Increased personal freedom and less government is attractive, IMO, but few people can actually live that way.But why is it attractive? It seems to me we already live in a world in which there is tremendous suffering, one reason being that we don't share fairly and so have way too much inequality. Many having way too little to be happy and many having far more than they need to be happy. All out libertarianism would just make it even worse. It just seems totally nuts to me. It seems quite clear that we need some way to redistribute wealth fairly. It's pretty obvious that people won't just do it without any system in place to do it. So what is attractive about all the suffering not doing this inevitably leads to? Is it just attractive because you think you would be one of the lucky ones?
Increased personal freedom and less government is attractive, IMO, but few people can actually live that way.But why is it attractive? It seems to me we already live in a world in which there is tremendous suffering, one reason being that we don't share fairly and so have way too much inequality. Many having way too little to be happy and many having far more than they need to be happy. All out libertarianism would just make it even worse. It just seems totally nuts to me. It seems quite clear that we need some way to redistribute wealth fairly. It's pretty obvious that people won't just do it without any system in place to do it. So what is attractive about all the suffering not doing this inevitably leads to?Is it just attractive because you think you would be one of the lucky ones? Yes, true enough.... I do think I would be one of the lucky ones. The idea of redistributing wealth fairly in order to solve societies problems is mostly flawed, because people differ in their ability to live in a middle class society. It works in Luxembourg, but it can't work in the U.S, or modern Britain.
The idea of redistributing wealth fairly in order to solve societies problems is mostly flawed, because people differ in their ability to live in a middle class society. It works in Luxembourg, but it can't work in the U.S, or modern Britain.I don't really know what wouldn't work about it. I believe that too much inequality is morally wrong simply because it's unfair and yet understand we need some inequality because we need consequences to guide behaviour. So the minimum amount of inequality that works is best and has the advantage of making people more cooperative, since if people are treated fairly they have less reason to take by force.
The idea of redistributing wealth fairly in order to solve societies problems is mostly flawed, because people differ in their ability to live in a middle class society. It works in Luxembourg, but it can't work in the U.S, or modern Britain.I don't really know what wouldn't work about it. I believe that too much inequality is morally wrong simply because it's unfair and yet understand we need some inequality because we need consequences to guide behaviour. So the minimum amount of inequality that works is best and has the advantage of making people more cooperative, since if people are treated fairly they have less reason to take by force. That's been the formula, give people some comfort and they won't rebel. The system is also rigged so wealth accumulates at the top, and when people are born wealthy, they have no appreciation for how they got there. We've taken away the right of inheritance of leadership, so why not take away inheritance of wealth. Then the incentive is to invest everything you have in whatever legacy you want to leave. You can make as much money as you want, you just shouldn't be able to sit on it. Put it into profit or non-profits, I don't care, but you made that money using the protections and incentives provided by everyone else, so give it back when your done.
The reason some people supprt libertarianism is that it would remove all government “intrusion” and control of people and taxes would be low or nonexistent. That way, they could grab as much wealth as they could manage to grab. They also think that the wealthy would (magically) create charities and infrastructure to help the less well-off out of the goodness of their hearts–or, perhaps, to keep the less well off from storming the gates–but it would be up to the individual or groups of individuals to support such efforts on their own; the government could not require it, which they like. Libertarianism is a utopian dream, the gritty details of which libertarians never bother themselves with. The idea is only that they be left alone to garner wealth with little no taxation, and let the chips fall where they may. They believe that people would magically form into a good society and everything would fall into place because everyone would have to work in order to survive. Libertarians have the idea that half the population is living off the other half and that any kind of charity or help encourages idlleness. In their world everyone will happily work industriously because there would be a great incentive for everyone to work–even children and the elderly, apparently–because there would be no child labor laws and there would be no government pensions. It would also allow the wealthy to exploit desperate people, as they wish to exploit natural resources.
Libertarianism could never work. Many so-called libertarians are simply looking to have their taxes lowered and to be relieved of government controls on exploitation and they have been convinced that libertarianism-light would support that. I doubt that most who call themselves libertarians are in favor of a complete libertarian society. Libertarianism is just aa convenient excuse for extreme right wing ideals–untrammeled capitalism and low taxation. That’s as far as their “thinking” takes them. If any of them with half a brain actually thought it through they would realize that it could never work. But they will keep pushing it because they think it would help lower taxes and get government control out of their hair.
“Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life and uses his property – as long as he simply respects the equal right of others to do the same." – Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government
However, since libertarians abhor all government controls, if people don’t “respect the equal right of others to do the same”, there will be no enforcement except from individual libertarians because government could not enforce it–which would, of course, lead to absolute chaos. But libertarians don’t want to think about such icky truths.
Lois
The idea of redistributing wealth fairly in order to solve societies problems is mostly flawed, because people differ in their ability to live in a middle class society. It works in Luxembourg, but it can't work in the U.S, or modern Britain.I don't really know what wouldn't work about it. It's called Biology. Look in to it.
The idea of redistributing wealth fairly in order to solve societies problems is mostly flawed, because people differ in their ability to live in a middle class society. It works in Luxembourg, but it can't work in the U.S, or modern Britain.I don't really know what wouldn't work about it. It's called Biology. Look in to it. That really doesn't help much. My theory is a narrower gap between rich and poor would be a good thing and of course it's possible to do that. Perhaps the difference between the top and bottom pay should be 7 times (or something) as one example of a change that could be made. I don't know what you are saying wouldn't work about it.
The idea of “Liberty (Liberté)” is convoluted by some in the United States where it lacks the requisite accompanying “égalité” and “fraternité.” The problem with “liberty,” in such isolation, is that it is subjective and that, in social situations, the expression of one person’s personal notion of liberty can and often does impede or infringe upon another person’s personal notion of liberty.
The idea that a person has a right to “liberty,” or to anything else for that matter, is prefaced by the idea that people can have “rights.” And the idea that people can have rights means that there are rules that all persons ought to follow, regardless of their relative wealth or power. So, liberty is a vacuous notion if it is not include social responsibility. There must be concern for others and some forms of equality or there is no liberty.
The irony is that American Libertarians don’t really embrace any reasoned notion of the concept of liberty but, rather, they embrace the law of the jungle as expressed through a laissez-faire system of government. That is, they embrace freedom for the powerful to disregard the interests of those less powerful.