/liberty/ - Liberty

>>62159

Yeah, cool blog. Where can I subscribe?

>Underlying our charity system—and our tax code—is the premise that individuals will make better decisions regarding social investments than will our representative government.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have a tax code, now, would we?

No idea what this argument is even supposed to prove. I mean, most libertarians will fully agree with you there and then add that individuals actually can make better choices than our grandiose Representative Government, blessed be Its name.

>But our charity system is also fundamentally regressive, and works in favor of the institutions of the elite.

You mean the government? No, wait, that would be welfare… so you mean the faceless, anonymous plutocracy that is somehow threatening by virtue of existing.

By the way, people that constantly "ask questions" and "try to make you think", but who are allergic to concise and clear statements are fucking cancer. Would it have hurt - you to say that you're a statolatric who's afraid of rich people?

>>62161

Not the government, to subsidising the elite universities and art galleries and so on, whereas an ideal government programme (it is argued) would help the dispossessed

>>62159

What point are you trying to make?

The article makes no sense - the poor are larger welfare recipients.

>>62193

>waaa I will defend rich people and libertarianism no matter what

Anons I am having trouble. Is this a case of slave morality?

>>62209

>>62210

This is next level slave morality.

>>62211

I knew where this shit was going as soon as I saw The Atlantic.

>>62204

That's the point. So then you should support welfare rather than charity if you want to help the poor.

>>62210

Surely slave morality is defending the interests of the rich when you aren't yourself rich.

>>62240

>Surely slave morality is defending the interests of the rich when you aren't yourself rich.

That's just trying to stir antagonism and envy. Someone having more is no aggression against me.

>So then you should support welfare rather than charity if you want to help the poor.

I should support extortion and corruption to support the poor? No.

Nobody inherently deserves anything. Giving is not a goal, it's an option. Instead of pissing on it for not being up to your arbitrary standards be glad it exists at all.

>>62240

>That's the point. So then you should support welfare rather than charity if you want to help the poor.

That's a non sequitur. If you want to help the poor, you do whatever helps them the most in absolute terms, whether that benefits the rich even more greatly or not.

>Surely slave morality is defending the interests of the rich when you aren't yourself rich.

Be that as it may, it's not an argument. If the rich don't deserve to get robbed, then I won't rob them even if that were be in my interest. Which it isn't. My family are net-givers, not receivers of our tax-system. And even if we could somehow profit from institutionalized robbery, it wouldn't be in our interest beause we're not fucking looters and we don't want to live on the mercy of an industrious upper class that rightfully hates our guts for looting them.

>>62245

>Hence the slave morality.

>you have to be a slave to not steal

>which embraces absentee ownership

Don't even go somewhere you can't even coherently define. Be arbitrary and inconsistent all you want, don't force it upon anyone else.

>Making a claim that you should support the welfare state is a non sequitur?

Acting as if it follows logically from your previous statement is. We're not gonna play that rhetoric game further.

>>62248

>you have to be a slave to not steal

That's my understanding of the idea.

> Don't even go somewhere you can't even coherently define. Be arbitrary and inconsistent all you want, don't force it upon anyone else.

Why are you such a faggot Anon?

> Acting as if it follows logically from your previous statement is. We're not gonna play that rhetoric game further.

I said 'as a means of helping the poor'. Many of you claim a system entirely based on charity would work better than a welfare state.

>>62250

>Many of you claim a system entirely based on charity would work better than a welfare state.

"Many of us" claim that within the confines of a State that is not possible. What we say that further Government redistribution only makes the situation worse.

You can stop bumping your shitpost now.

>>62255

So everything will magically become better without the state, as usual?

>>62261

>magically

Nope. Mises didn't write hundreds of pages on why interventionist policies always have the opposite effect of what was intended and why socialist policies are even worse for you to ignore them. Ancaps merely extended his argument to the military, police and courts, refuted his counter-arguments and added an ethical side to his philosophy.

>>62261

>magically

>everything I don't know about is magic

>>62240

Welfare is inefficient bureaucratic waste. The better option is charity.