Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized are the most willing to do harm to some in the process of "helping" them?
Remarkably, the poorest continue to vote for this - like in Third World countries. But who are we fooling? In America the wealthiest go along with the charade - knowing the rules won't impact their lives.
On the issue of poverty, libertarians and other free market advocates need to play offense, not defense. Too often, the response to a question on poverty or inequality is to engage in a statistical food fight (i.e., things are not so bad) or start finger-wagging about the evils of class warfare - in either case, exuding about as much empathy as Mr. Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life".
Fighting poverty by removing government-imposed obstacles ought to be a prime libertarian issue.
The problem is that the libertarian solution is a "let things sort themselves by getting out of the way, which always works better." People used to shallow, quickie remedies are easily swayed by promises of handouts, and it's tough to educate them as to why our way is better, even with the proof of failed past interventionism at hand.
In general, I think that the libertarian message should revolve around the slogan “First, do no harm...”. Show that before creating a new government program to “solve” a problem, you need to peel back existing policies that either created the problem or made it a lot worse. Don’t fall into the trap of defending a status quo that is not ours to defend and get tagged as advocating a “do nothing” agenda.
Remarkably, the poorest continue to vote for this - like in Third World countries. But who are we fooling? In America the wealthiest go along with the charade - knowing the rules won't impact their lives.
The poor never figure that it'll happen to *them*, and figure that failed promises are outliers, even though they are the norm.
My thoughts exactly.
On the issue of poverty, libertarians and other free market advocates need to play offense, not defense. Too often, the response to a question on poverty or inequality is to engage in a statistical food fight (i.e., things are not so bad) or start finger-wagging about the evils of class warfare - in either case, exuding about as much empathy as Mr. Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life".
Fighting poverty by removing government-imposed obstacles ought to be a prime libertarian issue.
The problem is that the libertarian solution is a "let things sort themselves by getting out of the way, which always works better." People used to shallow, quickie remedies are easily swayed by promises of handouts, and it's tough to educate them as to why our way is better, even with the proof of failed past interventionism at hand.
In general, I think that the libertarian message should revolve around the slogan “First, do no harm...”. Show that before creating a new government program to “solve” a problem, you need to peel back existing policies that either created the problem or made it a lot worse. Don’t fall into the trap of defending a status quo that is not ours to defend and get tagged as advocating a “do nothing” agenda.
Unfortunately, the opposition Cathy Newmans the libertarian message, with success. But, yes, offense is better than defense.