Broken Eggs
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? That a "gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet" attitude suffuses their collectivist political views?
Driving energy costs up in aggressive pursuit of a WASABI/Green environmental agenda harms the poor more than anyone else.
Our progressive government had to be shamed into a robust response to the East Palestine derailment, because rank partisan politics trumps all.
Abandoning prosecution of criminals in the name of social justice does the most harm to the poor and working class victims that the recidivists and careerists prey upon.
Rejecting the use of carbon energy, and demanding its cessation across the planet, absent an as-easy equivalent, will shorten the lives of millions and slow billions' rise out of poverty. Pain and misery inflicted by those who will feel none.
The gender affirmation industry that actively encourages minors to transition has already had devastating effect on kids who turned out not to be trans.
COVID lockdowns satisfied an itch to control and quelled the fears of many panicky-Petes, but destroyed countless small businesses, did long-term harm two generations of schoolchildren, de-socialized our society, and wrecked already-shaky trust in our public institutions.
The Cloward-Piven strategy intended to bring about socialistic transformation of our society and government, and its modern, identity-based iteration, are about figuratively burning everything down, with much misery and destruction as the 'price' for their fantastical Marxist visions.
Progressive public education advocates would rather trap children in failing schools, "social-promote" them rather than properly educating them, and quota them into schools they are under-prepared for. These are all set-ups for failure and a lifetime of self-doubt, all because they cannot admit their way doesn't work.
Welfare systems are structured in a way that traps the poor in permanent dependence, rather than helping them reach self-sustainment.
We've seen this attitude before, in the Marxist revolutionaries that imposed that misery upon so many nations. Apologists may argue that every revolution involves 'breaking eggs,' but the difference with them is that they want to wreck a very good but imperfect system that provides a lot of liberty to individuals in favor of one that, apart from its unbroken track record of failure, is all about taking liberty away from the people it purports to help.
Who really cares about people? Those who inflict misery upon them for their own good, or those who personally help the needy and leave the rest alone?
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.