Topic: Libertarians Are Sociopaths - page 11. (Read 11738 times)

I wasn't the OP. I just responded to a thread and the first dozen replies got cut off and some mod put me as the OP for some reason.


Well as long as they're just chronically hungry, I guess that's okay and means that charities will still be flush with money once you eliminate the minimum wage on top of that.  I can't possibly see how chronic hunger could lead to starvation. As a libertarian, connections that tenuous make my head hurt.

Last I checked, sociopaths tend to aggress against others for their own benefit.

heh- throw a label on something and view it as better or worse and you are a capatalist- even viewing libertarianism as 'better' is capatalism. all boils down to not taking sides if you are to win the ultimate fight

Fortunately, sociopaths don't often breed or if they do they abandon their children so the taxpayers take care of them.

Almost the entire incarcerated population of the United States would qualify as sociopaths.  So would almost all of Congress.  So I'm not sure that there would be a distinct difference between a sociopath and a parasite.

Nowhere in that link is there any mention of people starving to death. Try again.

I suspect that there's something of a cascade effect too where people aren't literally starving to death but a combination of inadequate food intake and lack of adequate preventative health care combine to produce greater negative health impacts than either factor would alone - and then those health issues have a flow on effect to a person's overall ability to function independently in society.  I know that this has been researched in the past in Australia - I'd be surprised if it hasn't also been researched in the US.

Yes, it's also becoming illegal in many communities to feed the homeless w/o a proper permit.  Just google 'illegal to feed homeless' and you'll see many areas in which this is in place.

I think there are way more of them than you expect.

No, it really isn't enough.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/more-americans-chinese-t-put-food-table-132752601.html


http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/



And again, your hopes that people will be so inspired by the wonderful world of libertarianism that they'll give more (kind of like the CEOs who are so inspired by magical capitalism that they'll treat their employees well) don't mean shit to a poor person. He has to eat no matter what. He can't sit around hoping your theories pan out. Combining that with your ideal sub-minimum wage work force is a prescription for disaster that only the most ideologically blinded can't see coming from a mile away.

Ah, no.  That's not my definition of educated.


You're projecting now.  Do you know how many libertarians went through a liberal phase in high school?  (I don't know anyone who went through a conservative "phase" to become anything else)  As for myself, I was a dyed in the wool Green until at least 22.  I was anti-gasoline, and tried to build an electric Doran kit car in high schoo (of course, the lead acid batteries were great for the environment!)l; I was anti-nuclear, and railed against fears and threats that I didn't understand; and I was anti-corporate, because I didn't understand economics.  Now that I understand these subjects, I know that I was full of shit as a kid.  Ask yourself, why do we try to teach math to students, but not economics?

If someone else does something immoral, that's on them. If I point a gun at someone and force them to share their food, that's on me. I'm not going to do anything immoral. I can't force everyone else to be moral, nor is it my place to do so. It's not a matter of "supporting a system". For someone railing against simplicity, that's a very narrow way to look at it. I don't support starving people. I support being responsible for my own actions and not doing anything immoral, which includes stealing.


Is it really not enough? Are there people starving to death in the USA because there is nobody willing to give food to them? Also, you have to consider that the current state of charity doesn't represent charity under libertarianism. When people consider charity now, they might be dissuaded because they know there is already welfare, food stamps, etc. The fact of the matter is, people want to help the needy, if we didn't, there wouldn't be any such laws in the first place. I'm not against supporting the needy, only the current implementation of it.


I consider generalizing things like this to be a pointless exercise. Let's stick to the issues instead of speculating on the psychology of others.

One reason I say you guys have simplistic beliefs is that you never seem to take real-world context into account. Everything voluntary is always completely voluntary, and this system cannot or would not be abused. The phrase "effectively forced" is not in your vocubulary. And the consequences of every silly policy in your minds is always the best-case utopian scenario, leaving little room for reality, or human nature, which so often turns those conclusions on their head.

If you agree with the idea that it's immoral to watch others starve, but also think it's immoral to mandate that the rich man share his food, why do you support a system that happily allows the former, but considers the latter the worst kind of theft? I mean, if I had to pick the more loathesome of those two things, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say it's the one that actually kills a man instead of the one that proves a minor inconvenience to the other man.


I know this, but what happens when the charity isn't enough? I'm starting to feel like a broken record around here because I've said this so many times, but charities are hurting as it is. Even with the social safety nets we do have, it still doesn't even come close to providing for every poor person. What happens when we eliminate those safety nets and then start implementing other libertarian ideas that decrease their potential donations (and increase their number of recipients), such as eliminating minimum wage? Do you just say "welp, we tried!" and let them die?  Fuck that.

You don't want to see the poor die, but you'll support policies that, based on every scrap of real-world evidence we have, ensures they do exactly that. All in the name of some twisted kind of morality that's anything but.



Well, see that's because you consider a teenager who sat down and read Atlas Shrugged one time to be educated. Do you have any idea how many liberals and leftists went through a libertarian phase in high school, and then gave it up once they actually learned a thing or two in college?

I agree that it would be immoral for you to gorge yourself with food while watching others starve. It would also be immoral for me to point a gun at your head and force you to stop eating and start giving food to others.


I've already stated that I'm all for charity and would engage in it myself. Somewhere on these forums is a thread (Here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-good-deed-23338) that I started about me giving $25 in cash and $75 (at the time) in BTC to a guy begging on a street corner. There's nothing in the principles of libertarianism that makes it incompatible with charity. What it is incompatible with is forcing others to empty their pockets to the needy at gunpoint. If you can acknowledge that distinction then we will be getting somewhere.

Simplistic?  You don't understand libertarian principles.  They are simple only taken out of context, taken together they are incrediblely complex.  Which is often why I find that many people cannot wrap their heads around them.  I've never met an uneducated lib.  Ever.  I've met plenty of Dems and Repubs that are only so because they were raised that way.  I also don't think I've ever met a lib that was raised as a lib, either; so I guess that could mean many things.

"Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself, but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.

Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality, but by the higher duty I owe to myself. What would you think of me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death?"

--Eugene Debs


I'll go tell this some kid in the ghetto whose parents didn't parent and whose schools didn't teach just so I can let him know it's his fault that the rest of his life will suck, too.

A sociopath doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. And that's exactly the stated philosophy of the libertarian. I'd be way less offended if they all just admitted they were selfish pricks, but to pretend it's all about freedom and choice makes it so much worse. It's the worst kind of pseudo-intellectual bullshit that will let you justify any horrible thing as long as it's "voluntary". Every legitimate political scientist and philosopher can see it for the horror show it is, so it basically only appeals to people who think so much of themselves that they're sure they know better than any expert.  Kind of... well, like a sociopath.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"

- Adam Smith

And

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
- Adam Smith
Ain't quoting fun?  

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens." -Adam Smith


Nobody owes you a living. If you don't want to work then you can be a beggar and depend on charity. I'll buy you a sandwich. I regularly give to the poor out of empathy. Though, if the only job you can get is a low-wage job, maybe it's your own fault? Perhaps you should have learned something valuable?


If you own something, you can sell it. If you can't sell it, you don't truly own it. Why do you think you can tell other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies?

No, my definition of sociopath is someone who pretends he believes simplistic bullshit like that because running around saying "greed is good, I promise!" makes people realize just how shitty you are.

Also, gotta love that highly variable definition of "voluntary" where having a choice between 50 minimum wage jobs (or even jobs that pay less than minimum wage) is still technically a choice, so it's totally voluntary. Same deal with selling yourself into voluntary slavery, which a lot of you guys also support. Hey, you had a choice, right? You could have laid down and died. Free market, bitches. Slavery is freedom and taxes are slavery.

By definition, as sociopath is a person without a conscience who happens to be very good at hiding that fact.  Atlas is terrible at faking social agreement with statists.