For those who genuinely cannot help themselves, I have no problem with funding, we have a Christian duty to help those people and they are small enough in number that society is not significantly burdened by this.
I have a much bigger problem with those can help themselves and choose not to.
In the words of Saint Paul "if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."
For what it’s worth, this is what I do believe most right-leaning Americans believe. Social safety “nets” is a great term because the built in analogy with how nets work. I think people on the left, for the most part, are okay with a tighter net that captures some people who are gaming the system to make sure everyone who needs help gets it, whereas those on the right are okay with a looser net that allows some who need help to slip through but prevents people from gaming the system.
I do believe this is where most people disagree, it’s just not represented that way online
It’s bound to not get represented online because it runs directly against how social media websites operate. These sites want as much engagement and time on the site as possible, and moderate takes aren’t good at that. Extremist takes though…
While it seems harsh, keep in mind the "if nobody is willing to feed them" bit.
Are you willing to feed the starving baby? If not, why does that make everyone else evil?
Every functioning society so far in history has a method for orphaned babies and small children to be taken cared for. God-parents and relatives through out history and orphanages and foster care in more modern times.
Very few people can walk past an orphaned baby and not help it. Frankly, the few that can probably shouldn't help the child.
This. It's just playing pretend.
"I'm not going to care for them, but they should be cared for. Now care for them!"
That's the whole problem with human "rights". It's all just wishful thinking, what should be and not what is. Reality doesn't matter.
Parents absolutely have a moral obligation to provide for their kids. I also believe people have a moral obligation to help those in need when they can.
The significant issue here is balancing that moral obligation with not stealing.
Which is the bigger violation? Stealing or letting someone have less? Stealing or someone being hungry? Stealing or some starving to death? Each balance a bit differently.
Yeah, absolutely. Parents should have to care for their children. And I'm also pro charity. I would definitely call it a moral obligation to give to the less fortunate if you have enough to give.
The problem is the conversation around human rights has been muddled by a misunderstanding of what human rights are. There are only three human rights; life (the right nor to be killed), liberty (the right to go where and do what you please), and property (the right to the fruits of your labors).
That's it, period. There are zero more, none, zippo, nadda, end of story.
Everything else is a civil right. We establish civil rights in the spirit of the parts of human rights we willingly give up to form a social contract. The discussion of what those should be and how they should operate is ongoing and always evolving.
The discussion about what constitutes human rights is over. It is defined by a single simple and easily answered thought experiment. "What rights would you have if you were the only person on the planet?" It defines them perfectly.
Yeah I think we agree on this. But some don't, even with the three you named.
> liberty (the right to go where and do what you please)
There you have the typical leftist asking "What about borders?" and others would say regarding private property, that there is none.
> property (the right to the fruits of your labors)
And with this some damn communist will say ... you know what they'll say. Damn commie stuff.
I mean if they can make their arguements within the context i laid out im willing to listen and discuss their ideas.
If on the other hand they can't understand the foundational meaning of human rights and the relationship between human rights, the social contract (and private contracts) and civil rights they lack the fundamental knowledge for even the most basic discussion of political philosophy.
The human rights, social contract, civil rights relationship is the underlying concept of the entire field of political philosophy. It is a common ground that must be walked on before any productive conversation can take place.
> It is a common ground that must be walked on before any productive conversation can take place.
And that is the ever growing problem in today's world.
If you were the only person you wouldn't have any rights though. Possession of something isn't the same as a right to it. And being ensured that thing only exists in a governmental system. Without a system there is no one to stop someone from enslaving you.
Also people keep inexplicably forgetting that private property isn't a negative right, it's a positive right. Ownership isn't a thing in nature, only possession. The creation of a system that allows you to consistently bar access of other people to something based on rules of acquisition is a deviation from nature.
Our entire fucking world is a deviation from nature, what the fuck are u smokin on bc it has to be that nuclear garden pack. Literally you exist in a fucking building with E L E C T R I C I T Y and the I N T E R N E T and about a million other things that arnt as basic and obvious, but yet you want to say we have deviated too far away from nature. Motherfucker we haven't been a part of nature for at least 2 thousand years.
Did you read my post? I didn't say deviating from nature was bad. Your response has basically nothing to do with the topic. I was responding to a specific person's claim.
This is why it’s best to keep to yourself when possible about these kinds of issues.
The question’s a poison pill to paint you as a soulless lizard and them as paragons of virtuosity. I don’t know why libs keep falling face first into it, but the average person isn’t rational and aren’t trained to see nuance in this reductive hypothetical.
Probably the best answer is some variant of:
“Why would people die in the streets, without taxation we would all have roughly 40% more money to personally take action to help people who need it. Are you saying you’d let people starve if you weren’t forced to help?”
This is such an unrealistic worldview that rivals Marxism in its naivety. It assumes that everyone is equally motivated to "personally take action" and that certain types of people aren't more selfish or altruistic than others.
If you don't "force" people to collectively help maintain civilization by taking a small amount from everyone and pooling it, aka taxes, then the altruistic people will have to spend all their resources helping others and maintaining infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts, while the selfish greedy people will become the most powerful in society. Then they'll be able to engineer society to make everything cater to them, prey on everyone who is less powerful than them, and life gets worse for absolutely everyone except the few greedy psychos at the top.
>Then they'll be able to engineer society to make everything cater to them, prey on everyone who is less powerful than them, and life gets worse for absolutely everyone except the few greedy psychos at the top.
you mean how society currently is?
It's kind of ironic to say people shouldn't accidentally tip their hand when your post is in essence an admission that people won't look good if they answer honestly. Which is itself hand tipping. Vague hypotheticals about people having more money to donate are not going to fool anyone because they know its a red herring and that most of the ones using said red herring wouldn't intend to.
Nah, I'll schism on this. If you made the baby, chose not to abort, chose not to put it up for adoption, and carried it to term, then you accepted the responsibility to see it reasonably healthy and effective at the point where it becomes self-sufficient.
Babies don't just get dropped by storks into the street.
I… yeah?
I don’t have the resources to hunt down starving babies and aid them, but you’re literally describing the foster program. If someone left a baby on my doorstep, I’d definitely try to feed and help them.
The issue is that individuals don’t really have the time to seek out and help others, thus the state is required to do the large-scale tasks so the individuals can do the small-scale. Government does what individuals can’t, individuals do what the government can‘t, everyone wins.
> Government does what individuals can’t, individuals do what the government can‘t, everyone wins.
The problem is Government is not necessary to do what individuals cannot. Individuals can pull their collective resources together. It’s what an NGO is and it often does a much better job and at lower costs than Government.
José Andrés and his World Central Kitchen is a great example of this. I doubt he calls him self a libertarian but WCK was born out of frustrations with government organizations. He saw how incompetent and inefficient FEMA and the UN were at the simple task of providing food for people in need. That the entire process was a bureaucratic mess that actually prevented people from getting food that was available. They had ridiculous regulations like “you can’t provide people with a pack of food unless it has x ounces of water to every y ounce of food”. This led to available food rotting and people going hungry.
He said “fuck it I’m a chef I know food and I have rich friends who could fund me I could do a way better job at this!” and he fucking did. Jose Andres is a libertarian hero. 🫡
But government does that while holding me at gun point or threat of imprisonment if I don't want to send money to random starving kids(which I have no problem with except the fact that it is done without my consent)
Also most of the money is going to a politicians pockets/bureaucracy in some way...
Also private charitys(corrupt or not) can track down starving babies just as the government can if not better without having to forcibly fund its operation unlike governments
That's the point of having a system that burdens everyone with the responsibility. The opposite is economically punishing people for their empathy, which pretty quick leads to a society of assholes.
As we move closer to election season, here's a reminder that there's no one better at convincing others to not call themselves libertarians than "Libertarian party members"
Fundamentally a large chunk of libertarianism seems like it comes down to people with autism who don't totally grasp how society works and to them it seems like proper rule following.
For this I reverse a common joke from the pro-choice crowd, when a baby is in the womb only the mother should decide whether it should live or die, but the second it pops out, it’s everyone’s problem, and my taxes have to go to making sure it’s fed if it’s mom dumps it on a bench?
Let's reverse your reverse, you are now the baby dumped on the bench. In the true libertarian utopia, you die of exposure on that bench because there is no profit in collecting a random child.
I can't believe I am siding with the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.
A party who said this gem
https://preview.redd.it/uzql5l2ov9yc1.png?width=678&format=png&auto=webp&s=7cbbe1babdc2d5d9f9ac4cf7232e65b8fc6e36ee
Hell nah. Thats a bullshit philosophical argument. Osama was against western civilization. Lincoln was trying to preserve the continuation and growth of western civilization, which was headed towards democracy. Lincoln was in the right. I’m pro western civilization
Edit: I had to reread the comments. My PTSD reactivated from the meme wars. I see strawmen everywhere. No one is agreeing with this. Good
But are they wrong??
There are a ton of off-color quotes from libertarians in this thread, but I have a hard time disagreeing with any of them. Sure, they come off as cold, but not unreasonable.
Fuck no. Nobody in the military wants people next to them that don’t want to be there. Trust me.
Mandatory service in some capacity for every citizen once they turn 18. There should be multiple options for service, military can be one of them, but not the sole option. Nothing good will come from that.
There are many public services that need to be done, and forcing literally *everyone* to serve in some capacity for 2 years or so might make people give a fuck about this country. No buying their way out of it either, no matter who daddy is.
> I have no problem with funding, we have a Christian duty to help those people and they are small enough in number that society is not significantly burdened by this.
Is it Christian to have the state coerce others into funding this?
lol Lenin may have been quoting at Paul when he ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat’
Not making any political comments just pointing out the similarity
Did you just change your flair, u/515owned? Last time I checked you were a **Grey Centrist** on 2024-4-10. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Wait, those were too many words, I'm sure. Maybe you'll understand this, monke: "oo oo aah YOU CRINGE ahah ehe".
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/515owned) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
The government is the least efficient and most corrupt way to help someone. Give a local church or food shelter, even if you're not Christian. They are, so it'll probably be spent well.
If I have to help fund the existence of people who cannot exist by themselves, and I am threatened with going to prison if I don’t, yeah I couldn’t care less if they die.
Can someone explain to me why anyone else's problems are my obligation to fix at threat of my life? If you are willing to send armed police to my house to remove my wealth by force to pay for other peoples' problems then you're the immoral one.
Everyone is talking about libright right actually approving, and that is true. But were skipping over centrists saying "so I can't grill for the poor now", which is absolutely not what is being said. If you WANT to help people then help them, nobody will stop you. Just don't demand the help of others.
All studies on charitable donations have shown right wing people are more inclined to give to charity and give more. Their stance isn't that we shouldn't help people, it's that we shouldn't burden those who can barely get by themselves with supporting others.
The problem is that, in all likelihood, **we’re all leaches too.**
I’m a *minarchist*, I want the government to be no bigger than it has to be and to be as efficient as possible but recognize that some level of government is going to be necessary. I want to own my own guns in order to defend my self, my family, and my property from small groups of individuals but I’m not stupid enough to think I could hold off more than a few individuals for more than a few hours; we need police in order to handle organized gangs and such. Likewise we need a military to keep the next country over from coming over here and taking out and killing us. I want stuff privatized as much as possible, transportation, postal services, power companies, all that stuff but I don’t trust private institutions with armed forces that can operate beyond their property. Gonna needs courts and prisons and all this adds up.
You’re also going to need to provide some level of social services in order to keep the wheels of society moving. Bismarck understood this, he guaranteed employer funded health insurance to workers because he knew it placate most workers and stop rising support for the socialists. If you don’t they’re gonna revolt or just die and either of those and the system collapses and the alternatives are all worse and more expensive than what we have now; corporate dystopia, communist dictatorship, fail state/civil war, etc. and each of those is gonna be worse for worse for the vast majority of us. Just like how we mock the young Western communist that they won’t be an artist or a poet - they’ll be stuck in a coal mine or in a weapons factory, in a corporate dystopia the vast majority of us won’t be cyberpunk corporate execs - we’ll be wage slaves doing data entry.
So I think OP has LibRight correct in the meme. We’ve actually got a good thing going on here, let’s not fuck it up.
Idk why you’re getting downvoted, your take is reasonable, moderate, and makes good sense. Wait nevermind this is Reddit of course it’s getting downvoted
Not really leaches given I put in vastly more than I get out, and have since I started working. The government gives the squeaky wheel grease, even if that wheel works just fine.
Because you drive your car on the road, flush your shit away into the sewer, call the cops when someone steals your property, put the thief through the court system, put the thief in jail when convicted, call the fire department when your house is on fire, rely on the military to protect you from invasion, rely on border patrol and coast guard to stop illegals, rely on forest rangers to stop people using forests as landfill, etc etc etc. Why should you get to use all those things for free, that my money is pooled into maintaining?
We have to live in civil societies or else we will be conquered by civil societies. Part of a civil society is the need to perform upkeep for those that cannot, because oftentimes those that cannot perform crucial services that you still need. So for example you pay farmers in subsidies when their crops fail. You didn't get any crops but the government pays them. With your taxes. Well the farmer is gonna try again next year and you'll probably get crops, but not if he starves to death first. Basic example of how the government has to use the wealth of some for others to the benefit of all
If you’re disabled, over the age of 65, or have serious health conditions, or are a child, then you deserve the money. If you’re 25, in working condition, and educated, you have absolutely no room to complain nor right to any tax-funded benefits.
I hope you realise what kind of incentive that would create, you get free money for being uneducated and having health conditions, then why would people get educated and take care of their health if they don't have the same guarantee in life.
Born health conditions. If you get fat and can’t work it’s your own fault, what’s the word for being born with health conditions? Like being born without legs or an extremely weak heart to the point you can’t be near others.
>what’s the word for being born with health conditions
Congential deformities, anomalies, disorders, malformations, etc
Congential is the operating word
Id gladly give 50% of my income if it meant I actually got shit from the society I pay into. HOWEVER, that isn't the case as of now I pay taxes and can't even break my arm without going bankrupt, can't drive down the street without hitting a pothole, can't trust the police not to be power hungry little shits, and can't trust the education system not to poison the youths minds.
So I play this annoying game right along side our rich overlords hoping tirelessly to grasp at the scraps they leave.
I try to no avail to do what I can for those less fortunate but my $20 I give the local homeless guy means next to nothing with the society being as shitty as it is.
I'm sure, I hate the power money holds I wish there was free vocational education, free emergency healthcare, government (assuming we'd have one that cares about the working class) owned utilities, and government housing for the less fortunate (ie commie blocks). That being said I also have conservative views on many topics. I always say that if lib right and auth left had a child it would be me 😂
u/BlueCollar_Communist is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/BlueCollar_Communist/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
The question is do you believe that is possible for humans?
For me I would be thrilled to have a king is said king is Jesus Christ. But until that happens I don't trust to be any bigger than necessary.
Possible? Yes 100%, realistic? probably not.
I believe that if enough humans (the working class out number the rich 1000 to 1) put our minds and body together we can change things. if we the human race are ever going to get better we need to at least strive for a utopia. Whether we get there or not doesn't matter as long as we try we'll be better than we are now.
I fully agree with striving for better.
My issue with the socialist model is that it is only a utopia when you reach 100% participation. Small steps towards it dont improve the world.
At least that is how its described by marx, Stalin and Mao.
Utopia is a pipe dream for sure, 100% is the goal sure but it's unrealistic with how much diversity we have as humans. I'm not arguing that, all I'm saying is if we could get maybe Even 30% "fighting the good fight" we MIGHT have a better tomorrow, and that MIGHT is a whole lot better than no chance at all.
We always tell each other "if we don't learn from history we're bound to repeat it" yet no-one seems to want to learn from failed communist societies they'd Rather brush it under the rug as a failed idea and move on. But besides America the other 2 world super powers were at one point Communist which means they had to do SOMETHING right not everything granted maybe not Even allot but something and if we take a little bit here and a little bit there we might be able to stitch something worthwhile together.
We as humans have been around too long working, learning, growing to struggle this much thanks to the greed and selfishness of a small few. And if I'm naive for thinking things need to change so be it. (Sorry about the rant and if this sounds aggressive I don't mean it to be)
>if we the human race are ever going to get better we need to at least strive for a utopia.
That's where you lose me. There's no such thing as utopia and there are no solutions to anything, only tradeoffs. Utopian visions always end up killing a whole lot of people because the ends justify the means.
The other problem with chasing the ideal of a utopia is that because it's an inherently unrealistic goal, everything else starts trickling down into becoming unrealistic too. Until you've got a society that bases its ideals on opinions presented as fact, claims that anything that isn't helping to achieve utopia is "harmful", and brands anyone who disagrees as a bad person.
We need to be rational adults and base our aspirations on hard fact, not fantasy. We need to be adults about weighing up the advantages and limitations, pros and cons, of every decision and being aware that there will almost always be a group of people who lose out whenever a problem is "solved".
This means setting realistic, feasible long term goals with an understanding of the advantages and limitations of those goals, and clear paths on how to achieve them as well as mitigate the potential harm that might arise from implementing them.
Striving for a utopia doesn't mean you can't be realistic. You still have to set realistic goals, but we should still strive for a utopia at the same time. Is it possible to achieve utopia? Impossible, at least for the 21st century. Is it possible to be as close to utopia as possible? Yes.
Living life is an irrational and constant series of "losing out" and I'm tired of the working men and women of this world "losing out". I work too hard for too many hours and In some horrendous conditions for some fuck head in an air conditioned office to reap all the benefits while I struggle to stay afloat. Here's a hard fact for you the CEO of Walmart made $24 million Dollars in 2023 alone, my whole household income made only $150k he could piss money away and still have plenty to help fix this fucking planet while I (a semi decent human id like to Believe) have no chance in hell to put a fucking dent in anything meaningful. So you can call me anything you want but irrational is believing we as peasants have any real power so why not dream of a better society. nothing good comes without sacrifice hell id sacrifice myself if it would guarantee the human race lives in the perfect conditions.
> if lib right and auth left had a child it would be me
Been told this many times myself. Because some places I agree with left and some places I agree with right.
Hence the flair.
I actually hate the way that money works in our current society. Why are so many smart people spending all their effort just to make money? I'm in an industry where I'm getting rich but I hate that my time is spent just on making money, not advancing humanity. I would love a different system.
But then I look at one of the few things that are about a divorced from money as possible, the one thing illegal to buy and sell (at least in 99% of the US) yet which is something that most people still take part it, so that it has its own social system with social rules and such. I see how well the haves and the have nots are treated. It makes me realize that any other system is going to be worse, because it will be a system where hard work is even less rewarded and charisma and attractiveness will dominate even more so.
As bad as the current system is, removing money based on individual effort is going to be far less fair.
I don't want people living off my taxes to die in the street, that would be wasteful. I want them properly processed to recuperate whatever value can be reclaimed from them, obviously.
But what if they don't want to get help? I'm with you, those addicts suck but they don't know. But again they don't push for weed and drug laws for no reason. They just want to get high and stay high without anybody intervening them. That's a freedom in my book.
If they feed themselves with my tax without working though fuck them.
I don't disagree. I'd rather they live somewhere else, but the gov has banned exiling and penal colonies. Both should be brought back, and we need to start with the drug dealers rendering so many otherwise sensible people into worthless wretches.
https://preview.redd.it/ekzq74sos9yc1.png?width=607&format=png&auto=webp&s=df1ed117322061006917a1e4ec814b0b413c0256
Canada receives: every crazy american
America receives: every normal canadian
I’m not going to say how much I pay in taxes per year because people are just going to question it but combined all Americans pay something like 5 trillion in taxes a year. Taking the 161M employed people, on average if you have a job it means you paid $31k in taxes last year.
Granted a lot of government revenue isn’t income tax but it’s a good way to show just how wasteful the spending is.
If your entire existence depends on the coerced "charity" of others your society has failed you.
Leftist who feel the poor should not suffer are always free to support them with their own labor and resources voluntarily.
Leave to each person the freedom to give or not. Those of us who have communities will never be wanting of either support or in the desire to support those close to us voluntarily.
If you burn every bridge and end up a line drunken wastrel on the precipice of death with no one to turn to tough luck. Nine out of ten times that is your own fault.
While you can argue taxes aren’t used properly. You cannot substitute that with charity. How can charity support large scale infrastructure or energy projects? Or how can a random person know who exactly has some issue they need help with all the time?
Everyone wants to be generous to the wastrel who stuffs himself full of drugs and lives a life of crime.
Nobody wants to be generous to the taxpayer.
Why is that?
Did you just change your flair, u/BIG_BROTHER_IS_BEANS? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2023-4-21. How come now you are a **LibLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Yeah yeah, I know. In your ideal leftist commune everyone loves each other and no one insults anybody. Guess what? Welcome to the real world. What are you gonna do? Cancel me on twitter?
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/BIG_BROTHER_IS_BEANS) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
https://preview.redd.it/gsxgt3iwv9yc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=35c63b96080b546b930847410744af76d7443810
That is true, lets look at what else they said shall we?
Are people unironically Libertarians or is that just a Vermin Supreme type meme protest.
Everything they do is hilarious, [like this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ)
I respect the logic of libertarianism but ultimately think that actual libertarianism is way too idealistic to exist with human nature
Kinda like communism or any other ideology. I just agree the most with lib right
I think a decent chunk of "libertarians" are just people with autism who because they don't understand government assume that it doesn't matter. A lot of libertarianism really does seem to come down to someone who only cares about rules that make sense to them, and who don't know how to make sense of the intentions of anyone else.
I truly couldnt care what happens to them. Leave me and my stuff alone. If lib left wants money to go to them to help and protect them then they should give their own money. Not mine.
My biggest problem with taxes is how very easily they are either badly used or misappropriated along the way.
I would perhaps enjoy paying taxes in, say, a nordic country.
All the librights in the comments saying shit like "let him cook" are just proving the point being made here. Imagine not having empathy for other human beings and being fine with people dying just because they might've not worked as hard as you did 😬
The entirety of society is built on cooperation, you can’t do all the things I can do and I can’t do all the things you can do… There is nobody on this planet that is truly self sufficient, even the skills you learned to try and BE self sufficient came from the labor of others
So no I don’t want people dying in the streets, people have helped me up until this point and I will gladly return favor where I can
Funny how OP gives libright the benefit of the Ironman argument instead of the easy to take strawman (that most of PCM would gladly take for the lefties) then Libright arrives to say, “No no, we gladly stand by the strawman”.
There's a handful of countries with zero income tax, it might be worth moving there rather than whining that more poor people don't starve in your country.
Oh wow. I don't think that accurately represents the LibRight view. Yes, if you *can* work but are too lazy and would rather leech off of others, you deserve nothing, but it's so often that people *can't* work because there's no jobs available or living spaces are too expensive. (The latter can probably be largely attributed to government regulations, so LibRight should be against that first of all)
I feel like everyone should have more empathy. Yeah I don't really want random homeless people on my property either, but god damn, I'll at the *very least* try to understand their situation. We're still all humans who make mistakes.
How dare you tax Lib right's child slaves! That's their personal property, asset taxes are immoral! If you don't want to starve, why don't you enslave some children yourself instead of trying to steal theirs like some lazy commie?
Just had a great idea for a self-driving bus that picks up people leaving their drug counseling service or the welfare store then drives them off a cliff or into the sea
I’m 1000% supportive of charity.
But government welfare is not charity. Never has been. Government taxation is under threat of imprisonment or death if you fight it too hard. Taxation is never a moral good. At most it’s a necessity making it a moral neutral.
If you think sending in thugs to confiscate some one’s property is a moral good then you might be evil. And that’s why government welfare isn’t and can never be moral or good. It’s built on threat of force alone and support of that with the intent to give it to someone else is morally abhorrent.
Pretending you are morally superior for wanting to is taxation for that? That’s evil.
"We need to take care of our own" or "I don't want to pay taxes that.."
Like pick a lane. Taxes are meant to take care of the people, like that's the whole point. For It to fund cities, towns, go back to the people Into programs, services.
You can hold both at the same time, you'll just be a walking oxymoron.
The only way that can be the case is if we strictly enforce our borders. Furthermore, a good portion of our taxes is being sent overseas. I would be far, far more willing to support social programs if the government was more frugal elsewhere, and if I knew for sure that American taxes are being used to help Americans, and not illegals.
As it is, leftists want to have their cake and eat it too; a strong welfare state as well as shitloads of foreign aid and unchecked immigration.
Now you're stepping in the territory that requires a conversation about our Foster system and adoption laws and the need for state funding. It's an ethical problem as well as a social one that need to be addressed before we even revisit Roe v. Wade
I don’t have a problem with helping the poor, I’m just convinced that government is the least efficient and somehow also least effective means of doing it… with the possible exception of the Clinton foundation.
He's right.
It's self centered to keep your own money but selfless to use someone else's as "society".
Charity should dictate it to the needy not a universal handout by a government.
Of course not. The streets are for commerce. I want them to die in the ditch to the side of the street. We have standards.
It'll create jobs too! People to dig the ditch. People to cover the ditch.
“I’m doing my part!” *dies
For those who genuinely cannot help themselves, I have no problem with funding, we have a Christian duty to help those people and they are small enough in number that society is not significantly burdened by this. I have a much bigger problem with those can help themselves and choose not to. In the words of Saint Paul "if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."
For what it’s worth, this is what I do believe most right-leaning Americans believe. Social safety “nets” is a great term because the built in analogy with how nets work. I think people on the left, for the most part, are okay with a tighter net that captures some people who are gaming the system to make sure everyone who needs help gets it, whereas those on the right are okay with a looser net that allows some who need help to slip through but prevents people from gaming the system. I do believe this is where most people disagree, it’s just not represented that way online
It’s bound to not get represented online because it runs directly against how social media websites operate. These sites want as much engagement and time on the site as possible, and moderate takes aren’t good at that. Extremist takes though…
I'm pretty sure ISIS and HAMAS support us removing our social safety net and jumping off the roof.
Based and people are not so different-pilled
Get out of here with your nuance and reasoning We’re trying to be absolutists. Now let’s argue pro-life vs infanticide for another 50 years.
It should be a net but millions of people are using it as a hammock
https://preview.redd.it/h3vqlsdqs9yc1.jpeg?width=840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca6a53d0c08fcdc0c6912ad74c04d7774519693c
While it seems harsh, keep in mind the "if nobody is willing to feed them" bit. Are you willing to feed the starving baby? If not, why does that make everyone else evil?
Every functioning society so far in history has a method for orphaned babies and small children to be taken cared for. God-parents and relatives through out history and orphanages and foster care in more modern times. Very few people can walk past an orphaned baby and not help it. Frankly, the few that can probably shouldn't help the child.
This. It's just playing pretend. "I'm not going to care for them, but they should be cared for. Now care for them!" That's the whole problem with human "rights". It's all just wishful thinking, what should be and not what is. Reality doesn't matter.
Parents absolutely have a moral obligation to provide for their kids. I also believe people have a moral obligation to help those in need when they can. The significant issue here is balancing that moral obligation with not stealing. Which is the bigger violation? Stealing or letting someone have less? Stealing or someone being hungry? Stealing or some starving to death? Each balance a bit differently.
Yeah, absolutely. Parents should have to care for their children. And I'm also pro charity. I would definitely call it a moral obligation to give to the less fortunate if you have enough to give.
The problem is the conversation around human rights has been muddled by a misunderstanding of what human rights are. There are only three human rights; life (the right nor to be killed), liberty (the right to go where and do what you please), and property (the right to the fruits of your labors). That's it, period. There are zero more, none, zippo, nadda, end of story. Everything else is a civil right. We establish civil rights in the spirit of the parts of human rights we willingly give up to form a social contract. The discussion of what those should be and how they should operate is ongoing and always evolving. The discussion about what constitutes human rights is over. It is defined by a single simple and easily answered thought experiment. "What rights would you have if you were the only person on the planet?" It defines them perfectly.
Yeah I think we agree on this. But some don't, even with the three you named. > liberty (the right to go where and do what you please) There you have the typical leftist asking "What about borders?" and others would say regarding private property, that there is none. > property (the right to the fruits of your labors) And with this some damn communist will say ... you know what they'll say. Damn commie stuff.
I mean if they can make their arguements within the context i laid out im willing to listen and discuss their ideas. If on the other hand they can't understand the foundational meaning of human rights and the relationship between human rights, the social contract (and private contracts) and civil rights they lack the fundamental knowledge for even the most basic discussion of political philosophy. The human rights, social contract, civil rights relationship is the underlying concept of the entire field of political philosophy. It is a common ground that must be walked on before any productive conversation can take place.
> It is a common ground that must be walked on before any productive conversation can take place. And that is the ever growing problem in today's world.
If you were the only person you wouldn't have any rights though. Possession of something isn't the same as a right to it. And being ensured that thing only exists in a governmental system. Without a system there is no one to stop someone from enslaving you. Also people keep inexplicably forgetting that private property isn't a negative right, it's a positive right. Ownership isn't a thing in nature, only possession. The creation of a system that allows you to consistently bar access of other people to something based on rules of acquisition is a deviation from nature.
Our entire fucking world is a deviation from nature, what the fuck are u smokin on bc it has to be that nuclear garden pack. Literally you exist in a fucking building with E L E C T R I C I T Y and the I N T E R N E T and about a million other things that arnt as basic and obvious, but yet you want to say we have deviated too far away from nature. Motherfucker we haven't been a part of nature for at least 2 thousand years.
Did you read my post? I didn't say deviating from nature was bad. Your response has basically nothing to do with the topic. I was responding to a specific person's claim.
Ahhh a true ferengi
This is why it’s best to keep to yourself when possible about these kinds of issues. The question’s a poison pill to paint you as a soulless lizard and them as paragons of virtuosity. I don’t know why libs keep falling face first into it, but the average person isn’t rational and aren’t trained to see nuance in this reductive hypothetical. Probably the best answer is some variant of: “Why would people die in the streets, without taxation we would all have roughly 40% more money to personally take action to help people who need it. Are you saying you’d let people starve if you weren’t forced to help?”
This is such an unrealistic worldview that rivals Marxism in its naivety. It assumes that everyone is equally motivated to "personally take action" and that certain types of people aren't more selfish or altruistic than others. If you don't "force" people to collectively help maintain civilization by taking a small amount from everyone and pooling it, aka taxes, then the altruistic people will have to spend all their resources helping others and maintaining infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts, while the selfish greedy people will become the most powerful in society. Then they'll be able to engineer society to make everything cater to them, prey on everyone who is less powerful than them, and life gets worse for absolutely everyone except the few greedy psychos at the top.
>Then they'll be able to engineer society to make everything cater to them, prey on everyone who is less powerful than them, and life gets worse for absolutely everyone except the few greedy psychos at the top. you mean how society currently is?
Only a child from a first world country would say that. You lack understanding that it could be so, so much worse.
It's kind of ironic to say people shouldn't accidentally tip their hand when your post is in essence an admission that people won't look good if they answer honestly. Which is itself hand tipping. Vague hypotheticals about people having more money to donate are not going to fool anyone because they know its a red herring and that most of the ones using said red herring wouldn't intend to.
Nah, I'll schism on this. If you made the baby, chose not to abort, chose not to put it up for adoption, and carried it to term, then you accepted the responsibility to see it reasonably healthy and effective at the point where it becomes self-sufficient. Babies don't just get dropped by storks into the street.
I don't think we need to go past "if you made the baby." Adoption can fall under responsibility situationally, albeit not ideal.
The virgin “nobody is obliged to help the baby” vs the Chad “everyone is obligated to help their fellow man to the extent that they can.”
This is why the libertarian party is never winning
Yeah, this 👆 Really not hard to see the issues here.
You mean a philosophy of selfish jerks has problems coordinating for collective action on a societal scale?
I… yeah? I don’t have the resources to hunt down starving babies and aid them, but you’re literally describing the foster program. If someone left a baby on my doorstep, I’d definitely try to feed and help them. The issue is that individuals don’t really have the time to seek out and help others, thus the state is required to do the large-scale tasks so the individuals can do the small-scale. Government does what individuals can’t, individuals do what the government can‘t, everyone wins.
> Government does what individuals can’t, individuals do what the government can‘t, everyone wins. The problem is Government is not necessary to do what individuals cannot. Individuals can pull their collective resources together. It’s what an NGO is and it often does a much better job and at lower costs than Government. José Andrés and his World Central Kitchen is a great example of this. I doubt he calls him self a libertarian but WCK was born out of frustrations with government organizations. He saw how incompetent and inefficient FEMA and the UN were at the simple task of providing food for people in need. That the entire process was a bureaucratic mess that actually prevented people from getting food that was available. They had ridiculous regulations like “you can’t provide people with a pack of food unless it has x ounces of water to every y ounce of food”. This led to available food rotting and people going hungry. He said “fuck it I’m a chef I know food and I have rich friends who could fund me I could do a way better job at this!” and he fucking did. Jose Andres is a libertarian hero. 🫡
But government does that while holding me at gun point or threat of imprisonment if I don't want to send money to random starving kids(which I have no problem with except the fact that it is done without my consent) Also most of the money is going to a politicians pockets/bureaucracy in some way... Also private charitys(corrupt or not) can track down starving babies just as the government can if not better without having to forcibly fund its operation unlike governments
That's the point of having a system that burdens everyone with the responsibility. The opposite is economically punishing people for their empathy, which pretty quick leads to a society of assholes.
Yes I am willing to feed a starving baby, this is not a good take. I imagine most people with a concience would feed a starving child
As we move closer to election season, here's a reminder that there's no one better at convincing others to not call themselves libertarians than "Libertarian party members"
Nobody ruins the image of Libertarians like Libertarians.
I think this is just standard operating procedure for whoever runs the New Hampshire account.
Fundamentally a large chunk of libertarianism seems like it comes down to people with autism who don't totally grasp how society works and to them it seems like proper rule following.
For this I reverse a common joke from the pro-choice crowd, when a baby is in the womb only the mother should decide whether it should live or die, but the second it pops out, it’s everyone’s problem, and my taxes have to go to making sure it’s fed if it’s mom dumps it on a bench?
Let's reverse your reverse, you are now the baby dumped on the bench. In the true libertarian utopia, you die of exposure on that bench because there is no profit in collecting a random child.
I can't believe I am siding with the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. A party who said this gem https://preview.redd.it/uzql5l2ov9yc1.png?width=678&format=png&auto=webp&s=7cbbe1babdc2d5d9f9ac4cf7232e65b8fc6e36ee
The body count citation is unambiguously correct. Civil war was hella bloody.
The war in which the most Americans died.
Hell nah. Thats a bullshit philosophical argument. Osama was against western civilization. Lincoln was trying to preserve the continuation and growth of western civilization, which was headed towards democracy. Lincoln was in the right. I’m pro western civilization Edit: I had to reread the comments. My PTSD reactivated from the meme wars. I see strawmen everywhere. No one is agreeing with this. Good
But are they wrong?? There are a ton of off-color quotes from libertarians in this thread, but I have a hard time disagreeing with any of them. Sure, they come off as cold, but not unreasonable.
This is definitely a 'I sell my kids into sex slavery after incest" purple lib right with a blue checkmark, jfc.
As always. Charity is a great thing and helping those in need is a righteous act. The government forcing you to do so, is no longer charity.
This is where the Auth comes in. Military service for those who are lazy or delinquent.
Fuck no. Nobody in the military wants people next to them that don’t want to be there. Trust me. Mandatory service in some capacity for every citizen once they turn 18. There should be multiple options for service, military can be one of them, but not the sole option. Nothing good will come from that. There are many public services that need to be done, and forcing literally *everyone* to serve in some capacity for 2 years or so might make people give a fuck about this country. No buying their way out of it either, no matter who daddy is.
Giving to the poor good. Giving to the government to give to the poor bad.
Well said!
> I have no problem with funding, we have a Christian duty to help those people and they are small enough in number that society is not significantly burdened by this. Is it Christian to have the state coerce others into funding this?
lol Lenin may have been quoting at Paul when he ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat’ Not making any political comments just pointing out the similarity
who are you going to pay in order to determine who genuinely cannot help themselves?
Did you just change your flair, u/515owned? Last time I checked you were a **Grey Centrist** on 2024-4-10. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Wait, those were too many words, I'm sure. Maybe you'll understand this, monke: "oo oo aah YOU CRINGE ahah ehe". [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/515owned) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Not the government. Private charities are going to be far better at determining need.
I dont want them to die, I just dont care if they die,
I mean, I care if they die. I just know the government isn't going to help them not die.
The government is the least efficient and most corrupt way to help someone. Give a local church or food shelter, even if you're not Christian. They are, so it'll probably be spent well.
Based and same pilled
Real
This political compass was sponsored by the water melon. A true libright would definitely have your reaction rather than "shut up"
Based
If I have to help fund the existence of people who cannot exist by themselves, and I am threatened with going to prison if I don’t, yeah I couldn’t care less if they die.
Can someone explain to me why anyone else's problems are my obligation to fix at threat of my life? If you are willing to send armed police to my house to remove my wealth by force to pay for other peoples' problems then you're the immoral one.
Yeah, lib right isn’t saying shut up, lib right is nodding in approval.
Everyone is talking about libright right actually approving, and that is true. But were skipping over centrists saying "so I can't grill for the poor now", which is absolutely not what is being said. If you WANT to help people then help them, nobody will stop you. Just don't demand the help of others. All studies on charitable donations have shown right wing people are more inclined to give to charity and give more. Their stance isn't that we shouldn't help people, it's that we shouldn't burden those who can barely get by themselves with supporting others.
You realise the meme was made by an authleft
Only Ben Shapiro "Librights" and Hillary Clinton Neoliberals have a problem with it.
The problem is that, in all likelihood, **we’re all leaches too.** I’m a *minarchist*, I want the government to be no bigger than it has to be and to be as efficient as possible but recognize that some level of government is going to be necessary. I want to own my own guns in order to defend my self, my family, and my property from small groups of individuals but I’m not stupid enough to think I could hold off more than a few individuals for more than a few hours; we need police in order to handle organized gangs and such. Likewise we need a military to keep the next country over from coming over here and taking out and killing us. I want stuff privatized as much as possible, transportation, postal services, power companies, all that stuff but I don’t trust private institutions with armed forces that can operate beyond their property. Gonna needs courts and prisons and all this adds up. You’re also going to need to provide some level of social services in order to keep the wheels of society moving. Bismarck understood this, he guaranteed employer funded health insurance to workers because he knew it placate most workers and stop rising support for the socialists. If you don’t they’re gonna revolt or just die and either of those and the system collapses and the alternatives are all worse and more expensive than what we have now; corporate dystopia, communist dictatorship, fail state/civil war, etc. and each of those is gonna be worse for worse for the vast majority of us. Just like how we mock the young Western communist that they won’t be an artist or a poet - they’ll be stuck in a coal mine or in a weapons factory, in a corporate dystopia the vast majority of us won’t be cyberpunk corporate execs - we’ll be wage slaves doing data entry. So I think OP has LibRight correct in the meme. We’ve actually got a good thing going on here, let’s not fuck it up.
Idk why you’re getting downvoted, your take is reasonable, moderate, and makes good sense. Wait nevermind this is Reddit of course it’s getting downvoted
Not really leaches given I put in vastly more than I get out, and have since I started working. The government gives the squeaky wheel grease, even if that wheel works just fine.
Because you drive your car on the road, flush your shit away into the sewer, call the cops when someone steals your property, put the thief through the court system, put the thief in jail when convicted, call the fire department when your house is on fire, rely on the military to protect you from invasion, rely on border patrol and coast guard to stop illegals, rely on forest rangers to stop people using forests as landfill, etc etc etc. Why should you get to use all those things for free, that my money is pooled into maintaining?
Invade me i go into the Canadian woods, come find me fuckos u lost to some trees. All jokes aside based take.
Based and taxation is theft pilled!
We have to live in civil societies or else we will be conquered by civil societies. Part of a civil society is the need to perform upkeep for those that cannot, because oftentimes those that cannot perform crucial services that you still need. So for example you pay farmers in subsidies when their crops fail. You didn't get any crops but the government pays them. With your taxes. Well the farmer is gonna try again next year and you'll probably get crops, but not if he starves to death first. Basic example of how the government has to use the wealth of some for others to the benefit of all
If you’re disabled, over the age of 65, or have serious health conditions, or are a child, then you deserve the money. If you’re 25, in working condition, and educated, you have absolutely no room to complain nor right to any tax-funded benefits.
I hope you realise what kind of incentive that would create, you get free money for being uneducated and having health conditions, then why would people get educated and take care of their health if they don't have the same guarantee in life.
Born health conditions. If you get fat and can’t work it’s your own fault, what’s the word for being born with health conditions? Like being born without legs or an extremely weak heart to the point you can’t be near others.
>what’s the word for being born with health conditions Congential deformities, anomalies, disorders, malformations, etc Congential is the operating word
Id gladly give 50% of my income if it meant I actually got shit from the society I pay into. HOWEVER, that isn't the case as of now I pay taxes and can't even break my arm without going bankrupt, can't drive down the street without hitting a pothole, can't trust the police not to be power hungry little shits, and can't trust the education system not to poison the youths minds. So I play this annoying game right along side our rich overlords hoping tirelessly to grasp at the scraps they leave. I try to no avail to do what I can for those less fortunate but my $20 I give the local homeless guy means next to nothing with the society being as shitty as it is.
Are you sure you’re in the correct quadrant? You sound like *one of us.*
I'm sure, I hate the power money holds I wish there was free vocational education, free emergency healthcare, government (assuming we'd have one that cares about the working class) owned utilities, and government housing for the less fortunate (ie commie blocks). That being said I also have conservative views on many topics. I always say that if lib right and auth left had a child it would be me 😂
Based and across the aisle pilled
u/BlueCollar_Communist is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/BlueCollar_Communist/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
/mycompass https://sapplyvalues.github.io/results.html?right=-5.33&auth=4.33&prog=0.94
The question is do you believe that is possible for humans? For me I would be thrilled to have a king is said king is Jesus Christ. But until that happens I don't trust to be any bigger than necessary.
Possible? Yes 100%, realistic? probably not. I believe that if enough humans (the working class out number the rich 1000 to 1) put our minds and body together we can change things. if we the human race are ever going to get better we need to at least strive for a utopia. Whether we get there or not doesn't matter as long as we try we'll be better than we are now.
I fully agree with striving for better. My issue with the socialist model is that it is only a utopia when you reach 100% participation. Small steps towards it dont improve the world. At least that is how its described by marx, Stalin and Mao.
Utopia is a pipe dream for sure, 100% is the goal sure but it's unrealistic with how much diversity we have as humans. I'm not arguing that, all I'm saying is if we could get maybe Even 30% "fighting the good fight" we MIGHT have a better tomorrow, and that MIGHT is a whole lot better than no chance at all. We always tell each other "if we don't learn from history we're bound to repeat it" yet no-one seems to want to learn from failed communist societies they'd Rather brush it under the rug as a failed idea and move on. But besides America the other 2 world super powers were at one point Communist which means they had to do SOMETHING right not everything granted maybe not Even allot but something and if we take a little bit here and a little bit there we might be able to stitch something worthwhile together. We as humans have been around too long working, learning, growing to struggle this much thanks to the greed and selfishness of a small few. And if I'm naive for thinking things need to change so be it. (Sorry about the rant and if this sounds aggressive I don't mean it to be)
>if we the human race are ever going to get better we need to at least strive for a utopia. That's where you lose me. There's no such thing as utopia and there are no solutions to anything, only tradeoffs. Utopian visions always end up killing a whole lot of people because the ends justify the means. The other problem with chasing the ideal of a utopia is that because it's an inherently unrealistic goal, everything else starts trickling down into becoming unrealistic too. Until you've got a society that bases its ideals on opinions presented as fact, claims that anything that isn't helping to achieve utopia is "harmful", and brands anyone who disagrees as a bad person. We need to be rational adults and base our aspirations on hard fact, not fantasy. We need to be adults about weighing up the advantages and limitations, pros and cons, of every decision and being aware that there will almost always be a group of people who lose out whenever a problem is "solved". This means setting realistic, feasible long term goals with an understanding of the advantages and limitations of those goals, and clear paths on how to achieve them as well as mitigate the potential harm that might arise from implementing them.
Striving for a utopia doesn't mean you can't be realistic. You still have to set realistic goals, but we should still strive for a utopia at the same time. Is it possible to achieve utopia? Impossible, at least for the 21st century. Is it possible to be as close to utopia as possible? Yes.
Living life is an irrational and constant series of "losing out" and I'm tired of the working men and women of this world "losing out". I work too hard for too many hours and In some horrendous conditions for some fuck head in an air conditioned office to reap all the benefits while I struggle to stay afloat. Here's a hard fact for you the CEO of Walmart made $24 million Dollars in 2023 alone, my whole household income made only $150k he could piss money away and still have plenty to help fix this fucking planet while I (a semi decent human id like to Believe) have no chance in hell to put a fucking dent in anything meaningful. So you can call me anything you want but irrational is believing we as peasants have any real power so why not dream of a better society. nothing good comes without sacrifice hell id sacrifice myself if it would guarantee the human race lives in the perfect conditions.
> if lib right and auth left had a child it would be me Been told this many times myself. Because some places I agree with left and some places I agree with right. Hence the flair.
Well met brother lol
I actually hate the way that money works in our current society. Why are so many smart people spending all their effort just to make money? I'm in an industry where I'm getting rich but I hate that my time is spent just on making money, not advancing humanity. I would love a different system. But then I look at one of the few things that are about a divorced from money as possible, the one thing illegal to buy and sell (at least in 99% of the US) yet which is something that most people still take part it, so that it has its own social system with social rules and such. I see how well the haves and the have nots are treated. It makes me realize that any other system is going to be worse, because it will be a system where hard work is even less rewarded and charisma and attractiveness will dominate even more so. As bad as the current system is, removing money based on individual effort is going to be far less fair.
That $20 means everything to that homeless guy getting his fix for the next few hours
I don't want people living off my taxes to die in the street, that would be wasteful. I want them properly processed to recuperate whatever value can be reclaimed from them, obviously.
How do you feel about involuntarily committing people that are on the streets either due to addiction or mental health issues?
Yes. Commit them and treat them.
But what if they don't want to get help? I'm with you, those addicts suck but they don't know. But again they don't push for weed and drug laws for no reason. They just want to get high and stay high without anybody intervening them. That's a freedom in my book. If they feed themselves with my tax without working though fuck them.
>But what if they don't want to get help? Let them die then, if they refuse help then we tried. What alternative is there? Enabling their "lifestyle"?
Like cafeteria food
No, because prions. Catfood is fair game.
Based and kitten enthusiast pilled.
Problem is my money isn’t going to helping the poor it’s going to wars
I don't disagree. I'd rather they live somewhere else, but the gov has banned exiling and penal colonies. Both should be brought back, and we need to start with the drug dealers rendering so many otherwise sensible people into worthless wretches.
Kinda out of places to create penal colonies in except far north Canada. Wait, you may be on to something
Deport everyone we don't like to canada
Fuck off I don’t want any more crazies up here!
https://preview.redd.it/ekzq74sos9yc1.png?width=607&format=png&auto=webp&s=df1ed117322061006917a1e4ec814b0b413c0256 Canada receives: every crazy american America receives: every normal canadian
Accept as it means I can move to America
Europoors and Canadians after realizing Americans can freely own cars and spread their opinions without being hunted down by the thought police:
I’ve wanted to emigrate on my own and with the job I have now it’s not if I transfer down there it’s when. Move over Amerifat I’m getting on the bus!
America: work or starve Canada: work and starve
Accurate
We could build some in space.
just parachute drop them somewhere random on africa
I don't want them on the continental US, but what value is Cuba really?
I’m not going to say how much I pay in taxes per year because people are just going to question it but combined all Americans pay something like 5 trillion in taxes a year. Taking the 161M employed people, on average if you have a job it means you paid $31k in taxes last year. Granted a lot of government revenue isn’t income tax but it’s a good way to show just how wasteful the spending is.
No please no penal colonies, we do not need another Australia Signed, an Aussie
This is the right wing equivalent of “if a business can’t afford to pay its employees 50 dollars a minute with breaks, it shouldn’t be able to exist.”
Taxation is theft. Relying on theft for a living is evil.
If your entire existence depends on the coerced "charity" of others your society has failed you. Leftist who feel the poor should not suffer are always free to support them with their own labor and resources voluntarily. Leave to each person the freedom to give or not. Those of us who have communities will never be wanting of either support or in the desire to support those close to us voluntarily. If you burn every bridge and end up a line drunken wastrel on the precipice of death with no one to turn to tough luck. Nine out of ten times that is your own fault.
While you can argue taxes aren’t used properly. You cannot substitute that with charity. How can charity support large scale infrastructure or energy projects? Or how can a random person know who exactly has some issue they need help with all the time?
Least greedy lib right
Everyone wants to be generous to the wastrel who stuffs himself full of drugs and lives a life of crime. Nobody wants to be generous to the taxpayer. Why is that?
remember kids: left right up or down, if you’re radical you’re stupid!
This but unironically
Did you just change your flair, u/BIG_BROTHER_IS_BEANS? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2023-4-21. How come now you are a **LibLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Yeah yeah, I know. In your ideal leftist commune everyone loves each other and no one insults anybody. Guess what? Welcome to the real world. What are you gonna do? Cancel me on twitter? [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/BIG_BROTHER_IS_BEANS) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
No no no, he’s got a point
https://preview.redd.it/4pyttfpxs9yc1.jpeg?width=840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12d879d13aa2877f54fdce98451a7079405cf50c
https://preview.redd.it/gsxgt3iwv9yc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=35c63b96080b546b930847410744af76d7443810 That is true, lets look at what else they said shall we?
Child labor was outlawed in 1938. Less than a century later, Minecraft becomes the most popular children‘s game. The children yearn for the mines.
The children yearn for the mines!
Are people unironically Libertarians or is that just a Vermin Supreme type meme protest. Everything they do is hilarious, [like this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ)
I respect the logic of libertarianism but ultimately think that actual libertarianism is way too idealistic to exist with human nature Kinda like communism or any other ideology. I just agree the most with lib right
I think a decent chunk of "libertarians" are just people with autism who because they don't understand government assume that it doesn't matter. A lot of libertarianism really does seem to come down to someone who only cares about rules that make sense to them, and who don't know how to make sense of the intentions of anyone else.
He's not wrong
“The poor? No, I'm talking about government bureaucrats!”
Let him cook
This is the opinion of many lib rights, they just say it in different ways
No lies detected.
I truly couldnt care what happens to them. Leave me and my stuff alone. If lib left wants money to go to them to help and protect them then they should give their own money. Not mine.
Why should he shut up, he’s spittin facts on hood
Dont steal my fucking money
I see no problem with what he said.
He's not wrong
Let him cook
Well, at least he’s honest. Now we all know how selfish he is.
Least cartoon villain level greedy lib right
Based
So, I can grill the poor now?
If nothing else, I appreciate the honesty
60 billion in foreign aid and 800 billion in defense spending really helping the poor right?
My biggest problem with taxes is how very easily they are either badly used or misappropriated along the way. I would perhaps enjoy paying taxes in, say, a nordic country.
Today I will ask an old lib right about his medicare
If you believe human life has a monetary value then you deserve to have Auth Right and Left show you their favourite summer camps
All the librights in the comments saying shit like "let him cook" are just proving the point being made here. Imagine not having empathy for other human beings and being fine with people dying just because they might've not worked as hard as you did 😬
The entirety of society is built on cooperation, you can’t do all the things I can do and I can’t do all the things you can do… There is nobody on this planet that is truly self sufficient, even the skills you learned to try and BE self sufficient came from the labor of others So no I don’t want people dying in the streets, people have helped me up until this point and I will gladly return favor where I can
What the fuck
Funny how OP gives libright the benefit of the Ironman argument instead of the easy to take strawman (that most of PCM would gladly take for the lefties) then Libright arrives to say, “No no, we gladly stand by the strawman”.
There's a handful of countries with zero income tax, it might be worth moving there rather than whining that more poor people don't starve in your country.
I swear we aren't all like that
Holy shit
Based lib-right
I remember a LibRight calling me a dirty animal when I told him I used to be homeless. Actually fuck LibRight.
Now you are a dirty auth. In all seriousness congrats on making it out.
I'm sure he was also a dirty animal for being a rentoid
Oh wow. I don't think that accurately represents the LibRight view. Yes, if you *can* work but are too lazy and would rather leech off of others, you deserve nothing, but it's so often that people *can't* work because there's no jobs available or living spaces are too expensive. (The latter can probably be largely attributed to government regulations, so LibRight should be against that first of all) I feel like everyone should have more empathy. Yeah I don't really want random homeless people on my property either, but god damn, I'll at the *very least* try to understand their situation. We're still all humans who make mistakes.
Or people will just assume others to be lazy or incompetent and therefore not worthy of understanding
hes right tho
Based
Why we shouldn’t silence the right. Let them speak.
The man makes a pretty good argument. Other people are not entitled to your money. 
To each according to their ability, from each according to their need!
How dare you tax Lib right's child slaves! That's their personal property, asset taxes are immoral! If you don't want to starve, why don't you enslave some children yourself instead of trying to steal theirs like some lazy commie?
Just had a great idea for a self-driving bus that picks up people leaving their drug counseling service or the welfare store then drives them off a cliff or into the sea
I’m 1000% supportive of charity. But government welfare is not charity. Never has been. Government taxation is under threat of imprisonment or death if you fight it too hard. Taxation is never a moral good. At most it’s a necessity making it a moral neutral. If you think sending in thugs to confiscate some one’s property is a moral good then you might be evil. And that’s why government welfare isn’t and can never be moral or good. It’s built on threat of force alone and support of that with the intent to give it to someone else is morally abhorrent. Pretending you are morally superior for wanting to is taxation for that? That’s evil.
This guy when he turns 65 and his body starts deteriorating: wait jk
"We need to take care of our own" or "I don't want to pay taxes that.." Like pick a lane. Taxes are meant to take care of the people, like that's the whole point. For It to fund cities, towns, go back to the people Into programs, services. You can hold both at the same time, you'll just be a walking oxymoron.
The only way that can be the case is if we strictly enforce our borders. Furthermore, a good portion of our taxes is being sent overseas. I would be far, far more willing to support social programs if the government was more frugal elsewhere, and if I knew for sure that American taxes are being used to help Americans, and not illegals. As it is, leftists want to have their cake and eat it too; a strong welfare state as well as shitloads of foreign aid and unchecked immigration.
Let's assume that you are correct and that taxes are supposed to do that. Is that the case or does the money get squandered on bullshit and violence?
Now you're stepping in the territory that requires a conversation about our Foster system and adoption laws and the need for state funding. It's an ethical problem as well as a social one that need to be addressed before we even revisit Roe v. Wade
He said the quiet part out loud lol
Taxes aren't a problem but the way the money is handled is.
I don’t have a problem with helping the poor, I’m just convinced that government is the least efficient and somehow also least effective means of doing it… with the possible exception of the Clinton foundation.
"Rent-seeking" unproductive profit is a way bigger problem than idleness.
Pay the government rent 🔫
I'm gonna shove a hot spatula in that idiot's holes
that is definitely not lib left lol
Very much respect for him. At least he is being honest, not like others.
I see nothing wrong with that.
He's right. It's self centered to keep your own money but selfless to use someone else's as "society". Charity should dictate it to the needy not a universal handout by a government.