Rugged Individualism, Libertarianism, and Social Darwinism

Destacado
Connor Bible

Connor Bible

Inferior Enfant Terrible
kiwifarms.net
Registrado
29 de Oct, 2013
You might have heard the phrase. President Herbert Hoover used it a lot during his time in office. The gist of it is that that everyone should be able to help themselves out, and not seek help from the government for economic matters. During the Great Depression, he applied this philosophy, and you can see how well that worked. Though he stressed that this policy wasn't exactly laissez-faire, a lot of modern rugged individualists, particularly libertarians, seem to use it to rationalize assholish behavior. IMHO, I'm okay with a smaller government, but I think that some people need a little help, sometimes for things that are beyond their control.

Just my two cents. Now it's your turn, Kiwis.
 
Well, put it this way. If you don't help out the needy, you set the stage for very expensive and violent rebellion among the lowest classes. The modern welfare state was simply a concession needed to fend off communists.

In the US, we're stuck in this half-ass zone where we don't help anyone out until they're near-death, which ultimately just ends up being more expensive than either helping them properly or simply letting them die. Without a welfare system of some sort, if you weren't born into money, all it takes is one financial disaster to permanently put you on the street. And considering we're hardly meritocratic, you end up privileging those who knew how to bullshit the best hundreds of years ago over actual ability. So that being said, there's still a middle ground that helps people in need without waste, and I view that to be replacing this welfare state with a more efficient $2k yearly negative income tax or basic income for all adults. It'd be cheaper than what we do now, we can encourage saving through a carrot-on-a-stick I'd have to think up, and people would have incentive to make something of themselves since it's not enough to live off anyway. There's also other important things we need to do, like prioritising non-luxury housing and easing draconian zoning codes to reduce cost of rent.

Without a welfare system, you don't ensure the welfare of all individuals in need. Tea Party conservatives have touted just "going to your church" for help; works all fine and dandy until you realise marginalised groups like gays and trans people wouldn't have access to any help or support.

An efficient welfare system ensures that all who need help are provided for. Neither our current approach nor just letting people die is doing that successfully.
 
Última edición:
Politicians, bankers and assorted suits want a smaller government for the same reason criminals want a smaller police force- so they can get away with shit.
 
I don't think it's a good thing that someone can have their financial life completely destroyed if they go bankrupt as a result of medical bills that were astronomically much higher than anticipated and where the co-pay was high too, like @KatsuKitty mentioned with all the other financial disasters that can do that. There are just some services where I believe that it's necessary to have the government intervene and provide regulation for. I can understand the initial appeal of having a smaller government, less bureaucracy, all of that and conflating that with more personal freedom but I do not find that to be the case. Yes, there are certain parts of the government that could use some reform and updating, like with the post office (I double checked and they are an independent establishment of the executive branch of the US), but does it mean that all welfare and all these benefits that the New Deal, the Great Society and others have given people should be just thrown away like that? Not in my opinion at all and I still believe that there is a necessity for a lot of the things that those helped to bring to the table.
 
I have mixed feelings on the Libertarian party. For every good one that could make things better, there's at least one I have to roll my eyes at. The main tip offs are if they exalt Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and/or Maury Rothbard. The thing with these guys is their belief that The Market will solve all of America's problems if we just hand America over to it.
 
I don't mind living in a less regulated society but I think its a social contract that has to be entered into voluntarily. I have worked under the European Welfare state, Asian welfare states, hyper capitalist city states, and everywhere between. I never minded because I chose to work under the various welfare regimes and I had the mobility to leave if things became bad. I think the Americans who want a small government and more freedom for business would go absolutely insane spending a month in a country like Singapore where you lack even the most basic of consumer or employment protections. Living by the contract sounds great but reality depends on how well you can negotiate.
 
autisticdragonkin dijo:
I really dislike social darwinism because it ignores what would really be selected for by evolution (cooperation and mutual support and altruism)
Presiona para expandir...
When you think about it, if we had a survival of the fittest, overly individualistic society, not much would really get done. People would be too busy being at each other's throats for power than working together. Heck, even a successful capitalistic society needs to have a strong customer base with money to spare if it wants to keep going. So that means fair and decent paychecks, having some concern for the workers' safety (an injured/dead worker don't have the money for your products) and make sure what you're selling isn't going to hurt the customer (you lose trust and risk dead customers). If you take your jobs away from the country that buys a majority of your products to save a few dollars, it will bite you in the ass because the majority has less money to spend and the out-of-country workers won't buy as much.
 
The idea that capitalism means "everyone is at everyone else's throats" is a total misnomer. A properly free market would encourage cooperation inherently because of competition. You can't be good at everything, so you find the things you're best at and do those, and the things you're not going to do yourself are where you make trade with others.

The really annoying thing I find is that we've tried various types of socialism and collectivism and ended up with famines, mass murder, huge mismanagement of resources, and terrible suffering. They didn't build the Berlin Wall to keep the greedy capitalists out. But as soon as someone suggests trying actual capitalism without the meddling tentacles of government officials, then everyone loses their heads and demands a blueprint solution to every one of societies problems before they'll even contemplate it.
 
Libertarians and fascists have a very tsundere relationship as despite libertarian's aversion to state regulation and expansion, they deepdown really want "free markets" to end "degeneracy" just as fascists want controlled marketplaces to do it. They both believe capitalism, be it a faggy liberal or hard nosed conservative type of capitalism can somehow save them from slutty women and homosexuals. You know... rather than read on cultures abroad and see how other people handle those problems if you can even call them that.

Most often a libertarian will move toward fascism rather than a fascist move toward libertarian. The cognitive contradiction becomes unexcusable and it's not like you're suddenly going to giveup on being disgusted and offended by loose women and race-mixing. That's what the alt-right is at it's core. A bunch of bi-curious liberteens reading mein kamf.
 
I think it's the horseshoe theory when you notice how some hard free marketers will praise Pinochet like far left people praise Che Guevara mainly on the merit of what system they supported and were against. I have a friend from Chile and he told me that many of the Chileans will tell you what a horrible time it was during Pinochet's reign. Him and his soldiers' abuse of the people, the kind that many of these free-marketers would protest if he was communist/socialist. Che wasn't as pro-freedom as the far left thinks, either, but they both gloss over it to fit their narrative.
 
I'm not a libertarian, but I think that libertarian utopianism is often used as a straw man to ignore the libertarian critique of our current society. The burgeoning police state. An unaccountable intelligence community practicing mass surveillance. Endless overseas war. An executive branch with dictatorial powers. Bureaucracy that stifles innovation and creates pointless overhead expenses. Social safety nets that have been implemented in a way that bolsters the dynamic of the poverty trap. All of these are rational causes for concern addressed by a movement that I too often see lambasted with "muh roads" memes.
 
ZBWglWG.png
 
I know some kat person here believes in this though...
 
Ruminous dijo:
All of these are rational causes for concern addressed by a movement that I too often see lambasted with "muh roads" memes.
Presiona para expandir...
This is true, but if that movement is based on a belief that "less government is better" pointing out that this would create huge practical problems isn't a strawman, it's a legitimate criticism. There are responses to the various concerns you mention that don't involve the end of the state or privatising government or whatever.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo