“Economically conservatives refuse universal health care, social security, welfare, and many other things. They do not think that putting money into such programs is worth it.”
Yes, they oppose these things. However, you completely misunderstand the rationale behind why they oppose them. It is not out of greed or being tight with government purse-strings. It is not because they don’t think its “worth it.” It’s because they think those programs are inherently unjust. They involve forcibly taking money from one set of individuals to give to another set of individuals who have no just claim to it. They are using the force of the government to steal. It is not out of a lack of kindness that libertarians oppose socialist policies, but out of a respect for freedom and individual choices.
“Also, universal health care, welfare, and social security are all social programs. So saying you are socially liberal, you would support this. Which would mean that if you claim to be economically conservative, you are in complete conflict with the social liberal standpoint.”
You seem to not understand the meanings of the terms. “Social programs” comes from socialism. Socialism is an economic system. When I say I am a social liberal, I am not referring to an economic system but a moral system. Gay rights, religion, abortion, drug laws, gun laws, freedom of speech, and immigration are social issues. Tax rates, wealth redistribution (social programs), national banks, free trade, rent control/minimum wage, and government jobs are economic issues. I have no contradictions here.
“Having the government take away money from you and putting them into social programs that help people is not the same thing as them taking away our rights or our rights to spend our money freely. The government doesn’t look at you and tell you what to buy. So I am confused as to how they control your finances. You give them money, through taxes, to support this country and to protect it.”
The government is in the business of force and seeks a monopoly on it. The government doesn’t ask me to please donate taxes, it threatens me with imprisonment and guns if I don’t submit. I have no choice to pay taxes, even ones I didn’t vote for. You understand rape and know that it means having sex with someone without their consent. Well, the government takes our money without our explicit consent through taxes. If I would have $100 before taxes and $50 after taxes, then the government has taken from me $50. Where as I previously had $100 of my property to use as I choose, now I only have $50. That is the government infringing on my freedom of how to spend my money as I see fit.
“So essentially what you are saying doesn’t make sense. In truth it sounds more like anarchism than anything else. Saying governments are unnatural (what is natural?) and that they shouldn’t restrict individual freedoms and shouldn’t have any money. Then what is left for government to do?”
Anarchism means no government, libertarianism means limited government. The unnatural/natural question is the place where political philosophers start any of their major theories of government. What is natural is called the State of Nature. This is a hypothetical situation which seeks to determine how humans interacted before governments were put into place. Plato’s idea, and how one views the SoN influences the entire rest of their theories.
To the writers of the Enlightenment (you know, the ones on whose ideas the entire post-Dark Ages Western society is based on) the natural state is man in complete freedom. He may do whatever he pleases because he has the inherent “natural right” to do so (see: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (previously Property)). This freedom works until the economic idea of scarcity kicks in. Then, the people start fighting over resources. It is then that they give up certain rights to form a government whose role it is to protect its members and their property. As Bastiat points out, the only proper role of government is to protect property (meaning yourself and your possessions).Government is great as long as it adheres to this very basic plan. Taxes are necessary sacrifices of freedom as long as they are fair and used for the above reasons. It is when government attempts to do more than it was designed or needed for that it screws up and/or becomes tyrannical. Government protects you, your freedom, and your property from other individuals.
“I am a socialist.”
I’m sorry. I’m truly trying my very hardest to help you ;)
“We should help and support those who can’t do so for themselves.”
I completely agree! This is the USA, the most powerful nation in history. Everyone should do what they can to help the poor and the underprivileged. People who think all poor people are lazy and should die make me sick. They have poor moral character. However, and this is a big however, the government cannot legislate morality! Just as you wouldn’t like the government to ban alcohol, so should you not want the government to force me to help someone. The role of government is not to help poor people or black people or Christians or any group. It is to treat everyone equally, as individuals, and protect their property.
“It would be cruel to say that you can’t have food stamps because I am greedy.”The problem with this statement is that it implies that the person receiving the food stamps is entitled to them. No citizens are entitled to anything more than any other citizen (Life, Liberty, Property). And, once again, the government cannot legislate morality.
What is more unjust:A) Mindy asking Bob to buy her food and Bob refusing
B) Mindy using the government to steal from Bob to buy food
Now, tell me, who is the greedy one here? The one who makes a personal decision with his rightful property or the one who thinks she is entitled to another individual’s possessions?Entitlements don’t work because money isn’t free. It has to come from somewhere. Think about it… if everyone is entitled to something then where is it coming from? Food stamps don’t just appear by magic. How can you possibly be entitled to something you didn’t produce yourself? You have no right to the fruits of another man’s labor. Implying that you do is true greed.
“Are you saying that that they should be thrown to the wolves because the government shouldn’t step in and say “here, we will help you. you have every right to live”? By being against any sort of social programs by your economically conservative stance is leaving people, who are also a part of this society, to suffer and possibly die. What would happen if you were in their position? Should we help you? According to your stance, we shouldn’t.”Being thrown to the wolves implies that the government is the one who is supposed to care for and provide for the well-being of its citizens. This is simply not the case, as I have elaborated upon above. I believe in equality: the government should treat every citizen exactly the same. It is not the role of the government to take care of you, it is your job to take care of the government. Because, the government itself has no way of producing value. It intakes value through taxes but cannot create value. YOU can create value.
The citizens in the society should help you. They most certainly should as your fellow man. However, using the government’s force to help you at the expense of others without their consent is not just.
And, sorry, but nobody has a right to live in the sense you’re saying. Rights are organic, they are natural. It is not natural for all your earthly necessities to magically appear to you because you have the “right” to live. If everyone suggested they had a right to live and we all stopped working, where would the food come from? The government is not some magic factory of happiness that gives you imaginary rights. What you do have is the right to strive to live. A right to fight. A right to struggle. A right to the Pursuit of Happiness. And a right to the products of your labor.Well, I don’t think these programs are unjust, and while we can make the argument all day that people should help each other out and not be forced to, let me ask you if you are ready to voluntarily pay for every road you drive on each time you drive on it or if you would be willing to do so for any and all infrastructure the government provides.
Taxes are payment for services the government provides and the government needs those payments in order to operate and provide those services.
In YOUR opinion it’s not the government’s job to take care of anyone, but I disagree, we’ll use the infrastructure argument again.
If the government had not used social funds to construct the interstate highway system, then how could they have done it? Have private firms build them?
Exactly how would that work? How would the private sector make a return on their investment if they had built the highway system? They aren’t going to do it for free are they?
I feel the same should be said for health care, yes, everyone likes to say that healthcare isn’t a right, that the government shouldn’t “steal” money from people to help pay for healthcare for people who can’t afford it.
So now, we have this model where a major sickness can bankrupt someone. For example, my family was old money, OLD, OLD, money. My grandmother battled cancer for ten years in the 80’s and everything was wiped out, everything, because healthcare in the US is for profit.
This is another situation where this is a service I believe the government should provide, EVERYONE benefits, I for one would be perfectly happy to pay higher taxes if it meant that I wouldn’t get wiped out from medical expenses.
You might not think everyone has a right to live, but I and many others like myself do, we’re beyond what’s natural now, skyscrapers aren’t natural, cars aren’t natural, using electricity to make machines that can preform millions of calculations per second isn’t natural, but we do it.
Ah, the old roads argument! The classic last refuge of the statist. Let me enlighten you, sir. The government can and should develop the infrastructure of the country. What, you didn’t expect I’d say that? Well, let’s look at why.
The key, as you yourself have claimed, is that the free market cannot provide this necessary service. So, the government provides it for us. We all pay into the roads and all receive the same benefits back. We pay for license plates and our driver’s licenses to do this. The roads and other things the market doesn’t readily support such as the military and fire stations are perfectly legitimate things for the government to get involved in. They are fair and just as long as every person who seeks to receive the benefits of such services pays for them equally, just as you would in the market itself.Now, as for your proposal that healthcare is one of these things, that is simply not true. Health care is a service which is run perfectly well by consenting, private individuals. How do I know this? I can go to the store and buy health insurance. I can go to a hospital and pay to get treated. It works. Mutual contracts, mutual consent, totally fine.
Now, your argument would then be that healthcare in the market doesn’t work because it leaves people uninsured and without care. Let’s consider this a moment with a simple analogy. Houses are something everyone wants but not everyone can afford. They are in the private sector. Do you suggest the government has every right to buy everyone a house? The hardened socialist will say, “Yes, of course!” Now, how about computers? The market provides them, but still not everyone has one. I guess the government should provide those, too. Apple pies? Yeah, everyone deserves a warm apple pie. The stupid market doesn’t supply pies to everyone.
The problem with that reasoning, as I have tried to describe, is that it is a very slippery slope. By allowing the government to provide a service which is perfectly obtainable in the market you are granting them permission to provide any service. This is called precedent. It sounds very nice to buy everyone health care but before you know it you could be buying everyone else a PS3 and some tacos.A more realistic example is the situation with the U.S. Postal Service. When it was created, there were no private individuals who could provide this necessary service. It was a good idea and had an admirable run. However, with the advent of technology, private companies such as UPS, DHL, and FedEx can not only provide the same service in the market but do it better. Why should the government still attempt to provide a service that is capable of being handled in the market? It shouldn’t.
My claim that individuals do not have a right to live (in the socialist sense of the word) is not an opinion. It is a fact. Rights are natural. You cannot create new ones. Imagine we have a small village of 10 people. Now, one of those individuals is a doctor. He heals you when you’re sick, you give him some apples when he’s hungry. We all interact through mutual consent and everything is great. Now, the doctor suddenly dies because he chokes on a chicken bone. The village goes on alright for a while, but then your buddy Jim gets sick. He claims he has a “right” to life. He demands everyone else in the village save him. But, the doctor is dead. There is nobody to help him. He dies.Through this story, we can see that Jim did not actually have a right to life. He died. If he had a right to life then he wouldn’t be dead. In fact, if we all have a right to life than we are all going to have that right gravely infringed upon one day. Everyone dies. It is a simple fact. How can I have a right to something that I know will one day go? Rights don’t work that way, as much as some people would like them to.
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say with these technological advances and them being unnatural. We can never go beyond what is natural because we live in the natural world. We can’t escape the laws of physics or the fact of scarcity. You can pretend that humans have somehow surpassed natural things but that’s all you’re really doing: pretending. I have no problem with you pretending so long as you don’t use government to force your ideas on me.
So, beyond roads, what about police. Is it “natural” to be protected from those who would prey upon other people?
Would you be willing to pay every time you needed the services of the police? I mean, one could hire private security to protect them, it can be provided for a price, so why should the government provide you with the protection of law enforcement?
If someone stole your car, would you be willing to pay someone to report the crime and have it investigated? If someone broke into your house while you weren’t home would you be willing to pay to report it? There are private security firms out there, there are private investigators, this is something that can be provided by the private sector.
You’re “slippery slope” argument makes a giant leap, providing social healthcare has nothing to do with giving everyone a free house. Public housing is available, and would be a much better analogy than the argument you are trying to make.
I think it is egregious that as far as we have evolved socially that healthcare is something that is run “for profit”, there should at least be a public option, just as there are public and private schools.
And my point is in mentioning “technological advancements” is you keep talking about what is “natural” yes, we all die, that is natural, but we now have the technology and the means to cure illnesses and repair bodily damage though technology that no other species on this planet has, and I feel that it’s wrong to limit that only to those who can “afford” it.
Your argument comparing healthcare to housing has no logic to it at all, so let me “enlighten” you, one is perfectly capable of living outdoors, but if someone has terminal illness and is unable to pay for the treatments, then what? They are available, we have the technology in many cases to treat terminal illness, but can not do so without payment… how is that “enlightened” because it sounds pretty barbaric to me, it has nothing to do with “free stuff” and everything to do with a society that has the means to cure the sick, repair the injured, and that should not be withheld for only those who are privileged enough to be able to pay for it.
(Source: bricksandmortarandchewinggum)
