Thats all well and good but it doesn't work in the "real" world.
Once you agree that a moral person has some responsibility to help a person in need you've agreed that society has a burden based on everyones actions.
This sort of false dichotomy is exactly why we're still stuck in a political stone age thinking gov't force (violence) is the solution to society's ills.
It's the same old B.S. that says "we have to force some people to pay for others at the point of a gun or it's social darwinism." Upon seeing a helpless person lying in the street, the choices are not 1. have the gov't point a gun at someone and force them to help or 2. leave her there to die. The other choice (in fact the only true free choice) is let anyone help the person voluntarily.
What isn't working in the "real" world is gov't force and welfare. When Katrina hit New Orleans (inconveniently located in the "real" world) it was gov't bureaucracy that failed to help the needy while preventing truck loads of food and volunteers from getting in to help because "they weren't authorized" or needed to file 100 forms w/ some obscure agency first.
The reason we're still living under this oppressive and violent system with forced welfare etc has nothing to do with helping people and everything to do the fact that a free society will ultimately not let one group force their religion, sexual preference or other way of life onto other people.
I see a lot of Slashdoters, claim the Libertarian mantle or attack it, without a clear definition of what "Libertarianism" is. Many seem to think it is a mix of the two prominent American political parties (social liberals and economic conservatives). Others seem to think it's just about individualism and so they embrace it out of love for individual rights or condemn it a "social Darwinism." In reality, it is much more fundamental and philosophical.
Here is a basic definition:
Libertarianism is the belief that it is immoral to use force or the threat of force on other people if they are not using force on you.
The application of this results in conclusions such as:
Drugs may have negative effects on the user, but as long as someone can smoke pot without endangering others, it is wrong to initiate force on him by arresting or punishing him.
Poverty and social ills should be solved with voluntary compassion rather than threatening others with government force if they do not pay taxes.
People should be able to interact in the market place freely without using force to institute monopolies (regulating competitors out of the market, using the military to prop up the oil industry, or using the government to protect so called "intellectual property") and without using force to demand products and services.
Slashdot Mirror
The day grows ever nearer that I may play with my very own set of boobies!
This sort of false dichotomy is exactly why we're still stuck in a political stone age thinking gov't force (violence) is the solution to society's ills.
It's the same old B.S. that says "we have to force some people to pay for others at the point of a gun or it's social darwinism." Upon seeing a helpless person lying in the street, the choices are not 1. have the gov't point a gun at someone and force them to help or 2. leave her there to die. The other choice (in fact the only true free choice) is let anyone help the person voluntarily.
What isn't working in the "real" world is gov't force and welfare. When Katrina hit New Orleans (inconveniently located in the "real" world) it was gov't bureaucracy that failed to help the needy while preventing truck loads of food and volunteers from getting in to help because "they weren't authorized" or needed to file 100 forms w/ some obscure agency first.
The reason we're still living under this oppressive and violent system with forced welfare etc has nothing to do with helping people and everything to do the fact that a free society will ultimately not let one group force their religion, sexual preference or other way of life onto other people.
I see a lot of Slashdoters, claim the Libertarian mantle or attack it, without a clear definition of what "Libertarianism" is. Many seem to think it is a mix of the two prominent American political parties (social liberals and economic conservatives). Others seem to think it's just about individualism and so they embrace it out of love for individual rights or condemn it a "social Darwinism." In reality, it is much more fundamental and philosophical.
Here is a basic definition:
Libertarianism is the belief that it is immoral to use force or the threat of force on other people if they are not using force on you.
The application of this results in conclusions such as:
Drugs may have negative effects on the user, but as long as someone can smoke pot without endangering others, it is wrong to initiate force on him by arresting or punishing him.
Poverty and social ills should be solved with voluntary compassion rather than threatening others with government force if they do not pay taxes.
People should be able to interact in the market place freely without using force to institute monopolies (regulating competitors out of the market, using the military to prop up the oil industry, or using the government to protect so called "intellectual property") and without using force to demand products and services.
More detailed definitions can be gathered from:
Wikipedia
Internet Radio
Books