Libertarianism = disguised social darwinism

Post Reply New Topic

Libertarianism is the philosophy of not paying taxes and not having any kind of welfare either.
Everyone can see that this causes people who cannot get an insurrance (to get an insurrance, you must fulfill certain criteria that not everyone are able to fulfill, such as being healthy from the beginning,
or your parents were insurred) to die from diseases that otherwise could be cured.

Therefore, libertarianism preaches that poor or weak people should die of cancer, or other illnesses, because that gives room for the strong and healthy to
work, be free of unemployment, and be free of paying taxes.

It is in-fact social darwinism, just disguised, because real social darwinism is about killing off the weak members of society.
Libertarianism only says that if you ain't insured, you have no right to live if you get ill.

And because those who ain't insured are mostly the weakest or poorest, the weakest of poorest have no right to live.

I am sick and tired of this tax-resentment. Come one people, it's not that you HAVE to work in order to pay your damn taxes.
If you do not earn money you do not pay taxes. And mostly, in most countries, at least in Scandinavian countries, you have what we call
"Personal Allowance" which means you can earn money to a certain level before you pay taxes. And you only pay what's above that level.

In short, this means that people are not OBLIGED to pay taxes, UNLESS they earn more than their personal allowance allows for.

What I see as the problem though, is when people like the libertarians wants to pay as little taxes as possible, and they get to envy the people who gets money from the State (Welfare payments),
and then they want to impose controlling, regulation and costly re-assessments over and over again, which won't bring you anywhere, but to need to cut the cost of the welfare society in order to pay
for these damn bureacrats that have to re-assess and regulate everything, you end up with a government that takes half of your income, and then demand that you undergo
all sorts of treatments in order to get a little payment in return if you get ill.

But that could be done without the envy from the tax-resentment.

The other thing about paying taxes is that you only pay a certain PERCENTAGE of your income. And that this percentage is higher or lower depending on your income.
For instance, a billionaire in France has to pay 70 % in tax, whilst someone else must only pay 40 %.

In other words, taxation only affects the rich people, everyone from the middle-class to be bottom are the WINNERS of taxation!

We need to put an effective stop to tax-resentment. Libertarianism should be prohibited! Banned! It is only for the super-wealthy!
It infects society and damages the generel welfare society!

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. However, this is ...

Sure, the best system of government is 100% taxation; wherein smart, honest, trustworthy politicians do the thinking for the people!

The average Joe citizen is dumb, and foolishly wastes his money. A smart, honest, trustworthy politician knows how to spend Joe's money wisely!

Life is better for Joe in a Socialist Utopia where a smart, honest, trustworthy politician decides how Joe should live!

All hail the smart, honest, trustworthy politicians and their benevolence ... where would we be without them !

I was not being sarcastic, but your sarcastic post is simply showing your ignorance to my post.

I was NOT talking about how politicians or the government are the smartest people who should run people's lives.
This has nothing to do with my post.

It's not about how people should be "guided to put money off for their own welfare". This is about setting up rules in society so that the capitalists cannot abuse the weakness of the general public good, where this weakness is characterized by the fact that even if people DO want a health insurance, they CANNOT get it, because capitalists has setup rules that makes it impossible for some people to get a health insurance.

To have a tax-paid system that pays for a public health insurance is only going to affect the rich people. Of course, you could say that this is where the government is the "smartest" in knowing what other people (the rich) should pay for. The rich should pay for the poor's ability to get a health insurance. And I am completely OK with that.

I don't want to decide how Average Joe should live, but I certainly want Bill Gates to pay for Joe's health insurance!
And if he refuses, he should be punished severely without mercy!

And, btw. your comment about "100 % taxation" being perfect, is ridiculous.

I didn't write that. Nor was that the intention of my post.

You seem to believe that anyone who wants to tax the rich are all commies who want Soviet Union back. Not even the Soviet Union taxed people 100 % (I actually believe the taxes was significanly lower
than many places in the world, because the state got the main income from the industries it owned itself).

I am not a communist, but I do believe that private property should be subject to taxation.

Are you a jackass or merely ignorant, as that is not what libertarianism is in the slightest. Really, you have to be one or the other, no alternate possibilities here.

You want to turn over money to politicians in government. That is what taxing people does.


In America looks what happens when you turn over money to a politician in government ....

1. Blow the money on bad investments ( Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra ),

2. Steal it ( finance chief steals 30 million from the city, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04 ... taxpayers/ )

3. Make bad decisions ( 17.3 trillion in debt, 127 trillion in unfunded liabilities , http://www.usdebtclock.org/ )

4. Use it for his own personal spending projects( 7.7 billion estimated spending e.g., pork barrel spending, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7058542 )

5. Spend it foolishly ("no bid contracts" (115.2 billion in 2012 no bid contracts , http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obama-adminis ... /id/536496 )


Why give politicians money to waste ? That is a core Libertarian philosophy.




What "rules" ? Capitalist believe in a free market of selling goods. It is the government that sets up rules.




See you believe "smart, honest, trustworthy politician" will take Bill Gate's money and spend it for your benefit. That is what they call the socialist utopia. You think the politicians care about you, you think they will take Bill Gate's money and spend it wisely.

...
... ...
... ... ...

I only accept liberty as long as it is for the bottom classes. Not the top of the top of society. I am sick and tired of this favoring of the wealthy elite all the time!! !
Not everyone deserves liberty. Certainly not CEOs and bankers!

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 20 Jan 2014, 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

You people hide capitalist attrocities to humanity behind the curtain of so-called "liberty":

You want poor and sick people to get no health insurrance, just to defend your own freedom from taxes...

Everyone can see this is downright WRONG. Even you, but your have ulterior motives because even YOU would find it extremely unfair if YOU had to clean the sewage system 40 hours a week and have little to no health insurrance, whilst knowing that there are CEO's and bankers who sit on all the vast amounts of money in your country and DON'T have to have such a job of cleaning the sewage system, but can sit on their ass all day all the time despite having no illnesses or handicaps or anything!

You can achieve a slightly better appeal to unfairness - if you substitute "sewer cleaner" with "portable toilet cleaner".

Sewer cleaners earn on average $60,000 per year ( http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-high- ... htm#page=6 )

While, portable toilet cleaners - still equally disgusting - earn $50,000 per year ( http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-high- ... htm#page=4 )

Not everyone wants insurance, maybe that is why the hypothetical poor does not have it ?

I understand the situation, but I do not perceive it as a problem.

No society based 100% on any one ideology will be healthy or prosperous. The trick is balancing different ideas to ensure the most effective system for the largest number of people (nothing will be perfect for everyone....period).

Taxation is the power to destroy....period. It is the theft of one's substance by the threat of violence.

Certainly we all need to pay taxes for common needs best done by a central government, but it is more than just a slippery slope...it is a fire just waiting for a chance to spread and consume everything in its path.

The government that governs least governs best. Libertarians want government kept out of the lives of people as much as possible. They don't want to pay taxes to give to others what they must pay for out of their own pockets (why should YOU get it for free when I have to pay for it). They are also keenly aware that the more you let government handle things, the more unaccountable government becomes to the people it is supposed to serve.

If you want to ban Libertarianism, you must also ban Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, ... pretty much every "ism" out there because ALL of them are equally bad when followed exclusively.

i'm guessing that sewer cleaner was never intended as an exhaustive example.

The state sector does not have a monopoly on the use of theft, larceny, usery or the threat of violence.

If we abolished all government tomorrow what makes you think things would be so much better?

Private companies exappropriate the labour value of people who are forced into selling it as they have nothing else to sell by accident of birth under duress of the threat of destitution and homelessness. Why is that morally superior to the system of taxation?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0B8hrOo0Y[/youtube]

Oh, you want to talk about bankers, do you? Those bankers who make a lot of money because of an economic system that's sustained by violence from the state? Really? Also, you want to discuss those CEOs who run companies which wouldn't exist without state subsidies, both direct and indirect? All so you can compare them to people who work in state-built sewer systems?

It is not theft. Theft is stealing, which is illegally taking what does not belongs to you.

Taxation is your subscription to society, much like you subscribe to a newspaper or Netflix.
If you don't like it, you are free to leave.

And unlike other subscriptions, taxation does NOT require you to find the money you need to pay. You only pay taxes if you earn money.
If you don't earn money, you don't have to pay taxes.



Do you have any proof of that? I'd like to see evidence for this phrase to be true.
In many "banana-republics" in South America and in some asian and/or african countries, they have a small government. And yet, they live in poverty, no health care, no civilization and a lot of gangs and shootings.



Maybe it has little relevance to this thread, but I couldn't just stand by and not comment on the fact that you ask why YOU should give to ME.
Mostly, people would choose the opposite view to enhance other people's perspective of things. But it clearly shows that you libertarians are selfish.

For example, to not exhibit your selfishness, you could've at least have written:

Why shoud I get it for free when YOU have to pay for it.

The fact that you wrote it the other way around makes you look very, VERY selfish.
You did it on purpose, to embrace selfishness. Libertarians love selfishness. Adam Smith even suggested that selfishness improves society

To answer you question, btw.:
The broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden.

Of course this is not to be taken literally. It only means that those with most money should pay most/highest taxes.


Again, it may not have relevance to the thread, but it actually clearly shows that libertarians are indeed selfish people.



It depends on who controls the government. Democratic institutions and regular votings should help against this. Also more importantly is the lack of censorship and letting ALL
government documents become open to the public. Aside from that, campaigns against discrimination, information about illnesses and disabilities etc. should help people better decide what is best for
the common good.