A Libertarian View of Welfare
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- John Stossel draws from a panel of experts to discuss a libertarian view of the welfare state. Do government programs lift people out of poverty or do they perpetuate cycles of dependency?
As a Libertarian myself these folk did a poor job of making the case for Libertarianism. The woman did the best job of the bunch. Speaking to the choir doesn’t convince others that this is something that’s in their best interest.
It wasn't a Q and A debate. They did just fine. The target audience was the viewers at home.
Doesn't matter anyway. Libertarianism will never work because 90% of the population couldn't handle it
Libertarians have the same view as American Republicans on fundamental economic issues, but they are more consistent with the economic policy especially on these issues.
+Andrew Rusher Yep 💯
More consistent in all areas
libertarians have similar views on economy with conservative and republican but they also have liberal views on gender and social rights
No Republicians occasionally pretend to be free market. In fact they back as much intervention as Democrats.
They are deontological as hell and hence they are consistent. They just say "theft is bad and taxes are theft. So if we can't avoid State, we should cut them to minimum."
watching this in 2019 - where did all these smart people go? How did we devolve so much in 10 years?
Propably corruption and control from the powers that be making sure they have no competition..
to Boaz : just because the government has done things poorly in the past doesn't mean they will do everything poorly in the future ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….welfare creates dependency under the current system but we can recreate it to lead people toward work...………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..and we don't have to force people to pay for the welfare system...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...we can dump the income tax system and create a sales tax system so that funding of welfare is voluntary
robinsss - the objective of welfare should be restorative - training for those who are capable - for those who are less capable - subsidize what they can do - maybe answering phones or online referrals - and for those who cannot contribute die to severe disability is a small portion of the problem that can be dealt with by funding compassionate organizations. (And monitoring them to ensure they are complying to their mandate)
do you support public welfare?
robinsss - not in its present form - but yes it is the mark of a civilized society to take care of the poor and underprivileged those who are sick and need assistance. Those who are temporarily affected by downturns in their perspective careers due to downsizing or elimination of their jobs should receive “temporary” assistance and effective efforts to restore them to being productive - the present system fails miserably at these initiatives.
Obviously there would be those to fall through the cracks, but people who are free and know the meaning of prosperity will always be there to pick them back up. We should build the integrity of our country from the trust, and respect of our neighbor, not fear and distrust as we currently do.
BullSHIT
B McD people whom have much will always give...and when the majority is very prosperous, their minute contributions sums up to a massive amount of wealth through charity for the very small minority who cannot support themselves.
edit: "people [whom] have much will always give..."
@@rychei5393 It's amazing you can actually say 'bullshit' to that kind of statement.
@@leafster1337 Very small minority? in my country of the UK at the end of the 19th century where we had the biggest empire in the world, home to the industrial revolution and home to free market capitalism. The government stayed out of peoples business, there was no welfare and money was given to the poor through charity. It was found that a third of the country was in poverty. Hardly a small minority
@@leebrondum2643 are we then or now? rule of law and real capitalism must take place. thugs, corruption and, institutionalized corruption are a few ways that will cut the potential of the markets short (as it was in the past). real capitalistic competition is unable to take place in a playing field where dirty players win.
if the whole world was more free market, technologies and techniques would be more readily spread and utilized and result in more production (i think this didnt happen much in the past because of everyone trying to kill eachother but i may be wrong). im not much of a history person but im pretty sure the 19th century was more lawless and corrupt than today (not to say there isnt lawlessness and corruption today). anyways, with the near instant communication and efficiency we have today, i think we ought to set the chains off the markets to produce wealth for individuals to do with as they please. without working, there is no production of anything and i think if everyone had a little more, they would give a little more (and WAY more efficiently and effectively than how my home USA does it)
Today there are way too many healthy people not working, even though a lot of places are short staffed. Young people don't want to work for minimum wage any more. Even though it is too much to begin with. And maybe they make just as much off welfare without working at all! I think that any healthy person should have to work for welfare. Picking up trash, or community service. And it should pay less than minimum wage, to motivate people to find a real job. When I work 14 hours a day in the hot Texas sun, and I see a perfectly healthy person standing on the corner with a sign, it ticks me off! Or when I hear about friends who have been able to remain unemployed and pay the bills with a welfare check! Meanwhile, I work my ass off and have to send thousands a year to to government!
I'm a self described libertarian. Admittedly it's mostly more that I'm a leavemealoneaterian. I left the left for that reason because it felt more like I was giving up control economically to the government. Thought conservative was my new path but realized they do the same thing and wasnt a fan of their social stances (gay marriage, weed, social programs (still supporting ss as it is now)). Looked at libertarianism and felt more at home. I love free market capitalism, but where I tend to come to issues is with welfare programs (food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, homeless outreach (better local vs state vs federal), and healthcare. There are "failures" in even charity. Like people not being able to raise the funds required for medical bills and medications and they end up dying. On top of that I always hear how the market would lower costs but not what policies need to be placed and removed to ensure this would happen (think patent abuse). Then with meds other countries not respecting our patents which drive costs up at home for medications. How would this be solved with or without government? There will always be people that slip through. But at what point will government overstep? These wont get paid without taxes or is there any other way? Like grouped insurance, but wed run into similar issues we have with our mess with insurance companies. Sure direct pay is nice but only works for those that can afford it. There are legitimate people/families that have no money left over after Bill's and food. I'm middle class and after Bill's and debt payments for school there may not be a lot left. I'm not asking for handouts for people like me, but there are legit poor in this country that once exhausted everything the free market and charities and groups had to offer are still unable to afford the basics (people with severe conditions in which they cannot work due to chronic poor health. What do we do about the people that fall through? And how to avoid paying more taxes doing so?
The plug to the gap you are looking for is personal responsibility and responsible parenthood.
Understand that poverty is the natural state of man. Ability and opportunity is maximized under freedom and rule of law, not hand outs.
@@acctsyspersonal responsibility.
I study suicide here is my example for you to solve Mr personal responsibility!
An Indonesian boy got admitted to a good university through the help of his village, he lives on an island that is a full day travel by boat and car, he comes from a village that is too poor to afford his university campus. The state pays for that. Great just like the roads for the cars, and the boat to and from the island, without the state the island would not have access to the bigger islands. That is beside the point.
COVID-19 happened, ow lovely a libertarians wet dream come true, lockdown. He gets sent home to his village.
Here comes the question for you. How can he take personal responsibility for his education and future prospects? He has 8 siblings that he shares a room with, no access to a library, so bad internet that he can show up for class 90% of the time, but is unable to ask questions or hear the answers, and even if he could, his siblings is loud around him, because they do not have the money to send those kids through school, so they are home getting "Home schooled".
What do you want the boy to do? He can not reach the main island because it requires a bigger boat than his village has access to. He can not study under those conditions, he has an enormous pressure to succeed because else the whole village would have lost everything to give him books, tutors, and more.
When a large surge in student suicide began the government lifted the lockdown on the students with the hardest conditions, the boy got back to campus and did not kill himself. The government provides him with education, food, and shelter. His village could provide 2 of those things. And where is the personal responsibility?????????????
@@acctsys Personal responsibility only works for the right kind of people though, i.e. people that are ambitious, intelligent, and having good self-control. The problem is… many people are just ‘wrong’. Try applying that to mentally ill people, or mentally challenged people. What you're suggesting is “everyone is solely responsible for their own well-being, even if they're too mentally ill or stupid to help themselves”.
Also, you know “natural” doesn't mean “good”, right? Being coerced by the community is also the natural state of man.
And lastly, your solution is basically “to solve poverty, just stop thinking of it as a problem in the first place”. But makes sense indeed, since libertarianism is after all about our freedom to do things, never about our wellbeing. Libertarianism won't save us all from our hell.
@@NoName-ze4qn No, what we should strive for is a system where the wrong people are incentivized to do the right thing. Personal responsibility extends to one's children. The mentally handicapped are personal responsibility of family and friends.
Do not mistake "personal" to mean as to benefit only the individual. For the most part, individuals when making decisions, benefit and decide for their families. In fact, it's normal that parents take care of their children. And neighbors and friends help one another out of the kindness of their hearts. But yes, where individuals decide wrong, they, their families, and friends, would and should bear the consequences, in the same way that they would reap the fruits of correct decisions.
It is not an absolute solution -- nothing is. Rather what we have are tradeoffs. And aiming for freedom gets us a higher degree of equality, and so much more prosperity, than aiming for equality does. Aiming for equality means someone gets authority to ascribe certain standings upon others, which by itself already contradicts the objective, but more than that, the "cure" is worse than the "poison". A and B tells C shall to do for D while taking a commission along the way. Notice how in that process, A and B did not create something, but instead used their time to forcefully take from others.
Also, in a structure of freedom, one is free to put shackles upon himself if he sees it right to be lorded upon by the "right" people. That's stupid, IMO, but that's his call.
Being coerced is not natural. It is an intervention by another. You seem to have lost common sense for a bit. Envy is stamped out of children by proper parents, to be replaced by inspiration and growth.
To address the other point, not all mental illness should be helped. Some should be made to bear the consequences of the harm they do to others.
@@acctsys While it's true that individuals tend decide for and benefit their families and friends, it's not like it's necessary for libertarianism. After all, people should have responsibility only on things they care about, and caring about others' wellbeing may or may not be a part of it. Also, shouldn't only the individual, not people related to them, who bear the consequence of his/her own action?
Freedom may bring prosperity, but equality? Not really, neither the equality of outcome nor equality of opportunity. Equality is a poison to libertarian society after all, because inequality motivates ambitious people and bring prosperity to the society. And even the prosperity it brings here is collective in nature, like how some countries have the highest GDP and millions of very poor people at the same time. Now I do think that inequality is necessary for a healthy society, but those on the lowest standing in society should be provided a comfortable, fulfilling life at least. Something I doubt a libertarian society would have enough resources and voluntary desires to provide for.
Also, if coercion isn't natural, why do things like peer pressure, bullying, and war exist wherever humans are, even in hunter-gatherer tribes?
As for mental illness, I'm quite agree with punishing the sufferers for harming others, but to not give them healthcare to fix their illness? It won't end well for everyone…
Comes back to this Libertarians believe in the right of choice for the individual now while conservatives still believe in that to an extent however they believe more for the rights of those in the future instead of the present
In other words, libertarians vastly overestimate the power and equitable distribution of charity and have no backup plan. This is about as well thought out as anarcho-communism. Also how can the government 'create dependency' if everyone is capable of shaping their own lives? Nobody is stopping you from getting an education, nobody is stopping you from applying for a job, regardless of whether there's a welfare state. The only thing a welfare state changes about that, is providing people with more equal opportunities to get an education. If you weren't gonna make it in life because you got food stamps, you wouldn't have gotten far if you were left to starve.
Look I'd love for libertarianism to work, but American libertarians put way too much faith in an untested system. If you want to replace welfare with charity, to a large extent you already can. Donate to charity and use it as a tax write-off. I know there are some problems currently with organizations that don't allow for write-offs, but these issues could be fixed with relatively simple legislative change. This seems a far more reasonable path towards libertarianism. If charity is indeed so powerful, it would prevail.
Sure charity could work today, if it ignored anyone who wasn't white, if housing was still affordable, if wealth wasn't massively concentrated at the top leaving most people unable to AFFORD donating to charity, if every job didn't require 5 years of experience and a degree at any cost, if the jobs that didn't have such requirements paid well in general, if we weren't in constant competition with the rest of the world (including countries where wages and living costs are not even a fraction of what they are here) etc. Libertarians all like to blame all that on the welfare state when their only argument for that is 'correlation is causation', with no consideration for any other changes that happened in this country, including the fact that our entire economy looks nothing like what we had in the 50s.
I love it how Stossel plays Devil's advocate !
Wow. I never thought I would see something like this on television. I love John Stossele
9 years later, fired and on youtube.
Back when companies weren't scared of snowflakes
Libertarian argument #1: America is a rich country with low levels of poverty because they are capitalist and therefore capitalism is good.
Libertarian argument #2: The financial crisis occurred because America isn't capitalist therefore capitalism is good.
Why do people clap at everything they say. Lmao 😆
Because they're probably paid to do it :)
@@ledzeppelin1212
Those people who are answering stossels question have coworkers in the audience.
Libertarian ideas are not well known or talked about a lot so they clapped from joy to have their ideas expressed
libertarians were excited to have their views expressed on fox business
Probably, because they agree. Libertarians listening and agreeing with other Libertarians...shocking.
yeah it makes it seem cheesy. some of the ideas they express are pretty good but they're not that amazing every moment.
the issue isn't taking care of everyone it is effectively and efficiently providing equal basic life standards for everyone in need....
Basically if have no empathy for others, you care little for their basic needs.
where do you thing basic needs come from?
the most basic need is right to pursue those needs which the left prevents and neocons try to monopolize every chance they get.
If they would stop devaluing money and taxing income people would be able to provide their own basic needs.
One problem with libertarians is they live in a world of statists who attack them viciously whenever the open their mouths.
When they hear someone talking sense they tend to get overly enthusiastic.
Any libertarians in here, feel free to watch my videos and comment!
Liberty above all!
so the disadvantaged have to rely on charity, only a part of the solution...
any shortcomings of social security are problems of management and policy.......politicians need to take control......
free markets need to be kept free from manipulative forces against the public interest, businesses prefer dominant positions and product price control.
Disdvantaged can also sell their service or innovate. People need to be tenacious and driven. If they aren't then they shouldn't expect others to feel responsoble for their well-being
Monopolies, duopolies, even oligopolies cannot exist in a free market (for long). Predatory pricing is what people usually cite as the monopolistic advatage to keep competitors out but if you knew what happens in bankrupcy, you'd know that the failed competitors wouldn't be gone for long. Those monopolies can't sell at a loss forever, which is why they just wouldn't.
Were talking charities from decades ago. Yes Americans are very charitable people, but you cant when government takes to much and does so little
@wrjamescom The issue isn't bums. There will be bums in any society. The issue is those who really have disabilities which prevent them from obtaining gainful employment, and single parents who can't ear enough working to cover the cost of daycare. You might see someone who claims to be disabled who you think looks like they can work, and in many instances, they can be productive individuals, but the issue is with employers who don't want to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
The 4th guy to speak, the last of them nailed it, we have to remember humans are inherently greedy, and you can either ignore that and depend on the govt which will always lead to corruption, dependency etc. Or we can harness the the power of human greed to push them to innovate with the promise of massive wealth and a good life for their effort which eventually creats jobs, ungodly technological advances and a overall filthy rich country, where the poor doesn't have to worry about crime, trafficking, cartels, famine, filthy neighborhoods, contaminated drinking water etc.
Poor people in America can still eat enough to survive, ask a poor child in India what hunger is and they'll tell you exactly what being poor really means
@Down with Corporate Amerika Think about it. Why is it that the "rich" don't go out of their way to help others. Why do humans compete so much in corporate rat race? Why do we feel jealous? Why do we fight? Why is it that we choose to indulge in luxury such as fancy dinner, vacations etc when that money can be donated?
Humans evolved to be inherently selfish because being selfish allowed us to survive in the wild, today it helps us to amass wealth. Generosity comes from abundance, people give when they have more than they want and that is why Americans are some of the most generous people on earth yet we never go out of our way to give because humans simply are incapable of helping complete strangers at the cost of their own comfort
Welfare is only good for things like emergencies or life threatening situations. The government shouldn’t be giving us all of this random money that we can get from working at a job. America without welfare could be a crisis during things like natural disasters but other then that, I totally agree with the Libertarians view of welfare.
Insurance can work better in terms of national disasters.
@@zigoter2185 What if the Insurance does not find it profitable to pay?
@@TheGreatOldOak it kinda has to since it has the contract lol
@@zigoter2185tell that to the wildfire victims
For all libertarians: remember to keep critical and don't fall into an echo chamber. In every side there will always be people with nice words. Being a fanatic libertarian is just as bad as a fanatic socialist.
I actually really needed this. I got to keep on my toes.
Yup. It needs to be said that the catch argument for our position is that you can be whatever you want to be in your local community with like-minded people, as long as you don't force others into your thing.
All systems are bound to fail, the only eternal laws are written in our hearts. This is why all faiths speak about compassion because with compassion and less greed, a society won’t need as much government
One of the ironies in many conversations like this one, is how hardly anyone ever mentions government's role being limited to the legitimate functions enumerated, and delegated to it by our Constitution. Most problems people have trying to figure out what government should or should not do, are clearly outlined in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution. Whatever is not among the powers mentioned, are simply not part of government's role in the United States.
Dependency Kills (the Human Spirit).
Seniors have had their entire lives to save for their future. I'm only in my 20's. Why should I be expected to give so much of my money to society that I can't put away enough for myself and my future?
Stossel was the best on tv
@SepherStar You seem to thing that because people should help the needy, that people should rob others to help the needy. Charity is given freely. That taken by force if robbery. No matter what the cause, it's wrong. And government has no incentive to operate a charity properly, and no constitutional authority to operate one at all.
Never heard of the Cato institute absolutely agree with everything that they say and called myself a Libertarian because it is a philosophy that is the closest philosophy to the bible!! It was fir freedom that Christ has set us free
whilst i am an atheist i could see why the ,lets say "preaching" of Christ as we see in the new testament, could be close to Libertarianism. I would advise you if you want to see Penn Jillete on Libertarianism, he sums it up pretty good
I'm Atheist Libertarian
@wrjamescom Those with disabilities already have a limited pool of job options due to the inherent limitations of the disability and employers of the jobs many of them can technically do want reliable people with their own transportation, who can work certain hours, and that is what keeps many disabled individuals out of the workplace. Not a desire to not work.
God I wish a libertarian candidate would win and fix america once and for all. Thomas Jefferson was the first libertarian we need to go back to his idea of how america should have been built from the beginning.
I agree with the Libertarian views to a point, and it is with our seniors. We still have seniors that have worked hard their entire lives, and have to decide b/t buying prescriptions and food. 'NO' senior is this country should have to decide b/t buying food and prescriptions. Knowing this comment will be attacked, I know first hand there are seniors in these situations because I am an advocate of seniors. However, I do agree with most of what these people are saying. :-)
Stossel is THE MAN!!
So when can we get a libertarian US president who can actually reach 270 in electoral votes?
We keep voting and spreading the message.
never thank god
You can vote for me 😊
Never. Lemmings like@@Shockkings0714 go out of their way to prevent it
I agree with most of the points they made, but I didn’t appreciate how everyone clapped between arguments
@nick10463 I hate that liberals have that name. They should be called collectivists. If anything libertarians are true liberals. freedom in social policies as well as fiscal policies.
@SepherStar It shouldn't be easy. It's not easy now, but a lot easier than it should be. But if someone is in need, they have every opportunity to seek charity. Robbing people at gunpoint, which is how taxation works, shouldn't be an option. That's not charity. Charity is given freely.
‘
I voted Libertarian
NOT TRUMP OR KAMALA
When this aired the National Debt was $12T. Only 12 years later it is $30+T. More dependency equals more Debt.
Just watched Atlas Shrugged with my 17 year old son who recommended it. That movie really made me think. I had never really given libertarian's a thought until then. I cannot say I agree with everything, but I am looking into it more.
@SepherStar No we just believe that the best way to help people is to teach them how to fish, not to give them a fish!
This is where I know you're wrong. I live in the U.S. and the services here are satisfactory, both customer service and quality of product. The people I encounter who dislike the services are people who complain about everything.
Thank you.
This Murdock guy is the only one who's saying stuff that isn't complete pie in the sky bullshit.
The difference is with private charity I am not being stolen from to pay for someones dependence.
@rehwr I don't see how you come to that conclusion but you are free to explain. The majority of the food, product safety and environmental issues China has is either from lack of regulations or poor enforcement of regulations. People are not putting melamine in milk and recycling cooking oil extracted from sewers because of enforcement of any government regulation.
so apparently im a liberatarian. go figure.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Right off the bat he strawmans the welfare case. NOBODY-liberal or conservative wants to just give money to people that don't work hard. It is about the people who get old, injured, sick, or laid off. That is where the safety net should be constructed.
The myth of the lazy person collecting welfare. People who have no idea how "welfare" works.
I agree getting a job can be hard. However most people with graduate degrees who can't find work are people who got degrees in fields that there is no job market, or where they didn't learn actual skills or learn information with realistic market value.
Maybe more folks should consider a career in Trucking. Never enough drivers. Plenty of work, and good money as well. Many people end up passing up opportunities that happen to be in fields that are not their ideal choice, rather than there being a dearth of jobs.
The federal government can fund a safety net without taxing ANYBODY. They can simply create the money needed by actually spending on these public programs.
+Banksta$Gangsta The programs have been failures. Why do you want to continue?
Gerald Bennett
Because people need help sometimes.
Banksta$Gangsta Crap. 50 million Americans are not incapable. Why don't they speak for themselves if they are struggling?. Its always an arrogant snot that speaks for them, Get lost
Gerald Bennett
Love you baby
I'm amused by doing what I do. Originally I sought out forums, boards, and comments to test what I believed. I thought the unrestrained mediums would be more likely to produce real results. What I've found I never could have imagined. These lefty idiots are filled with hate, indoctrination, misinformation, and envy.I can't remember the last time a lefty presented an argument that a) I haven't seen fail 100x before, or b) made me say "hmm, he has a point."
Why in the world would my kid, or anyone's kid HAVE TO WORK 12 hours a day??? If you don't like your wage, get a better job.
them clapping after everything they say is so annoying. you already raised your hand we don't need to know your libertarian over and over
damn let us live lol there aren't a lot of us
Ease up turbo. The idea isn't to give people others wealth stolen at gun point.
The idea is promote the family and allow people to rise socially through real opportunities.
Don't you see all the poverty caused by the breaking of families? Giving people the option to split a family at others expense encourages dependency and degeneracy.
I was simply letting you know that charities exist and they provide a lot. The ONLY thing welfare allows you to do differently is pay rent/government housing.
Libertarianism and the poor
1. Large extended families, charities, religious institutions, friendly societies, can act as a safety net.
2. De-regulation, means workers can trade off degrees of safety for higher pay. They can also trade off degrees of safety with lower prices of the goods they buy.
3. If the productive aren’t taxed, then more can be invested into production which will lower prices, raising the average standard of living.
4. A move to hard money will greatly lessen inflation. Preventing the gradual rise of prices across the board. Also, closing a lot of speculative markets which create bubbles like with housing. Also, preventing the phenomena of foreign buyers buying big houses with no one living in them.
private charities and extended families have the legal power to discriminate against nearly anyone they want to discriminate against so some people receive no resources from these sources...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...especially the extended family that won't give any money to family members that won't conform to the culture and politics of the family...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..you have recommended a shaky , . inconsistent safety net with giant holes that people can see from half a block away...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
good times when fox was libertarian
The only problem with this I have is that, it's a conflict of opinions to say "government shouldn't give people money, but private people should by charity." I don't see the realistic difference between government giving money, and private people doing it. People don't get less dependent on private charity than they get from government. It's the exact same thing, it's just libertarians who have a problem with gov't doing it because of the initiation of force.
So what's stopping people from getting dependant on private charities rather than the government?
@Impossible Complexity I didn't create unployment! Who do you think I am?
Here in Australia we have a huge number of people draining the welfare system and a huge number of employers needing workers. It's a ridiculous predicament to be in.
The fact that those companies will watch out carefully if you are abusing the system, because unlike government they don't have infinite amount of funds, which they can increase at any time they wish so. Not to mention, that government welfare is more formal, than charity, which may make some people feel bad for even thinking, that they will abuse the system.
Private charities only give limited amounts one time and not enough to pay rent and bills.
Those charities existed before and they even exist now.
In Australia today you can get food baskets from at least 3 different charities......
they will never let third party enter the debates for presidential election, they don't want to air this type of stuff and have people think more
1:57 " if you see a crying baby on the street, well, that baby should just open industries to feed itself and rise through merit. "
No one said that
Though you've made it very clear that you don't care about the suffering of the less fortunate which, as I said, is the crux of the issue. We have different morals. You don't care about the old and disabled and I do. If libertarians really wanted to give the disabled jobs they would make more an effort to hire those with disabilities, and would not be opponents of the ADA, which isn't nearly as effective as I'd like it to be but at least prevents blatant discrimination.
They don't have welfare and social security in India but it's not pretty. The only way you get taken care of in India when you are elderly is if you had kids. They don't have nursing homes in India. And every household has an elderly person in it. But you pretty much HAVE to have children, and not just one child. That would be putting all your eggs in one basket.
India has so much regulation for the common people to prosper economically. India needs to deregulate.
Please like my page on FB and bring some discussion with you. Please also share with friends. I'm very interested in spreading the ideals of Libertarianism with the world but as I just started my page up I need help getting an audience. Thank you.
facebook.com/LibertariansOfAmericaAgainstBiPartySystem?ref=hl
***** The Caste System doesn't exist anymore in India. Hinduism does not look down on poor people.
***** That is a complete false statement.
Every culture has some kind of rationalization for demonizing the poor and making them out to deserve it. This allows the better off to enjoy and hoard their prosperity without guilt
I'm disappointed nobody mentioned about UBI.
Name ONE country that has a successful Libertarian model... ONE!
None because the world is becoming socialist lmfao
All government money should go into EDUCATION and research. Education is the key to the future, the unemployment rate is rising because some people simply cannot be employed even if they would want to work. Demand does not meet supply. The 21st century is different from the past centuries when the factories and mines just sucked up all the unemployed and very limited skills were needed. All these talks about liberalism or socialism are stupid and outdated. The modern world needs BRAINS and people who are willing to Create high added value to products and services. The big corporations and science basically got married, those who have the knowledge can make a lot of money beyond imagination, those who do not have that will live day by day regardless whether they get welfare or not.
The best comment that i have seen.
Not sure if throwing money at something will fix it
Without regulations, employers will be willing to train you without experience. Public schools are shit for the money they receive. That money just lines teacher's pockets.
You also have to ensure that education is of quality. No common core BS.
how about the government should not exist
Actually, Hostess hired a guy to turn the company around if it could be done. The final plan was to go into chapter 11 restructuring of debt. Everyone was on board except the unions. They were told that if they didn't work with restructuring, they were going to run the company into the ground as it wouldn't be profitable, so they would go into chapter 7 liquidation instead. AFTER being told this, they went into strike anyway...and Hostess closed their doors & filed chapter 7 as foretold.
@100CommonCents I most assuredly am not kidding about the statement of fact that I posted. Driving cars with electric windows and the existence of windows as a computer program doesn't have any relevance to the factors that made the U.S. rich, stolen land and slave labour during the most critical stages of this country. My statement doesn't even have anything to do with the powers given a state or choice. it has to do with the real reasons behind the wealth of America. Thank you.
Very few poor people are on welfare. Since welfare reform in 1996, only about 25% of children in poverty are on welfare. Libertarians should basically declare victory on this point!
I'm a libertarian but I think the way they formatted this discussion is a bit odd. Surely they should have someone who disagrees and challenges their views so they can explain further.
Could you please edit out that high-pitched screeching in the background? It's a nightmare for my younger ears!
@SepherStar Neither of those are federal issues according to the constitution. But what makes you think you need even a state government to certify medicine? The AMA is not a government org, but like the Bar association, they use government thugs to prevent competition. Start a drug certification org, similar to the various other consumer protection orgs. Let people choose to look for your certification when buying drugs, or not.
Man this makes me feel good. Good ole common sense, not ignorant liberals who want to bankrupt the working people or the rich GOP types who would throw the working people in the street to make more profits. It is nice to hear common sense, and people who have ideas to make life better. Yes people can help themselves.
To any Libertarian who supports private charity alone, I ask, how much did you personally donate to homeless shelters, food kitchens or education for the poor last year? Your family? Your friends? Thought so, frauds. At least be honest that you want the poor to hurry up and die and thus decrease the surplus population.
The point of libertarianism is about freedom, I gave $400 to charity last year, but I also have nothing against people who choose not to, that's more than a socialist can say.
xOrion89x You're right, Libertarians are far worse than Socialists and Communists. Libertarians say as an article of faith that private charities will more than compensate for an end to the welfare state. When as you were honest enough to admit, they all know that's a God damn lie. It's a marketing jingle used to disguise the inhumane-anti-societal underpinnings of Libertarian-ism. The poverty rate among the elderly was 50% in the US before the advent of Socialist Security. Now the poverty is 10%. No offense, but you're $400 a year just won''t cut it to address these types of problems, and secretly you all know it. Face it man, socialism works.
***** It's not me saying it dude. I didn't just pull those numbers out of nowhere. That's decades of academic studies that have evaluated the effect of Social Security. I do agree with you though that efforts to require minimum and living wages make a tremendous difference to improve the lives of millions of American. I'm glad you support those types of government regulations. I also agree that advances in the medical system, such as the creation of Medicare have saved millions of elderly Americans and their families from bankruptcy. I'm glad you support that. Prior to Medicare, the private insurance system had completely failed that segment of society. In 1963 the uninsured rate for people 65 and over was 52%. Today, it's less than 1%. Face it government programs like these work. They actually work exceptionally well. On the issue of Social Security taxation. You're numbers are actually wrong. The OASDI payroll tax rate is only 6.2% on each side. You must be thinking of cumulative OASDI/Medicare payroll tax rates. Those are actually separate programs. That being said, we have data on the results you get in a system where people have that extra pay to invest. As I already stated, the results in that environment were that 50% of the elderly lived in poverty. So while I appreciate your support for the advances that social policies like the minimum wage and Medicare have brought about, on Social Security, and it's benefits for the elderly, you're unfortunately on the wrong side of the facts. Feel free to keep tilting at windmills and arguing for a 52% uninsured rate among seniors and a 50% poverty rate for them too.
SO what? If there are SO MANY people like you the poor will be adequately looked after, FYI the right donate more than the left.
Winter is coming That's because the left mainly donate using other peoples money instead.
Good lord, Boaz just dropped the hammer on the welfare state!
When, in history, has a nation benefited or existed primarily of small businesses and enterpeneurs without concentrating into a world of rich landlords and serfs?
Oh, never. In fact democracy was created by serfs to protect them from private business interests and landlords.
Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Estonia. Of course, we still see huge American companies swallowing up some of the competition in these places like McDonald's and Starbucks and Costco, but they have a much more diverse market than less economically free countries like the US. The US has wiped out a lot of local little shops -- you compare these freer nations and you find so many more mom and pop shops, family-owned businesses, open markets, local coffee shops, local restaurants that aren't chains, cute little local bookstores, etc. There's a cultural richness to it. I especially like Singapore since you can find like a little Norwegian coffee shop next to a tiny Indian store selling imported Indian foods and then step out to a colorful open market with all these tiny vendors selling fresh produce only to then -- if you walk a modest distance -- come across skyscrapers.
Another example is online stores like Steam -- probably among the most deregulated markets that we can find. You don't see AAA companies making it impossible for little Indie developers to outcompete them there. I don't think that will change even in a hundred years if Steam is still around provided that it remains so cheap for anyone to publish a product to sell on there.
Meanwhile, when I visit the US and drive across the country, it's like Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Wendy's, K-Mart, Starbucks, Burger King, Costco, Sam's, another Wal-Mart, Starbucks, another McDonald's, Barnes & Noble. It's like almost every city and state looks sort of the same with such a heavily-regulated market. If I look closely I still see a few small businesses here and there like some cool local barbecue restaurant in Texas, but nowhere close to the variety that I find in more economically-free countries. It's like looking at an online game store that predominantly consists of AAA games like Call of Duty and very few Indie titles because the online store is so heavily regulated and makes it difficult for small devs to publish there. I find it rather depressing just purely from a cultural perspective.
@rehwr I don't see any employers stepping up to pay your average single parent wages that can cover their cost of living and day care expenses, and I don't see employers lining up to employ disabled individuals who are limited in the tasks they can perform, often don't have their own transportation, and are usually not well enough to show up at work on a daily basis at set times. And again, the government isn't the one stopping them.
"Have they no refuge or resource?" cried Scrooge. "Are there no prisons?" said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. "Are there no workhouses?" The bell struck twelve.
This is why I say no one would give if there was'nt aid programs and tax breaks because of the, 'It's my money, and I don't have to" excuse.
Government programs can be wasteful, and just as oftern people can be too greedy to help.
Deroy Murdock Should be the one of the type of black role models that our inner city youth should be exposed to! Stop Idolizing Lil' Wayne & Thugs...
Some more Beautiful black minds: Martin Luther King, Thomas Sowell, Neil Degrasse Tyson & Immortal Technique etc etc etc.
Black people everywhere have such great minds to be proud of. They have great role models who changed the world! Be proud of the right role models!
lotta clapping in this episode, liberty lovers!
@yakyakyak69 I'm sure you like to tell yourself I'm a communist but I promise you I have as many issues with communism as I do libertarianism. Power does always corrupt and that is why a system needs checks and balances. A corporation can become just as corrupt and just as oppressive as a government can. India has a bill of rights integrated into it's constitution. But India is a very corrupt society with poor enforcement of it's doctrines and regulations.
The private welfare organizations will give almost 90 percent of the money to those who need it. The money in government welfare lines the pockets of middle class social workers on the dole and they have no incentive to see the poor employed. Hardly any money in government welfare goes to the poor. The welfare recipients are therefore slaves of those exploiring them for political power. Decriminalizing work, reducing taxes and privatizing welfare into actual employment assistance will help the poor more than anything. Ask not what government can do to help the poor, ask what government is doing to forcibly stop them from getting off welfare and succeeding in self sufficiency.
@rehwr The fact of the matter is, the cost of day care can easily exceed the earning ability of a single parent, and employers want to hire employees who are reliable, versatile and healthy, and frequently younger than older. The job market is very competitive and discrimination is hard to prove. It's ignorant to claim you have solutions to problems you very obviously don't understand.
The most advanced nations had centralized government. The guy from Cato is blatantly ignoring that point saying 'there were no rich nations 2,000 years ago'. History shows that all of the richest most developed nations had strong central governments, collected taxes, had police and military to promote law and order, etc.
I'd love to see the US end public schools tomorrow and have the libertarians explain why we start falling further behind Europe and China in education.
I'd love to see full libertarian economics go into effect. It would be hilarious to see millions of libertarians wondering what happened to the roads, the schools, the police, fire departments.
Is the Cato institute guy joking? There were no rich nations 2,000 years ago? Rome, Egypt, Greece, the Mayans, the Incas. 500 years ago England, France and Spain, etc. These libertarians just make things up out of thin air.
Seriously you're calling the Mayans rich? No there were no rich nations 2000 years ago. Capitalism created our standard of wealth before that they were all dirt poor. As for what would happen to schools, hospitals and roads all of them were better before government ran them.
@100CommonCents Your example of australia proves my point, stolen land, indentured servants, free labour, all those natural resources undeveloped, then taken. Good point, slavery land theft and colonialism do have a huge role to play in Americas wealth and by your words australias too. I don't recall mentioning any other countries though, western or otherwise. thank you!
What if, and hear me out here, we try these "mutal aid" and "charity" ideas, but instead of relying on the personal generosity of individuals we create a system that takes a little bit of the value produced by everyone and uses that value to ensure that those who can't provide for themselves are able to get what they need. I guess you could summarize it by saying "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I don't know though, I'm just spitballing here.
That's a great idea 💡Government bureaucracies are so efficient with the tax money that they receive, that'll work out really well!👍
Here is my challenge to anybody who believes that failure is due yo personal responsibility
An Indonesian boy got admitted to a good university through the help of his village, he lives on an island that is a full day travel by boat and car, he comes from a village that is too poor to afford his university campus. The state pays for that. Great just like the roads for the cars, and the boat to and from the island, without the state the island would not have access to the bigger islands. That is beside the point.
COVID-19 happened, ow lovely a libertarians wet dream come true, lockdown. He gets sent home to his village.
Here comes the question for you. How can he take personal responsibility for his education and future prospects? He has 8 siblings that he shares a room with, no access to a library, so bad internet that he can show up for class 90% of the time, but is unable to ask questions or hear the answers, and even if he could, his siblings is loud around him, because they do not have the money to send those kids through school, so they are home getting "Home schooled".
What do you want the boy to do? He can not reach the main island because it requires a bigger boat than his village has access to. He can not study under those conditions, he has an enormous pressure to succeed because else the whole village would have lost everything to give him books, tutors, and more.
When a large surge in student suicide began the government lifted the lockdown on the students with the hardest conditions, the boy got back to campus and did not kill himself. The government provides him with education, food, and shelter. His village could provide 2 of those things. And where is the personal responsibility?????????????
What could the guy have done? Remember phone connections to these islands are even worsr than their internet connecrions.
This wss an example of student suicidality, it is an example I am using in my phd proposal for "losing the capacity to aspire". He had planned for his own death a week before he got the notice to return to campus.
So where is the personal responsibility, I don't want to hear shit about govwrnment overreach or anything other topic. What could he have done?????
So the Libertarian platform is "Fuck the poor"
Thanks, I'll stay a registered Independent...
No, it's that the government is incapable of welfare of the poor
Charity does a far better job
@@afterburnerfox I totally agree with small government, and getting rid of the welfare state. But leaving the elderly and disabled to fend for themselves keeps from joining the party. Some people abuse the system, but that doesn't mean remove the safety net entirely.
@@Electric_Coconut im mentally disabled, and agree.
@@Electric_Coconut charity
[[Who will rule if there's no government? ]]
Don't ask who will rule you, ask who will inspire you via leadership. Do you seek a ruler?
There's no government regulations stopping private charities from doing such things now. The fact of the matter is, private charities don't have the organization nor the resources to step up to the plate and provide a consistent source of income and resources for single mothers on welfare and the disabled who currently receive disability or SSI. Do you think if there were no taxes people would be more willing to donate? Of course not. How many people donated their stimulus check?
Holy crap, look at those stock prices. Amazon - $140, Dow Jones - 10,900
I love how people who never have been on welfare know everything. Lol
Bangladesh doesn't have any of the machinery to produce mass amounts of capital goods, such as food, clothing etc, which leads to lower supply, which leads to higher prices and a lower real wage for it's citizens. Why do you think Singapore has the highest wages in the world and no min wage law? Why do you think the US paid the highest wages in the world before the institution of the min wage law? Because they had more capital goods, more competition and lower prices.
What happened to the Roman Empire. The Egyptian Empire. The Mongolian Empire. The Nazi Empire. The Mussolini Empire! The Napoleon Empire
The government should help the poor and try to help the poor get off the street and get a job. We have to have welfare to prevent mass poverty and to have unregulated Capitalism would lead to pre 1912 Capitalism trusts and monopolies. You need government regulation were its needed and no government regulation were it's not
Government doesn't help the poor. Government helps those people who control it, should be quite obvious.
Trusts and "monopolies" aren't bad until they use monopoly privileges, but when they do consumer get upset and competion emerges from local markets, undercutting their prices and now the consumer is winning again. Today majority of the state regulations are ANTI-competition, take tarrifs, patents or licensing for an example.
@@zigoter2185 not if government is directly controlled by the people
@@captainkill1993 can you directly control the government? No, you can only choose 1 guy and then watch him do the stuff 4 years and they choose again, doesn't seem like control.
@@captainkill1993 your point is only correct if we had direct democracy, which we don't. We have representative democracy, because direct democracy cannot work if you have millions of people.
@@zigoter2185 so we should just have an anarchist society. Sorry but that won't work direct Democracy works there's millions in America
$AMZN @ 140. What a time.
Stossel isn't asking them about corporate welfare and state funded capitalism. I guess they told him to avoid that question. Convenient
Stossel has made many videos criticizing corporate welfare.