If charity or the "free market" doesn't work, libertarians have NO answer
Posted by ajpslint@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 7 comments
I suppose I'm going to use this post to get to the crux of the issue I have with libertarians. I often see libertarians being challenged on a number of issues, but these two stick out in my mind:
1) welfare, food stamps, disability and safety nets ect.
2) civil rights act and anti-discrimination laws
These are my favorite ones to bring up because libertarians are so vehemently against these things, and their positions are so astoundingly problematic.
As a defense mechanism, libertarians always claim that either charity or the free market will solve these problems that would occur with the removal of these things.
For example, libertarians actually believe CHARITY is a legitimate and viable alternative to modern day welfare programs. That is absolutely insane to most thinking people, but this is what libertarians actually believe. I could go on and on how this is not only wholly unrealistic but historically inaccurate, but I'm not interested in that.
In a second example, libertarians actually believe that the "free market" will fix all discrimination issues involving race and other oppressed minorities. They actually think discriminated minorities wouldn't face unfair positions in the market place. I would highly debate this, but again I'm not interested in that.
What I AM interested in, is pointing out the large elephant in the room -- in both of these points, if charity or the magical "free market" is insufficient in solving these issues, then libertarians believe nothing else should be done. This is very very very important to understand, especially for new and young libertarians who might think they are joining a righteous cause.
For example, if a poor family cannot earn a living wage in the libertarian "free market" -- and if charity is not enough to feed their family -- then that family starves to death. End of story.
If a single father can't afford cancer treatment for his child, and charity isn't sufficient -- then that child dies. End of story.
If a black family can't find affordable or safe housing and food in their neighborhood, because no one rents to them and no one sells them food -- and no viable free market competition sprouts up to serve them -- then that family either must relocate potentially hundreds of miles away, or face homelessness or starve. End of story.
This is indisputable. This is what several libertarians are ok with. Stop the sugar-coating about fairytales regarding charity and "free market" competition -- in libertarian nightmare land, there is no solution for these problems. If charity or the market isn't sufficient, people will suffer. END OF STORY.
Now, I can already guess the typical response: "Libertarians don't promise solutions! We promise liberty!" This is fine, but you need to start being honest with yourself -- you are advocating policy that, at the end of the day, thinks the government should not attempt to solve any of these problems, and you are ok if people starve and suffer because of that.
ninjaluvr@reddit
"Now, I can already guess the typical response: "Libertarians don't promise solutions! We promise liberty!" This is fine, but you need to start being honest with yourself -- you are advocating policy that, at the end of the day, thinks the government should not attempt to solve any of these problems."
Many of us openly admit that is what we advocate.
Sure, you're going to meet some naive and young libertarians that believe charity will magically step in solve these problems, just like you'll meet naive and young folks of other ideologies that think government will magically step in and solve these problems.
ajpslint@reddit (OP)
The difference is that "statists" are actually trying to find optimal ways to combat these issues -- in advanced democracies, this typically is done through mixed market economies, with social programs. Libertarians simply believe that government shouldn't try at all, and if charity and "market forces" are insufficient then no other action should be taken and that the weak shall suffer and die off.
ninjaluvr@reddit
I'll be honest with you, that's genuinely noble. I don't condemn folks for wanting to solve problems. I, as well, want to solve problems. I would imagine that if we're both honest, we can admit that we don't know exactly what that looks like though.
I love reading Noam Chomsky. I don't agree with a lot of his ideas. But he has frequently stated, when asked what anarcho-syndicalism will look like, "I have no idea, we have to try it." When you get it wrong, you try again, and you keep trying.
I bring this up because I have no idea exactly how a libertarian society will arrange itself to combat all of the issues confronting us. However, I believe that we as a people can self organize to meet our needs without a vastly powerful centralized authority dictating our lives.
I'm fairly confident that you don't want a vastly powerful centralized authority dictating our lives either. And that's not what you believe a statist society will look like. I hope you're right. I have my doubts.
The likelihood of a libertarian society springing up any time soon is pretty close to zero. So I'm forced to live in this statist society we have. The best I can do is to try and support candidates that seek to at a minimum, decentralize some of that power.
I don't for a moment believe that if charity and market forces are insufficient, no other action should be taken. I also, don't know what other action should be taken, because we haven't let the market, nor charity, attempt to address these issues. I'd like to give it a try. I'd like to start there and see what we can do.
ajpslint@reddit (OP)
You seem like a good natured guy, but you're falling into the same trap libertarians (as well as communists) often do, which is that their precious political ideology has never been tried in a pure enough form in order to properly evaluate it. That's an impossible thing for me to debate against, because we'll never agree on what a pure form of libertarian society looks like, namely because you discount any historical examples that I give.
I can tell you that before the Great Depression, government programs were extremely minimal. Before social security, massive amounts of elderly people lived in poverty. I would say your system has been tried and is continued to be tried in various forms today. We moved away from your system because it was harmful and unfair to large pockets of the population. People suffered and then used political power to better their lives (food stamps, SS, the Civil Rights Act).
Being "noble" has nothing to do with it, really. I'm sure you don't want people to starve, and I'm sure a lot of libertarians don't -- but right now in US society, as well as many wealthy societies around the globe, we have state funded safety nets as insurance. Libertarians are against that and they have to face the consequences of their policy decisions if and when they fail.
ninjaluvr@reddit
Thanks. First, I haven't fallen into any trap. Second, my ideology isn't precious. It's simply an ideology. Third, people still live in poverty, including the elderly. Based on your logic, we've proven your solutions are failures. But I won't use your logic. I look forward to facing the consequences of my decisions when they succeed and when they fail. I hope you'll take on that responsibility as well.
ajpslint@reddit (OP)
If your ideology can't face criticism because it hasn't happened in a pure enough form yet, then either your ideology isn't grounded in reality or you consider it too precious to discuss.
I don't advocate for the status quo, although I don't necessarily advocate for drastic change either. We have made a lot of progress in America that has improved lives for millions of poor people. The elderly are in far better conditions since the inception of social security. This is indisputable. Several million would fall below poverty line or would burden their families significantly without it. I don't claim that people no longer suffer. I am a proponent of using the state to rectify that. Several libertarians couldn't give two shits whether poor people starve to death on the streets. They may "donate", but if that's not enough then they are prepared for them to starve. That is reality, I'm sorry. How about you actually read the responses in this thread?
LingonberrySalt9693@reddit
What ideology starved more people? Communism/Fascism/Statism or free market Capitalism?