin Luther King and all came along almost 100 years later to shake even more shackles from their legs.
And put those shackles on businesses instead, going from segregation to forced integration/racial quotas. I have never understood why some libertarians like MLK, when he was just the Jesse Jackson of his day. In fact, that reminds me. Giles we need to add some MLK revisionist works to the History Reading list.
sicsempertyrannis:And put those shackles on businesses instead, going from segregation to forced integration/racial quotas. I have never understood why some libertarians like MLK, when he was just the Jesse Jackson of his day. In fact, that reminds me. Giles we need to add some MLK revisionist works to the History Reading list.
Here, I have a few sources for consideration.
Murray Newton Rothbard:In my view, by the way, the truly great leader of black Americans in the twentieth century was not the socialistic and compulsory integrationists like Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall, but the brilliant and charismatic Malcolm X, who would have taken blacks down a very different path. Malcolm always stressed, not only black separation, but also the importance of such "middle-class" values as hard work, temperance, and thrift. In the short time that he had after leaving the Black Muslims and before he was gunned down by a still unexplained conspiracy (not by a lone nut), Malcolm was in the process of beginning to hammer out a coherent vision and strategy for blacks in America. It's too bad that he was never given the chance. In general, the instinct of the black masses was always toward separatism; the siren-song of compulsory integration was sold to them by an alliance of white leftists and a small minority of very light-skinned "black" leaders, the very ones to benefit – as contrasted to the black masses – by anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action.
In general, the instinct of the black masses was always toward separatism; the siren-song of compulsory integration was sold to them by an alliance of white leftists and a small minority of very light-skinned "black" leaders, the very ones to benefit – as contrasted to the black masses – by anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action.
Malcolm X: Originally, they weren't even in the march. You was [sic ] talking this march talk on Hastings Street -- Is Hastings Street still here? -- on Hasting Street. You was talking the march talk on Lenox Avenue, and out on -- What you call it? -- Fillmore Street, and Central Avenue, and 32nd Street and 63rd Street. That's where the march talk was being talked. But the white man put the Big Six [at the] head of it; made them the march. They became the march. They took it over. And the first move they made after they took it over, they invited Walter Reuther, a white man; they invited a priest, a rabbi, and an old white preacher. Yes, an old white preacher. The same white element that put Kennedy in power -- labor, the Catholics, the Jews, and liberal Protestants; [the] same clique that put Kennedy in power, joined the march on Washington. It's just like when you've got some coffee that's too black, which means it's too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won't even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it'll put you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn't integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit -- I saw it on television -- with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don't like what I'm saying, but I'm going to tell you anyway. 'Cause I can prove what I'm saying. If you think I'm telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they'll deny it over a microphone. No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn't let him talk, 'cause they couldn't make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn't let Baldwin get up there, 'cause they know Baldwin's liable to say anything. They controlled it so tight -- they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make; and then told them to get out town by sundown. And everyone of those Toms was out of town by sundown. Now I know you don't like my saying this. But I can back it up. It was a circus, a performance that beat anything Hollywood could ever do, the performance of the year. Reuther and those other three devils should get a Academy Award for the best actors 'cause they acted like they really loved Negroes and fooled a whole lot of Negroes. And the six Negro leaders should get an award too, for the best supporting cast.
Originally, they weren't even in the march. You was [sic ] talking this march talk on Hastings Street -- Is Hastings Street still here? -- on Hasting Street. You was talking the march talk on Lenox Avenue, and out on -- What you call it? -- Fillmore Street, and Central Avenue, and 32nd Street and 63rd Street. That's where the march talk was being talked. But the white man put the Big Six [at the] head of it; made them the march. They became the march. They took it over. And the first move they made after they took it over, they invited Walter Reuther, a white man; they invited a priest, a rabbi, and an old white preacher. Yes, an old white preacher. The same white element that put Kennedy in power -- labor, the Catholics, the Jews, and liberal Protestants; [the] same clique that put Kennedy in power, joined the march on Washington.
It's just like when you've got some coffee that's too black, which means it's too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won't even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it'll put you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn't integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit -- I saw it on television -- with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don't like what I'm saying, but I'm going to tell you anyway. 'Cause I can prove what I'm saying. If you think I'm telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they'll deny it over a microphone.
No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn't let him talk, 'cause they couldn't make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn't let Baldwin get up there, 'cause they know Baldwin's liable to say anything. They controlled it so tight -- they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make; and then told them to get out town by sundown. And everyone of those Toms was out of town by sundown. Now I know you don't like my saying this. But I can back it up. It was a circus, a performance that beat anything Hollywood could ever do, the performance of the year. Reuther and those other three devils should get a Academy Award for the best actors 'cause they acted like they really loved Negroes and fooled a whole lot of Negroes. And the six Negro leaders should get an award too, for the best supporting cast.
Message to the Grassroots, March 10, 1963
mitcjm:But if we can show that our freedom is the best way to bring about that which they value (provision for the poor) then we will at least be speaking the same language.
I think these arguments are bound to fail for the majority of people. It would be far better to try to change people's attitudes than their beleifs. Lefties don't really care about helping poor people. They're motivated by feeling better about themselves (and material benefits in some cases) no matter what the consequenses of their actions are.As Giles pointed out, they only want to spend other people's money to help the poor, not their own. Obviously they don't care that much about what they claim to care about, as is demonstrated by this very fact.
Look at it from their perspective. You believe what you're doing is the right thing. This makes you feel good. And it doesn't cost you a thing. Some guy is trying to persuade you that what you're doing is not only unhelpful but actually really evil. And if he is successful, you won't feel too good about yourself. Are you gonna give him the time of day? Are you gonna sit down and hear him out? Of course not. While most of the people on this forum actually care about truth, most people in society don't. Most people are egotistical and only want to be seen as right by others.
So maybe instead of trying to convince someone that they're wrong, you should try to change their attitudes. And the best way to do this is to publicly make their ideas appear as silly and childish, and show their attitudes to be self-serving and cowardly. Publicly mocking and making jokes of these ideas and attitudes before presenting alternatives is the best strategy imo.
sicsempertyrannis: wilderness: I still find this whole argument about freedom to be similar to trying to convince a slave on a plantation in the 1800's, after abolition, that they are free. Imagine the older slaves, the ones that grew up on the plantation and that's all they knew for over 40 years of their life - slavery on the plantation. A bit OT, but in the case of my own family, after 1865 most of our former slaves simply continued to live on the property, basically reverting to servants. Not ideal, but it was all they had known and many were too old to live on their own. They still had winds in their face for the south didn't want to give up on their slaves just yet - Martin Luther King and all came along almost 100 years later to shake even more shackles from their legs. And put those shackles on businesses instead, going from segregation to forced integration/racial quotas. I have never understood why some libertarians like MLK, when he was just the Jesse Jackson of his day. In fact, that reminds me. Giles we need to add some MLK revisionist works to the History Reading list.
Yeah, thanks, I really can't argue with you there. Good points. I guess I was focused on MLK and the rest of the movement to stand up for freedom. Yet, obviously, when the State had to step in, then the coercion was just redistributed.
And about the slaves staying on the plantation. I've heard that before come to think about it. It doesn't surprise me. It's like the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. It's worthless and the State is worthless but there are some in the fields not knowing what else to do. Actually, that's an argument I've run across too, "Well the State is here so we might as well make it better and work for us. What else is there?" If only it were as simple as tangible shackles, then we could just give them tangible keys to unlock themselves into freedom.
Thanks
I think a vote for leftism, is admitting you are incapable or unwilling of solving a problem and you want to pass the buck to someone else, while still seeming "smart, edgy, and making a difference" to your peers and the person you passed the buck to as an evil son of a bitch.
Exactly. As John Ray put it,
It is submitted here that the major psychological reason why Leftists so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting -- and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention, for self-advertisement and self-promotion -- generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction. They are intrinsically unimportant people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power.
http://jonjayray.110mb.com/whatare.html
Lefties don't really care about helping poor people.
If they did, they would be the most radical advocates of globalization on the planet. Instead they "demonstrate" in favor of the wealthier (and whiter) countries, with paleoconservatives and isolationists.
Stephen Forde: Quoting Malcolm X: "...And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit -- I saw it on television -- with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don't like what I'm saying, but I'm going to tell you anyway. 'Cause I can prove what I'm saying. If you think I'm telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they'll deny it over a microphone. No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover..."
Quoting Malcolm X:
"...And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit -- I saw it on television -- with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don't like what I'm saying, but I'm going to tell you anyway. 'Cause I can prove what I'm saying. If you think I'm telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they'll deny it over a microphone.
No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover..."
Now I get the picture even more. Not compromising is key. With the Republicans (GOP) reaching out to the Campaign for Liberty crowd the latter needs to realize they are in the strong position and need not compromise. I know Ron P. is not for a Fair Tax either, so, that's an idea that's trying to initiate compromise it seems on the Ron Paul types in the political process. The GOP is old and crippled and the those that want to tear the government down through the political process need to realize they are in the strong position. But will they cave in as Hannity types show up at these tea parties and all those other fake sell-out conservatives try to reap the honor for themselves. They're already voicing they started all these tea parties and they started that whole grass root efforts. Meanwhile Ron P. had the first tea party since they 1700's tea party, but from what I hear Ron P., again, is not being mentioned on mainstream media. The GOP republicans are trying to gobble up all the efforts. Heck I heard Alan Keys tried to say he was the one that got Ron P. to try to rid the Federal Reserve. They're just trying to hijack everything from all angles, but what do you expect from the State. That's the only way it works. People work hard and the State tries to steal all the rewards. But I do see the core of the freedom effort being principled and thus counters the wave of statism.
That was an excellent speech by Malcolm X
Cork:If they did, they would be the most radical advocates of globalization on the planet. Instead they "demonstrate" in favor of the wealthier (and whiter) countries, with paleoconservatives and isolationists.
What makes you think globalization helps those in third world countries? It doesn't, it helps the wealthy either in the "less developed" country, or the wealthy elsewhere. Usually both.
"Free trade" and "globalization" are both a scam.
When you say "free trade" is a scam, are you referring to the NAFTA-styled "free trade" agreements, or purely free trade whereby import and export tarrifs and customs duties are non-existent?
Take a guess.
sicsempertyrannis:Giles we need to add some MLK revisionist works to the History Reading list.
Yeah, I'll look into that, I need to add links to Amazon or whatever else and but the list in alphabetical order once I get the time, been busy lately though.