Wealthy Socialists vs. Poor Libertarians

[manifold]

Which do you think there are more of in the US, wealthy people who support more socialist policies or poor people that support libertarian ideals (i.e. elimination/minimization of welfare, public education and other social programs)?

Or is it the same... zero?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I think its about even.

People are equally self-destructive, no matter what the income. I think there are plenty of rich people willing to vote themselves into higher taxes, just as there are plenty of poor folks willing to bite any hand that reaches out to help.

 

[amrchaos]

I say poor libertarians.

It is easier to be an anarchist at the bottom of the totem pole than a compassionate savior at the top. Even the Buddha had problems with this.

 

[manifold]

Libertarianism does not equal Anarchism.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I say poor libertarians.

It is easier to be an anarchist at the bottom of the totem pole than a compassionate savior at the top. Even the Buddha had problems with this.

I think you're missing the point. Wealthy Socialists want to solve a problem with a government program. That's a far easier way to assuage your guilt than actually doing anything about it.

On the other hand poor libertarians get to feel smug about denying public help. They get that feeling of "I'm poor but at least I'm not a welfare queen." That's a powerful emotion, a kind of Schadenfreude that really makes people feel better.

That's why I think that in reality, the numbers are probably even.

 

[amrchaos]

Libertarianism does not equal Anarchism.

Let see
Libertarians want few laws, few regulations
Anarchists want no laws and no regulations

Since none is not many, we can claim it is an exact number under the category of few. Thus libertarianiism incorporates Anarchism to some degree.

No--not equal, but incorporates.

Now for the issue about Wealthy socialists. They are like wealthy Capitalists with the misconception about their public image. They think they can improve it(haha!!)

See Michael Moore. Fat sloppy lying socialists or egalitarain free thinker for the common man?


The first is what the public thinks the latter is what Michael Moore is trying to accomplish!!

 

[blastoff]

Which do you think there are more of in the US, wealthy people who support more socialist policies or poor people that support libertarian ideals (i.e. elimination/minimization of welfare, public education and other social programs)?

Or is it the same... zero?

Doesn't make sense to me to that many poor would want to screw with the system that provides the handouts.

 

[amrchaos]

Which do you think there are more of in the US, wealthy people who support more socialist policies or poor people that support libertarian ideals (i.e. elimination/minimization of welfare, public education and other social programs)?

Or is it the same... zero?

Doesn't make sense to me to that many poor would want to screw with the system that provides the handouts.

It is easier to think of a low income libertarian


For instance, some farmers make little money and can be considered poor yet provide for themselves. The last thing they would want is some federal agent coming in and telling them what to do.


But wealthy Socialists? I keep picturing Michael Moore, George Soros or Al Gore and I am starting to think that mainfold is a right wing propagandists!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Doesn't make sense to me to that many poor would want to screw with the system that provides the handouts.

I take it you don't know many poor people? There's a definite divide between those that take the handouts and those that choose to make it on their own.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarianism does not equal Anarchism.

Let see
Libertarians want few laws, few regulations
Anarchists want no laws and no regulations

Since none is not many, we can claim it is an exact number under the category of few. Thus libertarianiism incorporates Anarchism to some degree.

No--not equal, but incorporates.

Now for the issue about Wealthy socialists. They are like wealthy Capitalists with the misconception about their public image. They think they can improve it(haha!!)

See Michael Moore. Fat sloppy lying socialists or egalitarain free thinker for the common man?


The first is what the public thinks the latter is what Michael Moore is trying to accomplish!!

Anarchism would mean the abolition of the government. Not all libertarians want the abolition of government, therefore not all libertarians are anarchists. And it's not true that all anarchists want no laws.

As to the point of the thread, I would say there are more wealthy socialists because there are probably more socialists than there are libertarians.

 

[amrchaos]

Libertarianism does not equal Anarchism.

Let see
Libertarians want few laws, few regulations
Anarchists want no laws and no regulations

Since none is not many, we can claim it is an exact number under the category of few. Thus libertarianiism incorporates Anarchism to some degree.

No--not equal, but incorporates.

Now for the issue about Wealthy socialists. They are like wealthy Capitalists with the misconception about their public image. They think they can improve it(haha!!)

See Michael Moore. Fat sloppy lying socialists or egalitarain free thinker for the common man?


The first is what the public thinks the latter is what Michael Moore is trying to accomplish!!

Anarchism would mean the abolition of the government. Not all libertarians want the abolition of government, therefore not all libertarians are anarchists. And it's not true that all anarchists want no laws.

As to the point of the thread, I would say there are more wealthy socialists because there are probably more socialists than there are libertarians.

True, not all libertarians are anarchists.

I contend that Anarchists can be labeled Libertarians and the on question regulations and laws, our dear libertarians incorporates some anarchists ideas.


Now on the general number of socialists versus libertarian---let us not use the amount of noise generated by a group as the inidcator of their numbers.

Socialists tend to be more vocal and visible than libertarians for a reason. Socialists wish to unite the masses under a collective ideology while libertarians tend to mind their business and wish to be left to their own devices. Socialists need air time to express their ideas and reach out into society. The Socialists need to be seen and on a constant basis in order to gain popular appeal.

Libertarians--do not care,just leave them out of it.
If talk in numbers of socialist versus libertarians I would say their numbers are about equal.

But when one talks of wealthy Socialists/Libertarians versus poor Socialists/Libertarians it is easier to assume the wealthier is the smaller. Thus I contend that there are less wealthy (Socialis/libertarians) than Poor (Socialists/Libertarians)

You can mix and match in any fashion you wish. There are less Wealthier whatevers than poor whatchamacallits!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Which do you think there are more of in the US, wealthy people who support more socialist policies or poor people that support libertarian ideals (i.e. elimination/minimization of welfare, public education and other social programs)?

Or is it the same... zero?

Just on the premise that there are a lot less "wealthy" people than poor people I would be willing to go out on a limb and say there are more poor libertarian minded individuals.

Read this Platform | Libertarian Party

 

[toomuchtime_]

Which do you think there are more of in the US, wealthy people who support more socialist policies or poor people that support libertarian ideals (i.e. elimination/minimization of welfare, public education and other social programs)?

Or is it the same... zero?

If you are referring to prosperous people who voice support for "socialist", really social welfare, ideals while paying their household help meager wages and refusing to pay SS or Medicare taxes for them, giving them worn out cast offs instead of decent wages, people who used to be called salon communists, are they claiming to support big social welfare programs simply because it relieves them of the need to think about how they treat the poor people they actually come in contact with? We would have to include people like the Obamas in this group, who even in Chicago proclaimed their support for the public schools while sending their daughters to private schools so Sasha and Malia would not have to rub elbows with the unwashed masses Barack and Michelle claimed to adore, all the while opposing vouchers that would allow poor inner city children to enjoy the educational advantages Barack and Michelle were able to purchase for their daughters. A contemptible lot, all of them, and there are far too many of them.

Libertarians come in so many varieties that they seem hardly one group and so many of the national policies some espouse, such as isolationism and hard currency, seem to me to be untenable verging on bizarre, but, imo, the underlying core belief of Libertarianism is a distrust of politicians and a confidence that the individual understands what is best for him/her better than the government does, that the local community understands what its best interests are better than the state government does and that the state understands the best interests of its citizens better than the national government does, and this belief, imo, is so fundamental to the American character that even the most insecure individuals who lack the confidence and courage to believe they could manage without a union or government program telling them what's in their best interests, secretly shares this core belief of Libertarianism.

So in answer to the question posed, I think there are vastly more libertarians than wealthy "socialists" in America.