Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
A Libertarian View of Welfare
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 04. 2010
- John Stossel draws from a panel of experts to discuss a libertarian view of the welfare state. Do government programs lift people out of poverty or do they perpetuate cycles of dependency?
As a Libertarian myself these folk did a poor job of making the case for Libertarianism. The woman did the best job of the bunch. Speaking to the choir doesn’t convince others that this is something that’s in their best interest.
It wasn't a Q and A debate. They did just fine. The target audience was the viewers at home.
Doesn't matter anyway. Libertarianism will never work because 90% of the population couldn't handle it
Libertarians have the same view as American Republicans on fundamental economic issues, but they are more consistent with the economic policy especially on these issues.
+Andrew Rusher Yep 💯
More consistent in all areas
libertarians have similar views on economy with conservative and republican but they also have liberal views on gender and social rights
No Republicians occasionally pretend to be free market. In fact they back as much intervention as Democrats.
They are deontological as hell and hence they are consistent. They just say "theft is bad and taxes are theft. So if we can't avoid State, we should cut them to minimum."
watching this in 2019 - where did all these smart people go? How did we devolve so much in 10 years?
Propably corruption and control from the powers that be making sure they have no competition..
to Boaz : just because the government has done things poorly in the past doesn't mean they will do everything poorly in the future ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….welfare creates dependency under the current system but we can recreate it to lead people toward work...………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..and we don't have to force people to pay for the welfare system...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...we can dump the income tax system and create a sales tax system so that funding of welfare is voluntary
robinsss - the objective of welfare should be restorative - training for those who are capable - for those who are less capable - subsidize what they can do - maybe answering phones or online referrals - and for those who cannot contribute die to severe disability is a small portion of the problem that can be dealt with by funding compassionate organizations. (And monitoring them to ensure they are complying to their mandate)
do you support public welfare?
robinsss - not in its present form - but yes it is the mark of a civilized society to take care of the poor and underprivileged those who are sick and need assistance. Those who are temporarily affected by downturns in their perspective careers due to downsizing or elimination of their jobs should receive “temporary” assistance and effective efforts to restore them to being productive - the present system fails miserably at these initiatives.
Obviously there would be those to fall through the cracks, but people who are free and know the meaning of prosperity will always be there to pick them back up. We should build the integrity of our country from the trust, and respect of our neighbor, not fear and distrust as we currently do.
BullSHIT
B McD people whom have much will always give...and when the majority is very prosperous, their minute contributions sums up to a massive amount of wealth through charity for the very small minority who cannot support themselves.
edit: "people [whom] have much will always give..."
@@rychei5393 It's amazing you can actually say 'bullshit' to that kind of statement.
@@leafster1337 Very small minority? in my country of the UK at the end of the 19th century where we had the biggest empire in the world, home to the industrial revolution and home to free market capitalism. The government stayed out of peoples business, there was no welfare and money was given to the poor through charity. It was found that a third of the country was in poverty. Hardly a small minority
@@leebrondum2643 are we then or now? rule of law and real capitalism must take place. thugs, corruption and, institutionalized corruption are a few ways that will cut the potential of the markets short (as it was in the past). real capitalistic competition is unable to take place in a playing field where dirty players win.
if the whole world was more free market, technologies and techniques would be more readily spread and utilized and result in more production (i think this didnt happen much in the past because of everyone trying to kill eachother but i may be wrong). im not much of a history person but im pretty sure the 19th century was more lawless and corrupt than today (not to say there isnt lawlessness and corruption today). anyways, with the near instant communication and efficiency we have today, i think we ought to set the chains off the markets to produce wealth for individuals to do with as they please. without working, there is no production of anything and i think if everyone had a little more, they would give a little more (and WAY more efficiently and effectively than how my home USA does it)
I love it how Stossel plays Devil's advocate !
Wow. I never thought I would see something like this on television. I love John Stossele
9 years later, fired and on youtube.
Back when companies weren't scared of snowflakes
Today there are way too many healthy people not working, even though a lot of places are short staffed. Young people don't want to work for minimum wage any more. Even though it is too much to begin with. And maybe they make just as much off welfare without working at all! I think that any healthy person should have to work for welfare. Picking up trash, or community service. And it should pay less than minimum wage, to motivate people to find a real job. When I work 14 hours a day in the hot Texas sun, and I see a perfectly healthy person standing on the corner with a sign, it ticks me off! Or when I hear about friends who have been able to remain unemployed and pay the bills with a welfare check! Meanwhile, I work my ass off and have to send thousands a year to to government!
Without law, there is anarchy. With anarchy, there is chaos. There is a good reason for having law. Law done properly eliminates chaos and regulates dealings between two or more people (contracts), keeping violence and oppression from occurring between two or more people. The only law that should be enforced is "Do what you will, but harm none". This is what constitutional freedom is composed of. Freedom to pursue your dreams, but not at the cost of someone else's freedom to do the same.
This is libertarinaism.
I know it's been almost a decade but i hope you've learned the correct definition of anarchy
the issue isn't taking care of everyone it is effectively and efficiently providing equal basic life standards for everyone in need....
Basically if have no empathy for others, you care little for their basic needs.
where do you thing basic needs come from?
the most basic need is right to pursue those needs which the left prevents and neocons try to monopolize every chance they get.
If they would stop devaluing money and taxing income people would be able to provide their own basic needs.
I'm a self described libertarian. Admittedly it's mostly more that I'm a leavemealoneaterian. I left the left for that reason because it felt more like I was giving up control economically to the government. Thought conservative was my new path but realized they do the same thing and wasnt a fan of their social stances (gay marriage, weed, social programs (still supporting ss as it is now)). Looked at libertarianism and felt more at home. I love free market capitalism, but where I tend to come to issues is with welfare programs (food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, homeless outreach (better local vs state vs federal), and healthcare. There are "failures" in even charity. Like people not being able to raise the funds required for medical bills and medications and they end up dying. On top of that I always hear how the market would lower costs but not what policies need to be placed and removed to ensure this would happen (think patent abuse). Then with meds other countries not respecting our patents which drive costs up at home for medications. How would this be solved with or without government? There will always be people that slip through. But at what point will government overstep? These wont get paid without taxes or is there any other way? Like grouped insurance, but wed run into similar issues we have with our mess with insurance companies. Sure direct pay is nice but only works for those that can afford it. There are legitimate people/families that have no money left over after Bill's and food. I'm middle class and after Bill's and debt payments for school there may not be a lot left. I'm not asking for handouts for people like me, but there are legit poor in this country that once exhausted everything the free market and charities and groups had to offer are still unable to afford the basics (people with severe conditions in which they cannot work due to chronic poor health. What do we do about the people that fall through? And how to avoid paying more taxes doing so?
The plug to the gap you are looking for is personal responsibility and responsible parenthood.
Understand that poverty is the natural state of man. Ability and opportunity is maximized under freedom and rule of law, not hand outs.
@@acctsyspersonal responsibility.
I study suicide here is my example for you to solve Mr personal responsibility!
An Indonesian boy got admitted to a good university through the help of his village, he lives on an island that is a full day travel by boat and car, he comes from a village that is too poor to afford his university campus. The state pays for that. Great just like the roads for the cars, and the boat to and from the island, without the state the island would not have access to the bigger islands. That is beside the point.
COVID-19 happened, ow lovely a libertarians wet dream come true, lockdown. He gets sent home to his village.
Here comes the question for you. How can he take personal responsibility for his education and future prospects? He has 8 siblings that he shares a room with, no access to a library, so bad internet that he can show up for class 90% of the time, but is unable to ask questions or hear the answers, and even if he could, his siblings is loud around him, because they do not have the money to send those kids through school, so they are home getting "Home schooled".
What do you want the boy to do? He can not reach the main island because it requires a bigger boat than his village has access to. He can not study under those conditions, he has an enormous pressure to succeed because else the whole village would have lost everything to give him books, tutors, and more.
When a large surge in student suicide began the government lifted the lockdown on the students with the hardest conditions, the boy got back to campus and did not kill himself. The government provides him with education, food, and shelter. His village could provide 2 of those things. And where is the personal responsibility?????????????
@@acctsys Personal responsibility only works for the right kind of people though, i.e. people that are ambitious, intelligent, and having good self-control. The problem is… many people are just ‘wrong’. Try applying that to mentally ill people, or mentally challenged people. What you're suggesting is “everyone is solely responsible for their own well-being, even if they're too mentally ill or stupid to help themselves”.
Also, you know “natural” doesn't mean “good”, right? Being coerced by the community is also the natural state of man.
And lastly, your solution is basically “to solve poverty, just stop thinking of it as a problem in the first place”. But makes sense indeed, since libertarianism is after all about our freedom to do things, never about our wellbeing. Libertarianism won't save us all from our hell.
@@NoName-ze4qn No, what we should strive for is a system where the wrong people are incentivized to do the right thing. Personal responsibility extends to one's children. The mentally handicapped are personal responsibility of family and friends.
Do not mistake "personal" to mean as to benefit only the individual. For the most part, individuals when making decisions, benefit and decide for their families. In fact, it's normal that parents take care of their children. And neighbors and friends help one another out of the kindness of their hearts. But yes, where individuals decide wrong, they, their families, and friends, would and should bear the consequences, in the same way that they would reap the fruits of correct decisions.
It is not an absolute solution -- nothing is. Rather what we have are tradeoffs. And aiming for freedom gets us a higher degree of equality, and so much more prosperity, than aiming for equality does. Aiming for equality means someone gets authority to ascribe certain standings upon others, which by itself already contradicts the objective, but more than that, the "cure" is worse than the "poison". A and B tells C shall to do for D while taking a commission along the way. Notice how in that process, A and B did not create something, but instead used their time to forcefully take from others.
Also, in a structure of freedom, one is free to put shackles upon himself if he sees it right to be lorded upon by the "right" people. That's stupid, IMO, but that's his call.
Being coerced is not natural. It is an intervention by another. You seem to have lost common sense for a bit. Envy is stamped out of children by proper parents, to be replaced by inspiration and growth.
To address the other point, not all mental illness should be helped. Some should be made to bear the consequences of the harm they do to others.
@@acctsys While it's true that individuals tend decide for and benefit their families and friends, it's not like it's necessary for libertarianism. After all, people should have responsibility only on things they care about, and caring about others' wellbeing may or may not be a part of it. Also, shouldn't only the individual, not people related to them, who bear the consequence of his/her own action?
Freedom may bring prosperity, but equality? Not really, neither the equality of outcome nor equality of opportunity. Equality is a poison to libertarian society after all, because inequality motivates ambitious people and bring prosperity to the society. And even the prosperity it brings here is collective in nature, like how some countries have the highest GDP and millions of very poor people at the same time. Now I do think that inequality is necessary for a healthy society, but those on the lowest standing in society should be provided a comfortable, fulfilling life at least. Something I doubt a libertarian society would have enough resources and voluntary desires to provide for.
Also, if coercion isn't natural, why do things like peer pressure, bullying, and war exist wherever humans are, even in hunter-gatherer tribes?
As for mental illness, I'm quite agree with punishing the sufferers for harming others, but to not give them healthcare to fix their illness? It won't end well for everyone…
One of the ironies in many conversations like this one, is how hardly anyone ever mentions government's role being limited to the legitimate functions enumerated, and delegated to it by our Constitution. Most problems people have trying to figure out what government should or should not do, are clearly outlined in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution. Whatever is not among the powers mentioned, are simply not part of government's role in the United States.
@wrjamescom Those with disabilities already have a limited pool of job options due to the inherent limitations of the disability and employers of the jobs many of them can technically do want reliable people with their own transportation, who can work certain hours, and that is what keeps many disabled individuals out of the workplace. Not a desire to not work.
All systems are bound to fail, the only eternal laws are written in our hearts. This is why all faiths speak about compassion because with compassion and less greed, a society won’t need as much government
The 4th guy to speak, the last of them nailed it, we have to remember humans are inherently greedy, and you can either ignore that and depend on the govt which will always lead to corruption, dependency etc. Or we can harness the the power of human greed to push them to innovate with the promise of massive wealth and a good life for their effort which eventually creats jobs, ungodly technological advances and a overall filthy rich country, where the poor doesn't have to worry about crime, trafficking, cartels, famine, filthy neighborhoods, contaminated drinking water etc.
Poor people in America can still eat enough to survive, ask a poor child in India what hunger is and they'll tell you exactly what being poor really means
@Down with Corporate Amerika Think about it. Why is it that the "rich" don't go out of their way to help others. Why do humans compete so much in corporate rat race? Why do we feel jealous? Why do we fight? Why is it that we choose to indulge in luxury such as fancy dinner, vacations etc when that money can be donated?
Humans evolved to be inherently selfish because being selfish allowed us to survive in the wild, today it helps us to amass wealth. Generosity comes from abundance, people give when they have more than they want and that is why Americans are some of the most generous people on earth yet we never go out of our way to give because humans simply are incapable of helping complete strangers at the cost of their own comfort
Monopolies, duopolies, even oligopolies cannot exist in a free market (for long). Predatory pricing is what people usually cite as the monopolistic advatage to keep competitors out but if you knew what happens in bankrupcy, you'd know that the failed competitors wouldn't be gone for long. Those monopolies can't sell at a loss forever, which is why they just wouldn't.
Stossel was the best on tv
Seniors have had their entire lives to save for their future. I'm only in my 20's. Why should I be expected to give so much of my money to society that I can't put away enough for myself and my future?
@wrjamescom The issue isn't bums. There will be bums in any society. The issue is those who really have disabilities which prevent them from obtaining gainful employment, and single parents who can't ear enough working to cover the cost of daycare. You might see someone who claims to be disabled who you think looks like they can work, and in many instances, they can be productive individuals, but the issue is with employers who don't want to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Why do people clap at everything they say. Lmao 😆
Because they're probably paid to do it :)
@@ledzeppelin1212
Those people who are answering stossels question have coworkers in the audience.
Libertarian ideas are not well known or talked about a lot so they clapped from joy to have their ideas expressed
libertarians were excited to have their views expressed on fox business
Probably, because they agree. Libertarians listening and agreeing with other Libertarians...shocking.
yeah it makes it seem cheesy. some of the ideas they express are pretty good but they're not that amazing every moment.
I'm disappointed nobody mentioned about UBI.
Just watched Atlas Shrugged with my 17 year old son who recommended it. That movie really made me think. I had never really given libertarian's a thought until then. I cannot say I agree with everything, but I am looking into it more.
Thank you.
Any libertarians in here, feel free to watch my videos and comment!
Liberty above all!
I agree with most of the points they made, but I didn’t appreciate how everyone clapped between arguments
@SepherStar No we just believe that the best way to help people is to teach them how to fish, not to give them a fish!
Stossel is THE MAN!!
Totally nailed it!
Never heard of the Cato institute absolutely agree with everything that they say and called myself a Libertarian because it is a philosophy that is the closest philosophy to the bible!! It was fir freedom that Christ has set us free
whilst i am an atheist i could see why the ,lets say "preaching" of Christ as we see in the new testament, could be close to Libertarianism. I would advise you if you want to see Penn Jillete on Libertarianism, he sums it up pretty good
I'm Atheist Libertarian
I agree with the Libertarian views to a point, and it is with our seniors. We still have seniors that have worked hard their entire lives, and have to decide b/t buying prescriptions and food. 'NO' senior is this country should have to decide b/t buying food and prescriptions. Knowing this comment will be attacked, I know first hand there are seniors in these situations because I am an advocate of seniors. However, I do agree with most of what these people are saying. :-)
When this aired the National Debt was $12T. Only 12 years later it is $30+T. More dependency equals more Debt.
God I wish a libertarian candidate would win and fix america once and for all. Thomas Jefferson was the first libertarian we need to go back to his idea of how america should have been built from the beginning.
This is where I know you're wrong. I live in the U.S. and the services here are satisfactory, both customer service and quality of product. The people I encounter who dislike the services are people who complain about everything.
So when can we get a libertarian US president who can actually reach 270 in electoral votes?
We keep voting and spreading the message.
never thank god
You can vote for me 😊
Never. Lemmings like@@Shockkings0714 go out of their way to prevent it
@SepherStar You seem to thing that because people should help the needy, that people should rob others to help the needy. Charity is given freely. That taken by force if robbery. No matter what the cause, it's wrong. And government has no incentive to operate a charity properly, and no constitutional authority to operate one at all.
I agree getting a job can be hard. However most people with graduate degrees who can't find work are people who got degrees in fields that there is no job market, or where they didn't learn actual skills or learn information with realistic market value.
Maybe more folks should consider a career in Trucking. Never enough drivers. Plenty of work, and good money as well. Many people end up passing up opportunities that happen to be in fields that are not their ideal choice, rather than there being a dearth of jobs.
@rehwr I don't see any employers stepping up to pay your average single parent wages that can cover their cost of living and day care expenses, and I don't see employers lining up to employ disabled individuals who are limited in the tasks they can perform, often don't have their own transportation, and are usually not well enough to show up at work on a daily basis at set times. And again, the government isn't the one stopping them.
so apparently im a liberatarian. go figure.
@rehwr I don't see how you come to that conclusion but you are free to explain. The majority of the food, product safety and environmental issues China has is either from lack of regulations or poor enforcement of regulations. People are not putting melamine in milk and recycling cooking oil extracted from sewers because of enforcement of any government regulation.
Self-subsistance is the way. Nobody does either prevent government from doing such things, so they can also do this and have their pharma business at your expense after you start to suffer the consequences. That's why they don't allow anyone going off-grid.
Were talking charities from decades ago. Yes Americans are very charitable people, but you cant when government takes to much and does so little
Libertarian argument #1: America is a rich country with low levels of poverty because they are capitalist and therefore capitalism is good.
Libertarian argument #2: The financial crisis occurred because America isn't capitalist therefore capitalism is good.
Welfare is only good for things like emergencies or life threatening situations. The government shouldn’t be giving us all of this random money that we can get from working at a job. America without welfare could be a crisis during things like natural disasters but other then that, I totally agree with the Libertarians view of welfare.
Insurance can work better in terms of national disasters.
@@zigoter2185 What if the Insurance does not find it profitable to pay?
@@TheGreatOldOak it kinda has to since it has the contract lol
Not if government enters the free market and banking at the same time. Everytime anyone needs a service, they would be just picking some loan.
Back in the day man ☺️
@100CommonCents Your example of australia proves my point, stolen land, indentured servants, free labour, all those natural resources undeveloped, then taken. Good point, slavery land theft and colonialism do have a huge role to play in Americas wealth and by your words australias too. I don't recall mentioning any other countries though, western or otherwise. thank you!
@nick10463 I hate that liberals have that name. They should be called collectivists. If anything libertarians are true liberals. freedom in social policies as well as fiscal policies.
One problem with libertarians is they live in a world of statists who attack them viciously whenever the open their mouths.
When they hear someone talking sense they tend to get overly enthusiastic.
Actually, Hostess hired a guy to turn the company around if it could be done. The final plan was to go into chapter 11 restructuring of debt. Everyone was on board except the unions. They were told that if they didn't work with restructuring, they were going to run the company into the ground as it wouldn't be profitable, so they would go into chapter 7 liquidation instead. AFTER being told this, they went into strike anyway...and Hostess closed their doors & filed chapter 7 as foretold.
This is just beautiful
In other words, libertarians vastly overestimate the power and equitable distribution of charity and have no backup plan. This is about as well thought out as anarcho-communism. Also how can the government 'create dependency' if everyone is capable of shaping their own lives? Nobody is stopping you from getting an education, nobody is stopping you from applying for a job, regardless of whether there's a welfare state. The only thing a welfare state changes about that, is providing people with more equal opportunities to get an education. If you weren't gonna make it in life because you got food stamps, you wouldn't have gotten far if you were left to starve.
Look I'd love for libertarianism to work, but American libertarians put way too much faith in an untested system. If you want to replace welfare with charity, to a large extent you already can. Donate to charity and use it as a tax write-off. I know there are some problems currently with organizations that don't allow for write-offs, but these issues could be fixed with relatively simple legislative change. This seems a far more reasonable path towards libertarianism. If charity is indeed so powerful, it would prevail.
Sure charity could work today, if it ignored anyone who wasn't white, if housing was still affordable, if wealth wasn't massively concentrated at the top leaving most people unable to AFFORD donating to charity, if every job didn't require 5 years of experience and a degree at any cost, if the jobs that didn't have such requirements paid well in general, if we weren't in constant competition with the rest of the world (including countries where wages and living costs are not even a fraction of what they are here) etc. Libertarians all like to blame all that on the welfare state when their only argument for that is 'correlation is causation', with no consideration for any other changes that happened in this country, including the fact that our entire economy looks nothing like what we had in the 50s.
No charity. Goverment can surely enter free market and give loans everytime anyone wants to use a public service, this way no one has to pay for the needs of others while they are still powerful. Jobs and their requirements would not be such a problem if selfsubsistance were allowed by taking taxes away.
This Murdock guy is the only one who's saying stuff that isn't complete pie in the sky bullshit.
@SepherStar But, neither can the government!
@affilinet You deleted your comment, but I'll answer your question anyway. If I come to you asking for food, you should evaluate the situation and do whatever you feel is right. But if I demand your food as if you owe it to me, you can and should tell me to get lost.
When was this filmed?
Those charities existed before and they even exist now.
In Australia today you can get food baskets from at least 3 different charities......
Can you go off-grid in Australia without getting taxed? That would be a core solution...
The difference is with private charity I am not being stolen from to pay for someones dependence.
Holy crap, look at those stock prices. Amazon - $140, Dow Jones - 10,900
Comes back to this Libertarians believe in the right of choice for the individual now while conservatives still believe in that to an extent however they believe more for the rights of those in the future instead of the present
Why in the world would my kid, or anyone's kid HAVE TO WORK 12 hours a day??? If you don't like your wage, get a better job.
The crowd needs to be quiet and let the speakers talk.
Dependency Kills (the Human Spirit).
@affilinet I don't recall mentioning preventing anyone from doing stupid things so you will have to clarify your statement. I'm glad to hear you are a kind and charitable person but I don't think you should assume that others are as altruistic, because most people are not. As far as making sure not to depend on anyone, or more accurately, require the assistance of anyone, in reality everyone requires the assistance of someone at some point in their life, in one way or another.
they will never let third party enter the debates for presidential election, they don't want to air this type of stuff and have people think more
But then you also need perspective, if the person making the voluntary transaction would rather trade that time for that specific amount of pay to them they might not be losing, that wage will allow them to eat, to pay rent, to invest, this may be valuable and the end goal may make the transaction seem equal in their mind.
The federal government can fund a safety net without taxing ANYBODY. They can simply create the money needed by actually spending on these public programs.
+Banksta$Gangsta The programs have been failures. Why do you want to continue?
Gerald Bennett
Because people need help sometimes.
Banksta$Gangsta Crap. 50 million Americans are not incapable. Why don't they speak for themselves if they are struggling?. Its always an arrogant snot that speaks for them, Get lost
Gerald Bennett
Love you baby
@@geraldbennett7035 They make it look like failures.
@SepherStar Neither of those are federal issues according to the constitution. But what makes you think you need even a state government to certify medicine? The AMA is not a government org, but like the Bar association, they use government thugs to prevent competition. Start a drug certification org, similar to the various other consumer protection orgs. Let people choose to look for your certification when buying drugs, or not.
@SepherStar Comprehension difficulties on your part does not equate to irrationality on my part. The fact that you cannot argue your position rationally should tell you where the irrationality lies.
The only problem with this I have is that, it's a conflict of opinions to say "government shouldn't give people money, but private people should by charity." I don't see the realistic difference between government giving money, and private people doing it. People don't get less dependent on private charity than they get from government. It's the exact same thing, it's just libertarians who have a problem with gov't doing it because of the initiation of force.
@Sondre7 You should see the "John Stossel Show" on TheChannelOfLiberty. Or just search it on youtube. Other tops with a libertarian point of view.
I see where Tucker Carlson got his cadence...
Let the people achieve and rise through merit. - GOLD!
What about orphans? Handicapped, mentally unstable, people with Downs syndrom? If they don't happen to be discovered by someone doing charity(because they're often not capable of seeking it out themselves), they just die in the streets and everyone's ok with it? Guaranteed safety nets are a must in every civilized society, pr definition.
Libertarianism and the poor
1. Large extended families, charities, religious institutions, friendly societies, can act as a safety net.
2. De-regulation, means workers can trade off degrees of safety for higher pay. They can also trade off degrees of safety with lower prices of the goods they buy.
3. If the productive aren’t taxed, then more can be invested into production which will lower prices, raising the average standard of living.
4. A move to hard money will greatly lessen inflation. Preventing the gradual rise of prices across the board. Also, closing a lot of speculative markets which create bubbles like with housing. Also, preventing the phenomena of foreign buyers buying big houses with no one living in them.
private charities and extended families have the legal power to discriminate against nearly anyone they want to discriminate against so some people receive no resources from these sources...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...especially the extended family that won't give any money to family members that won't conform to the culture and politics of the family...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..you have recommended a shaky , . inconsistent safety net with giant holes that people can see from half a block away...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Yes.
lotta clapping in this episode, liberty lovers!
An entrepreneur provides products and services to the market-at-large at a cost that the market will bear. In order to continue to provide products and services to the public, the entrepreneur must make a profit. To make a profit, an entrepreneur must keep overhead costs lower than gross income. This requires stiff cost control measures which not only include looking for better wholesale prices for goods and services, but also looking for quality labor at the lowest possible cost.
If you can live selfsubsistant due to lack of taxes upon land, they would be no problem.
$AMZN @ 140. What a time.
@rehwr The fact of the matter is, the cost of day care can easily exceed the earning ability of a single parent, and employers want to hire employees who are reliable, versatile and healthy, and frequently younger than older. The job market is very competitive and discrimination is hard to prove. It's ignorant to claim you have solutions to problems you very obviously don't understand.
So what's stopping people from getting dependant on private charities rather than the government?
@Impossible Complexity I didn't create unployment! Who do you think I am?
Here in Australia we have a huge number of people draining the welfare system and a huge number of employers needing workers. It's a ridiculous predicament to be in.
The fact that those companies will watch out carefully if you are abusing the system, because unlike government they don't have infinite amount of funds, which they can increase at any time they wish so. Not to mention, that government welfare is more formal, than charity, which may make some people feel bad for even thinking, that they will abuse the system.
Selfsubsistance is taxed. You cannot live without money thanks to welfare
Private charities only give limited amounts one time and not enough to pay rent and bills.
Wow, if these people knew then what is going on today. I know of people who today who haven’t worked in years, have been living off of their children’s social security and are able to collect unemployment due to a pandemic that hasn’t affected them in anyway.
...A worker (one who provides his/her labor for a certain cost to the entrepreneur) seeks employment based on his/her skills (interview skills, social skills, pertinent job skills, etc). If the worker shows sufficient required skills to the entrepreneur, that worker is hired to provide labor to the entrepreneur to meet the needs of the entrepreneur. If you don't agree with the demands of the entrepreneur for the price you are paid, you look for another job. OR become an entrepreneur.
@100CommonCents if you don't grasp the fundamental value of having land, and the natural resources contained in it in the real world, I don't think you can lecture me on the free market, economics or generation of wealth. I'm left with the impression that I need to look elsewhere for elucidation on these topics. Good day sir!
There's no government regulations stopping private charities from doing such things now. The fact of the matter is, private charities don't have the organization nor the resources to step up to the plate and provide a consistent source of income and resources for single mothers on welfare and the disabled who currently receive disability or SSI. Do you think if there were no taxes people would be more willing to donate? Of course not. How many people donated their stimulus check?
@SepherStar It shouldn't be easy. It's not easy now, but a lot easier than it should be. But if someone is in need, they have every opportunity to seek charity. Robbing people at gunpoint, which is how taxation works, shouldn't be an option. That's not charity. Charity is given freely.
The state prevents you from having a cheap solution by outlawing it, then they sell you a scam to get you hooked while making it look much more expensive than it is.
@rehwr The government IS providing consistent support for single mothers on welfare and those who currently receive disability and SSI. If that were to come to an end tomorrow there would be no one to step up and fill the gap and these people would linger in destitute poverty on the streets like in most countries with no government safety nets.
Amazon was only 140 at that time, bitcoin was less than a dollar.
@davandstudios You seem so certain about everything. How about some explanation along with your assertions and name calling and resentments?
@100CommonCents I most assuredly am not kidding about the statement of fact that I posted. Driving cars with electric windows and the existence of windows as a computer program doesn't have any relevance to the factors that made the U.S. rich, stolen land and slave labour during the most critical stages of this country. My statement doesn't even have anything to do with the powers given a state or choice. it has to do with the real reasons behind the wealth of America. Thank you.
This is why I say no one would give if there was'nt aid programs and tax breaks because of the, 'It's my money, and I don't have to" excuse.
Government programs can be wasteful, and just as oftern people can be too greedy to help.
@yakyakyak69 I prefer checks to to prevent companies from dumping excessive amounts of pollutants into the air I breath and the water I drink. To help to greatly reduce the chances that my food will contain harmful pathogens or non-food items. To ensure the medications I'm taking really do and contain what they say, and have minimal unanticipated side effects, and to prevent companies from becoming the exploiter you claim the government to be.
@SepherStar Also different people become libertarians for different reasons.Some just dont want to pay taxes i believe,some just because they are sick of the current system,others because they understand that it is the most humane system.(there is nothing wrong with a one world gov if it is based on liberty)This understanding comes with realization.You are ready for it when you are ready to understand.You have to understand what suffering group rights create IN THE WORLD to "get"libertarianism.
Could you please edit out that high-pitched screeching in the background? It's a nightmare for my younger ears!
@jesnels That's what charity is for.
lol @ the one chick in the middle making a "Mckayla Maroney" face. haha
Bangladesh doesn't have any of the machinery to produce mass amounts of capital goods, such as food, clothing etc, which leads to lower supply, which leads to higher prices and a lower real wage for it's citizens. Why do you think Singapore has the highest wages in the world and no min wage law? Why do you think the US paid the highest wages in the world before the institution of the min wage law? Because they had more capital goods, more competition and lower prices.
Damn right.
@wrjamescom I think our discussion is coming to an end because there is no point in discussing anything with individuals who only want to hear themselves re-iterate their own views. If you can discuss your views more rationally and without making claims that are clearly not true, and provide a sound basis for your reasoning, people might be more receptive to you and your perspectives
Right off the bat he strawmans the welfare case. NOBODY-liberal or conservative wants to just give money to people that don't work hard. It is about the people who get old, injured, sick, or laid off. That is where the safety net should be constructed.
The myth of the lazy person collecting welfare. People who have no idea how "welfare" works.
[[Who will rule if there's no government? ]]
Don't ask who will rule you, ask who will inspire you via leadership. Do you seek a ruler?
@SepherStar Ya, I do. India over regulation, terrible quality of life, Hong Kong, almost no regulation, outside murder, theft, and property damage, and the quality of life is great there! Cause and effect!
What about corporate welfare and Rich welfare
For all libertarians: remember to keep critical and don't fall into an echo chamber. In every side there will always be people with nice words. Being a fanatic libertarian is just as bad as a fanatic socialist.
I actually really needed this. I got to keep on my toes.
Yup. It needs to be said that the catch argument for our position is that you can be whatever you want to be in your local community with like-minded people, as long as you don't force others into your thing.
@wrjamescom . I will continue with yakakyak68 because though we disagree on things, he provides a viable rationale for his argument for me to consider, and I think he is more receptive to considering the views of others, which, even if he ultimately decides he does not agree with them, indicates he has the ability to reason.