Libertarianism = disguised social darwinism

Post Reply New Topic

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.

I see no reason why a politician is any worse than a corporation, morally. No matter who you pay, you need some organization to control aspects of your life and the integration of society. (roads, police, healthcare, food etc) That can either be private or public. And the reality is that you are trusting and complying with someone who has control over you, be it public or private.

Corruption is a serious problem no matter who does it. But corruption of a politician is at least a crime. Corruption of a business in a free-market by definition isn't. Eg: A transport minister that lines his pockets with extra tax money that should be going towards maintaining highways, is stealing. But the business in charge of maintaining a highway, if the owners were to gain 10x that money for themselves, is merely doing a good job at keeping their overhead costs down.
Bottom line is that you're out 10x more money because of the privately run business.

The only reason that business isn't stealing is because society has defined it as not stealing.

Theft is what we define it to be. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me if I think of businesses as stealing from everyone, and I rather see it as extremely short-sighted for people to somehow think that a free-market is the fairest thing for everyone. Because it's not. A free-market perhaps more natural and free-feeling, but it's all ultimately a few people controlling the masses. That I can kinda choose what to spend my money on in a free-market is poor reflection of freedom. It's enough I suppose to quell the masses into thinking they are free, but face it, if you're a part of a society, you are never free.

What kind of totalitarian thought-control horseshi+ is this?
STOP tax resentment?
BAN libertarianism?

It's a commie thing ... there's nothing to understand.

I was going to get to that eventually. Better to let them have more rope to hang themselves with so it's harder for them to deny it when I make the accusation.
But on the other hand, I guess it's all for naught since there are at least a few of this forum's left that openly embrace communism and the rest support it with their silence.
What was I thinking?

"Banning" it is a hysterical overreaction. There's no need to ban it. An informed and moral public will reject it on their own. Give them the freedom to make dumb decisions, but give them means to make smart ones.

/\
Do you mean limit their access via censorship to ideas that oppose collectivism?
Or do you mean that no one with morals could ever be in favor of libertarianism?

Business people take great risks. They can risk all their wealth to make a company, sometimes they go into debt to see it succeed. A business person may need to see 10x profits to payoff for all the risk that was taken.

How come you don't want to share the losses of a CEO, or banker, or business person when the company is not successful?

Some here appear to only want to share their profits if the company succeeds.

No one with any moral compass could embrace Objectiveism. Wanting to be free of government coercion isn't an inherently bad thing, especially when it comes to civil and human rights. But it serves a number of necessary functions that we often take for granted in first-world countries.

I am not a libertarian, but I don't believe any school of thought should be banned. I think more extreme views such as libertarianism or socialism are needed because they prevent one side from having too much power.

And that is what taxation is. NOBODY gets to vote for a tax. Politicians do it without asking for a public referendum 99.9% of the time.

And you can't "opt out." This was an issue with the ACA. Normally, you can avoid a tax by choosing not to participate in an activity (e.g., holding a job = paying income tax). However, the ACA imposes a tax for NOT participating. First time EVER in US history that has been upheld in a court.



It's proven abundantly in history. The more government meddles, the less freedom people have, and in time everything suffered. America's economy went downhill AFTER the introduction of the income tax and centralized banking system. There was a whole period where we did the exact opposite of that and rebounded economically...but most history books deliberately leave that period out because it goes against the ideology that taxes and centralized economies are a good thing.



I would propose that you think you are entitled to something paid for by someone else make YOU selfish. Be it health care, food, shelter, etc....whatever. To want something provided by the hands of another WITHOUT your compensating them for it is not just theft, but it's selfishness. People should give to help others because they want to, not because there is a threat of punishment for failing to do so.

[quote="thinkinginpictures"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.[/quote]

Democracies lead to mob rule. The average voter is a political moron (knowing little to nothing about how their own government is allowed to operate) and motivated by self-interest...not the long-term good of their nation. Just because 80% want something doesn't mean their wishes are a good idea long-term.

We have campaigns won by catchy slogans with no substance or plan behind them. Most voters are too apathetic to "vote the bums out" every election cycle.

Sorry. I don't put my faith in the political process. I've watched it spiral the toilet bowl for the last 20 years.

I just can't believe how blatantly people expose themselves sometimes. Then again it should be no surprise that people who toot their horn the loudest about how caring and compassionate they are always seem to be so full of themselves.

why is government co-ercion bad and private co-ercion is fine?

Labour theory of value.

I've seen the 'risk argument' used before and frankly its a weak one for a libertarian to make.

Does a new employee take any less of a risk when signing up to a new company, hinging his new livliehood on the business eptitude of someone he doesnt know well?

If the company goes bust has he not also lost out in terms of time and energy expended, navigating the office heirarchy to try and get promoted? Does he not risk ending up homeless cause he can't keep up with the rent on his house because his wages stopped?

Employees should be protected from loss but that is part and package of the deal if employees have to share risk but none of the super-profits.

It's important to remember that just because somebody promotes something that has a particular consequence, doesn't necessarily mean that that consequence is their motivation for doing so. It may be that they are seeing the situation from their own point of view, and acting the way they are for a different reason.

Therefore, accepting as a premise that libertarianism leads to a kind of social darwinism emerging, it still doesn't follow that libertarians are trying to bring Darwinian selection into human society. They might be focusing entirely on their opinion of tax issues, and social darwinism would be an unintended consequence. Thus it is misleading to call libertarianism a disguised form of social darwinism.

Also, bear in mind that if you express an opinion stridently enough, you'll attract the most attention from those who are most opposed to it, and therefore will receive a lot of criticism. The actual range of opinions that people in general hold will be more mixed.