Is there a libertarian approach to poverty that *doesn't* come down to "just stop being poor"?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

These people could not be more out of touch with reality. I mean, who even thinks that? What reasonable person even suspects that the average welfare recipient can afford to live like a fucking multimillionaire?

 

[ScienceRocks]

No,,,without government a few corporations would take all the wealth like most central American countries and most people would end up poor wage slaves.That is the end game of the loserterian.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a distributist. The easiest way to understand my views is to picture a really cranky traditionalist Catholic but without the whole God bit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a distributist. The easiest way to understand my views is to picture a really cranky traditionalist Catholic but without the whole God bit.

why advertise that you're an illiterate?? Since Plato and Aristotle there has been liberal or conservative. Nobody cares that your illiteracy led you to be a distributionist clown liberal !!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a distributist. The easiest way to understand my views is to picture a really cranky traditionalist Catholic but without the whole God bit.

why advertise that you're an illiterate?? Since Plato and Aristotle there has been liberal or conservative. Nobody cares that your illiteracy led you to be a distributionist clown liberal !!

You think Plato and Aristotle knew anything about modern American political theory? Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Practical Distributism

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

]You think Plato and Aristotle knew anything about modern American political theory? Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you?

exactly what we'd we'd expect from a total illiterate liberal . America is based on the ideas of Plato and Aristotle because the idea of freedom versus govt has never gotten old! Do you understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate. Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

You are a loser here, Eddy, as you are with your economic writings elsewhere on the net. If we followed your economic theories, America would increase world wide poverty by 10% in six months. You can learn but refuse to: thus you are stupid.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

exactly what we'd we'd expect from a total illiterate liberal .

I'm not sure how many times I have to clarify that I'm not a liberal. From the link you didn't look at:
"Distributism: an alternate system that subordinates
economics and government to ethics and subsidiarity
because they exist serve the common good.

Many people assume, from the name, that Distributism refers to some sort of government enforced confiscation and redistribution of property. This is incorrect.
Distributism, or Distributivism, refers to the idea that justice and power in both the economic and political realms should be distributed throughout society. "

That is not liberalism. I don't support a laissez faire economy or a command economy. Basically I want a return to the guild system. That not being practical, I'd at least settle for GK Chesterton's vision of returning to the pre-industrial model of widely distributed yet regulated small scale capitalism by lower and middle class professional artisans. That system only died when the industrialists enslaved the artisans for factory labor and hung all dissenters, such as the monkey wrenching Luddite rebels.

America is based on the ideas of Plato and Aristotle because the idea of freedom versus govt has never gotten old! Do you understand?

I promise you. Plato didn't have any idea what America's political conflicts would be like.

 

[Jomama]

Distibutist is interesting, I hadn't heard of it before. It reminds me of the old quip that if we redistributed all the wealth in America evenly amongst everyone, it would end up back in the same hands within a generation. Guys like me would hustle like heck to accumulate wealth and others would buy lotto tickets and smokes.

As a libertarian leaning person, no, there is probably not a better Libertarian answer which is a shortcoming in libertarianism - it doesn't accommodate nuance, even in the face of failure. Sure, if we cut out all govt benis more people would work. And some would starve and some would steal and end up in jail or shot.

The whole conversation misses the goal; is our goal to provide a minimal standard of living in America or to force people to work and not freeload? I love the latter but have accepted leaches and bums as part of the human experience. When I was younger I spent time and energy getting wound up about the dependent class but as I age I've realize that I'm better served taking my limited time and energy and working harder and smarted, not worrying about the freeloaders.

 

[BULLDOG]

These people could not be more out of touch with reality. I mean, who even thinks that? What reasonable person even suspects that the average welfare recipient can afford to live like a fucking multimillionaire?

Who? People who have been lucky enough to have a steady well paying job. They think that everybody could be just like them if they only tried, even though there is a limited number of those well paying jobs. If their well paying job suddenly turns to crap, they think they are being singled out for mistreatment. I've seen it more than once.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Distibutist is interesting, I hadn't heard of it before. It reminds me of the old quip that if we redistributed all the wealth in America evenly amongst everyone, it would end up back in the same hands within a generation. Guys like me would hustle like heck to accumulate wealth and others would buy lotto tickets and smokes.

I'm curious about this part. I understand having a good work ethic. I understand wanting a comfortable life. What is it that would drive you to unbalance an economy like that to gain even more though? Even you say most people would work as much as they had to and spend the rest of their time enjoying their lives. Why would you continue to want an ever larger piece of the wealth?

As a libertarian leaning person, no, there is probably not a better Libertarian answer which is a shortcoming in libertarianism - it doesn't accommodate nuance, even in the face of failure. Sure, if we cut out all govt benis more people would work. And some would starve and some would steal and end up in jail or shot.

That last part nailed why I can't be libertarian personally. I could never think it's anything but disgusting that poor kids living exactly like I did never know if they're going to eat that day while some billionaire fuck (like, I dunno, David Miscavige) has his private chef cook two multi-course meals per mealtime so he can decide which he wants to throw out without touching.

The whole conversation misses the goal; is our goal to provide a minimal standard of living in America or to force people to work and not freeload? I love the latter but have accepted leaches and bums as part of the human experience. When I was younger I spent time and energy getting wound up about the dependent class but as I age I've realize that I'm better served taking my limited time and energy and working harder and smarted, not worrying about the freeloaders.

I can't really get behind the characterization of the working poor as leaches and freeloaders either for the reasons mentioned in the OP. The default argument is always that if they had jobs then they wouldn't be poor, so we should always opt to increase employment rather than wages. It totally misses the fact that many people are already employed (possibly with more than one job at a time) and still don't earn enough for more than day to day survival, if even that. I know there are many people like that. I know a few of them. I was one of them until I came of age and enlisted to get out of the hole.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Distibutist is interesting, I hadn't heard of it before.

it didn't work when they called it communism, so now this idiot is trying it under another name, distributionism!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They think that everybody could be just like them if they only tried,

great theory!! so they don't have to try because they may not succeed!! And so we should but them all on welfare? 100% stupid and liberal as always!!!!

See why our founders tried to make liberalism illegal? Its too stupid for words!!!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

it didn't work when they called it communism, so now this idiot is trying it under another name, distributionism!

Communism and distributism are two different things. Did you even read the website I linked you to, or the definition I pulled from it for you? Communism is an explicitly atheist command economy system where the state controls the means of production in the name of the people. Distributism is a technically Catholic small scale capitalist system. Under Communism, the state owns your labor and puts you to work on its collectivized farm for the good of the nation. Under Distributism, you own your labor and your farm just like your neighbor owns his own. Under Communism, the state provides you with a living. Under Distributism, you provide your own living.

If you won't read our resources then at least read the document the idea was inspired by: Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891) | LEO XIII. Note that I agree with much of that as an atheist. Belief in Catholic theology isn't required to accept particular social ideals espoused by the Roman Church.http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xi...nts/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Under Distributism, you own your labor and your farm just like your neighbor owns his own.

dear if everybody owns a farm or small business and is allowed to freely trade then it is capitalism. Are you really too slow to grasp that??

 

[Sallow]

I've dealt with these arguments no less than four times today. Every time it was with a libertarian. Every time their main points were that we need to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws, that being poor and being unemployed are synonymous, and that we can therefore fight poverty by employing as many people as possible at $4.50/hour. In other words, if you're poor then it's because you're unemployed, you're unemployed because you're too lazy to look for work, and if you didn't enjoy being poor and eating steak and lobster on your annual Caribbean cruise on our dime then you would go get a job and earn your own money.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here,sorry. The pure beauty of capitalism is that it forces you to provide the best jobs and products in the entire world to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.

Simple to understand, but not for a liberal.

No it doesn't.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

dear if everybody owns a farm or small business and is allowed to freely trade then it is capitalism. Are you really too slow to grasp that??

That's exactly what I said. It is a small scale capitalist economic model. Basically what I want is a return to the pre-industrial state of professional artisans and small business owners. You own your own farm. Your neighbor owns his own farm. Both of you are protected from the rich asshole who wants to take your property for his factory farm empire.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Basically what I want is a return to the pre-industrial state

dear, a huge factory can make things 1000 times cheaper so what you propose would make us all 1000 times poorer and would need to be imposed by a Nazi like regime.

Do you understand?