Quantcast

Disadvantaged: Would the disadvantaged/unemployed survive in a libertarian society?

Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru 2012/06/04 13:28:06
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Libertarianism is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each
sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government
combined with optimum possible individual liberty. Its goals, though
often varied in detail, prioritize freedom of speech and assembly,
freedom of association, freedom to bear arms, freedom of and from
religion, Press freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of ownership.

libertarianism

It rejects the compulsions of socialism and communism so far as to
uphold, at one end of the spectrum, private property, whether held on an
individual or group basis. It promotes personal responsibility and
self-organized charity, as opposed to welfare statism.

libertarianism

Libertarians assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their lives, and
should be free to do whatever they wish with their own bodies or
property, provided they do not infringe on the rights of another to
engage in that same freedom. They maintain that the initiation of force,
defined by physical violence against another or non-physical acts such
as fraud or threat, is a violation of that central principle; however,
they hold that protective violence, such as self defense, does not
constitute an initiation of force since they hold that such actions
necessarily reflect an individual's reaction to a danger initiated by
another individual.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Dickens 2012/06/11 00:10:05
    Yes they would
    Dickens
    ...and they'd do it by sticking a gun in the face of the advantaged/employed; starving wouldn't be an option if there's something to steal...
  • Revolution 2012 2012/06/05 05:49:36
    Yes they would
    Revolution 2012
    +1
    I see Libertarianism as one of the most morally compatible ideologies with society, at the moment. Everyone must be treated fairly, do what you wish with yourself with consideration for others, the belief in non-violence and non-violent intervention/resistance - Each are commonly held beliefs.
  • beach bum 2012/06/05 02:48:20
    Yes they would
    beach bum
  • JDLogan 2012/06/05 00:00:01
    Yes they would
    JDLogan
    +1
    Those who are better off will have all the resources currently wasted on big government at their disposal. Private charities are several times more efficient at getting resources to those that need it than are government programs.
  • Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/06/04 22:54:37
    Yes they would
    Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    Probably. Get the government out of social services, and more efficient private businesses take over. Get the government out of charity, and wasteful spending on failed safety nets, and efficient charities can take over, in addition to Americans having more money to donate to said charities.

    And dont say charities cant work. Americans are already extremely charitable, even excluding forced charity through the government.
  • Mark 2012/06/04 21:16:53
    No they wouldn't
    Mark
    Libertarian/socialist, just more words meaning lazy.
  • exsecrare Mark 2012/06/05 14:15:22
    exsecrare
    Libertarianism and socialism are exact polar opposites...
  • Odinsown 2012/06/04 19:48:21
    Yes they would
    Odinsown
    By definition those groups stand the most to gain in a libertarian society. It is the rich and powerful who stand to lose the most.
  • GeorgeAMartini 2012/06/04 19:33:12
    Yes they would
    GeorgeAMartini
    +2
    Survival instinct would kick in and those that thrived, on balance, would help through charity. American's are already the most charitable people in history. I don't see why that would change.
  • Sadisticon 2012/06/04 18:40:11
    Yes they would
    Sadisticon
    +2
    I'm pretty sure I have no idea what the implications of a "Libertarian Society" are. I'm pretty sure anybody on this forum (short of that Economics professor - but he's a jackass) really understands the implications of this "Libertarian Society". I'm just here to take issue with the concept of 'disadvantage' - a transitory, ephemeral condition at best - who really is disadvantaged and how long do we consider a person 'disadvantaged'?
    Like 'unemployed' - this isn't a permanent situation and I spent years without a job when I was in college living off of VEAP. Yet, despite that I'm inclined to believe that adversity can benefit those with character, intelligence and tenacity. So yes, the disadvantaged and unemployed who believe in themselves and never give up trying can survive and even thrive under any conditions.
  • Sadisticon Sadisticon 2012/06/04 18:41:39
    Sadisticon
    Libertarians assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their lives, and
    should be free to do whatever they wish with their own bodies or
    property, provided they do not infringe on the rights of another to
    engage in that same freedom. They maintain that the initiation of force,
    defined by physical violence against another or non-physical acts such
    as fraud or threat, is a violation of that central principle; however,
    they hold that protective violence, such as self defense, does not
    constitute an initiation of force since they hold that such actions
    necessarily reflect an individual's reaction to a danger initiated by
    another individual.
  • Sadisticon Sadisticon 2012/06/04 18:41:56
    Sadisticon
    Okay - er - thanks, Sadisticon!
  • Sadisticon Sadisticon 2012/06/04 18:42:08
    Sadisticon
    You're welcome, bitch!
  • Charles E 2012/06/04 18:35:40
    Yes they would
    Charles E
    +1
    Libertarians, moderates, and conservatives would continue donating to private charities where costs are less than 20% and help for the needy is 80%.

    Leftists would continue to donate almost nothing not taken by force by a government agency, where costs exceed 60% and help for the needy is less than 35% the funding provided.

    If the government is taking less from everyone, the voluntary help from non leftists will grow faster than any increase in need..
  • Doreen 2012/06/04 17:50:10
    No they wouldn't
    Doreen
    +2
    AND we would not survive in a Republican society, a Democratic society, a Conservative society, a Tea Party society. If anyone TRULY pays attention we are and already have for years and years been getting reduced more and more. It does not matter what party is in they all chip away at our rights. When I say the disadvantaged I am also talking about the disabled. It is arrogant to feel that one party is better than another because that is false.
  • rspell 2012/06/04 17:28:10
    Yes they would
    rspell
    +3
    They'd have to get a job, or rely on private/church charity.
  • Charles E rspell 2012/06/04 18:37:41
    Charles E
    And there would be more jobs for those who want them and more charity for those who are truly needy. The only losers would be the social parasites.
  • Sadisticon Charles E 2012/06/04 18:43:41
    Sadisticon
    +1
    I would hope so. Unfortunately between idealism and execution I've seen humans ruin orgies.
  • Charles E Sadisticon 2012/06/04 19:39:34
    Charles E
    +1
    Interesting analogy. Unfortunately I would have to agree with you.
  • Devonly 2012/06/04 17:22:19
    Yes they would
    Devonly
    +3
    They wouldn't like it because they would be forced to break their bond from government services.
  • Sadisticon Devonly 2012/06/04 18:45:17
    Sadisticon
    Who? The disadvantaged or the unemployed? Were you responding to that 'social parasites' thing? Because if you weren't you were taking a mighty big leap. Okay - it WAS the 'social parasites' comment...
  • Heisenberg 2012/06/04 17:05:21
    Yes they would
    Heisenberg
    +4
    Yes if they lived among Christians and Jews. We have a strong tradition of voluntary charity.

    catholic charities

    deseret industries

    jewish charities

    salvation army
  • lucky 2012/06/04 14:47:24
    No they wouldn't
    lucky
    +2
    There is no room for gray areas in the world of libertarian-ism.
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/06/04 14:40:22 (edited)
    Yes they would
    Lady Whitewolf
    Better than they would with the "Connys" at the controls!

    NOROMNEY 2012
  • Z 2012/06/04 14:28:52
    Yes they would
    Z
    +4
    By this logic, all poor people always died if they were unemployed before the 1900's in America. But, actually, instead, we had one of the fast growing middle classes, economies and considerably lower crime. Hmmm.
  • Sadisticon Z 2012/06/04 18:46:22
    Sadisticon
    I missed that part of the editorial...
  • Z Sadisticon 2012/06/05 04:46:27 (edited)
    Z
    That is the ultimate idea of this, that without government intervention, poor people wouldn't be able to survive. Like it or not, that is the core of this.
  • Flowers 2012/06/04 14:08:56
    No they wouldn't
    Flowers
    +2
    seems like it would be a "every man/woman for them self" system, one with little to no social programs as well. I don't see how that would help either category; disadvantaged or unemployed in becoming a better citizen if they can't even rely on others when they are in need.
  • D D Flowers 2012/06/04 17:40:03
    D D
    +3
    There are charities but most charities you cannot keep going back to every month to pay for your ass. With welfare they get a check every month and don't try to live individually and take personal responsibility for their lives.

    nyui
  • Flowers D D 2012/06/04 17:57:18
    Flowers
    +2
    That's not always true, some on welfare need it. Just because some abuse the program doesn't mean everyone does.
  • D D Flowers 2012/06/04 19:51:20
    D D
    +1
    When unemployment runs out they start signing up for disability. And we are suppose to respect these freeloaders????
  • Flowers D D 2012/06/04 19:59:19
    Flowers
    Our government needs to do its job and make sure those receiving benefits actually need them instead they are involved in ridiculous Partisan bickering and making sure they get paid with outrageous benefits at the expense of the country. THAT needs to be fixed, do our govt can start running better.
  • D D Flowers 2012/06/05 21:03:05
    D D
    Our gov is too big to do that. Charities are much better dealing with issue.
  • Charles E Flowers 2012/06/04 19:13:26
    Charles E
    +1
    Lack of government run welfare with 60% overhead does not equal no help.
    America has always had help for the truly needy, and will if Libertarians manage to shrink government run programs so the more fortunate can give more and still keep more.
  • joshua ben-ami 2012/06/04 14:03:05
    Yes they would
    joshua ben-ami
    +5
    absolutely
  • Maci 2012/06/04 13:51:13
  • Assassi... Maci 2012/06/04 14:04:41
    Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
    +4
    Your gun argument is foolish. There is NO evidence that carrying guns has caused an uptick in violent crime. The truth is that despite more people carrying than ever you are LESS likely to be killed by a gun than you were 20 years ago.
  • Maci Assassi... 2012/06/04 14:08:29 (edited)
  • Assassi... Maci 2012/06/04 18:42:00
    Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
    I see. I misread. My apologies.
  • Charles E Maci 2012/06/04 19:17:01

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/24 07:22:12

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals