A Libertarian's look at Christmas

[Ravi]

So let's look without preconceptions at Scrooge's allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

No doubt Cratchit needs—i.e., wants—more, to support his family and care for Tiny Tim. But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight. And if Cratchit didn't know how expensive they would be, why must Scrooge assume the burden of Cratchit's misjudgment?

Scrooge Defended - Michael Levin - Mises Institute

 

[uscitizen]

Let them eat cake.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And this is in the "politics" section because?

 

[uscitizen]

The political viewpoint of libertarians and how it relates to the holiday spirit.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And this is in the "politics" section because?

Because it applies political ideology to a well-understood example. Did you miss that part?

 

[rightwinger]

"God Bless us.....everyone"

 

[uscitizen]

How many of us think of Mr. Magoo when scrooge is mentioned?

 

[Ravi]

Scrooge is skeptical that many would prefer death to the workhouse, and he is unmoved by talk of the workhouse's cheerlessness. He is right to be unmoved, for society's provisions for the poor must be, well, Dickensian. The more pleasant the alternatives to gainful employment, the greater will be the number of people who seek these alternatives, and the fewer there will be who engage in productive labor. If society expects anyone to work, work had better be a lot more attractive than idleness.

The author of this piece is a nut...I can't believe that Libertarians are this soulless.

 

[chanel]

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is a sort of social Darwinism kinda logic to the piece. But when mankind becomes nothing more than sharks with legs, then maybe it is time for us to go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Si modo]

Isn't this thread charmingly appealing to emotions?

 

[ihopehefails]

So let's look without preconceptions at Scrooge's allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

No doubt Cratchit needs—i.e., wants—more, to support his family and care for Tiny Tim. But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight. And if Cratchit didn't know how expensive they would be, why must Scrooge assume the burden of Cratchit's misjudgment?

Scrooge Defended - Michael Levin - Mises Institute

I found myself agreeing with the part about scrooge not being responsible for Cratchet's children when he did nothing to create them. Its like saying I am responsible for my neighbor's children even though I did nothing to create the situation my neighbor is in.

Its the same about Cratchet's wages as well because Scrooge isn't responsible for his well being only for upholding his agreement with Cratchet.

At least that is what he is responsible for under the law. Scrooge may feel some compassion for Cratchet based on his own religious and moral teachings but that is his own choice and shouldn't be forced to do something that is against his own choice and shouldn't be forced to satisfy the consciences of other people.

 

[Ravi]

I was wrong, libertarians are this soulless. I can't wait til they rewrite Rudolph.

 

[ihopehefails]

There is a sort of social Darwinism kinda logic to the piece. But when mankind becomes nothing more than sharks with legs, then maybe it is time for us to go the way of the dinosaurs.

The idea that people won't be compassionate without the government contradicts everything we know about our behavior. Clearly there are people that feel compassionate for others or there wouldn't be fictional stories like this yet we seem to think that compassionate acts only happen when the government is around or exist and without government we all become scrooge's.

 

[Ravi]

There is a sort of social Darwinism kinda logic to the piece. But when mankind becomes nothing more than sharks with legs, then maybe it is time for us to go the way of the dinosaurs.

The idea that people won't be compassionate without the government contradicts everything we know about our behavior. Clearly there are people that feel compassionate for others or there wouldn't be fictional stories like this yet we seem to think that compassionate acts only happen when the government is around or exist and without government we all become scrooge's.

No one thinks that. Many do think that without God we can't be compassionate. Nice spin there, bucko.

 

[ihopehefails]

I was wrong, libertarians are this soulless. I can't wait til they rewrite Rudolph.

The problem is is that we are our own God in some ways because we will be judged by the standard that we judge others by so anyone else' moral judgment of us does not matter as much as much as our own moral judgment of others and ourselves is identical. The real standard that God judges us by is the standard we have judged others by and if we live by that then we are clean.

 

[ihopehefails]

There is a sort of social Darwinism kinda logic to the piece. But when mankind becomes nothing more than sharks with legs, then maybe it is time for us to go the way of the dinosaurs.

The idea that people won't be compassionate without the government contradicts everything we know about our behavior. Clearly there are people that feel compassionate for others or there wouldn't be fictional stories like this yet we seem to think that compassionate acts only happen when the government is around or exist and without government we all become scrooge's.

No one thinks that. Many do think that without God we can't be compassionate. Nice spin there, bucko.

I don't think I mention God in this post....

 

[Ravi]

The idea that people won't be compassionate without the government contradicts everything we know about our behavior. Clearly there are people that feel compassionate for others or there wouldn't be fictional stories like this yet we seem to think that compassionate acts only happen when the government is around or exist and without government we all become scrooge's.

No one thinks that. Many do think that without God we can't be compassionate. Nice spin there, bucko.

I don't think I mention God in this post....

I didn't say you did.

 

[Amanda]

Isn't this thread charmingly appealing to emotions?

When that's all you have you have to milk it for all it's worth.

 

[Ravi]

Isn't this thread charmingly appealing to emotions?

How so?