Let us gaze into the crystal ball, shall we?
Be careful what you wish for, libertarians, for that world already exists today. You would wish a future in which nobody would feel obligated to help anybody. You would choose a world in which there is no social cohesion, a world in which there are no social programs, no cooperation, no method of lifting people up out of abject poverty. This is what you would inflict upon the world. I feel that a public service announcement is in order.
You libertarians feel that you have absolutely no obligation to abide by the social rules of empathy, compassion, or concern for your fellow humans. In this mortal coil.
...But you think they will still somehow magically follow the social rule of consent??
Let us take a gander at the Indian subcontinent, the land of Hindustan. The heritage from which I hail. This is what a libertarian society looks like. This is the world that you would wish for.
Libertarianism means nobody has to do absolutely anything they don't want to do, correct? I hope that includes police officers, because that is how India and Bangladesh apparently interpreted it. If the police officer over there doesn't feel like investigating a crime, whether violent or white collar, they won't. If a cop doesn't feel like apprehending a crime in mid-execution, they won't. If a cop doesn't feel like making an arrest, they won't.
Same goes for emergency rooms. If a patient does not present cash up front, the doc doesn't have to help them.
Politicians and corporate bigwigs embezzle money, or skim it off of workers' pay, which is essentially embezzling it in a legal manner. They store this money, of course, in Swiss bank accounts, effectively stealing it out of the nation's economy.
What's that you said, libertarian, workers couldn't possibly consent to that? Well, actually, workers cannot withhold consent from what they don't even know is happening.
There are no social programs to aid suffering people.
To aid the sick and poor
No WIC programs. No monetary welfare. No druggie/alcoholic/etc. rehabilitation programs. Look, I am not necessarily "pro" all of these things. Lord knows I dislike welfare queens and baby daddies including corporate welfare queens as much as the next person.
No taxpayer-funded public grade school systems. No taxpayer-funded vaccination programs for children. There aren't even any charity organizations in place that might afford at least some poor people the chance not to die of preventable illnesses. There are no homeless shelters or even soup kitchens. Ha, yeah, right! Homeless shelters? What's that?
When I talk about helping the poor and downtrodden, I do not mean things like affirmative action or social promotion. I think the verdict is in on those movements -- they do not work. All that those farces of political correctness do is usher unqualified people into schools and jobs that they are wholly unprepared for. It does nothing but perpetuate and reward failure.
A society could have remedial programs in education, like academic rehab. It is best to have a society that is at least somewhat literate. Get the general population up to some minimum standard.
But in your dream libertarian society, this would not exist, either.
No taxpayer-funded or city-wide sewage system or plumbing system. No city water tank or water-pasteurizing system. No city garbage collection or handling.
Why do none of these things exist in the Indian subcontinent? Because noone ever wanted to undertake any massive city-wide project to establish these systems. So what if it is a matter of public health, order, sanitation, and ultimately safety? No one wants to do it, and that's that.
Remember, in a libertarian society, no one has to do anything they don't want to do.
No programs for mental illness
No welfare for poverty stricken people
You say you do not have any obligation to give money to charity. No obligation to do volunteer work in the community. No obligation to make sure everyone in society is at least doing better than grinding abject poverty.
You got rid of the social rule that says, "Do unto others." You got rid of the social rule that says that all children have a right to grade school education. You got rid of the rule that says all of society has a responsibility to care about all children. You got rid of the social rule that says that people have a right to basic food, nutrition, sustenance.
And yet you think the people that are directly harmed by all these decisions -- people in obliterating poverty, that is -- should still somehow magically obey the social rule of consent and not mug you??
I find it mind-boggling that so many libertarians insist that there is no social contract to which people ought to adhere. Erm, excuse me? When you see a green light-- go; yellow light-- slow down; red light-- stop.
Don't drive your car carelessly or mow over pedestrians. Don't commit crimes. Don't mug people. Don't throw trash on the street. Look for a garbage can, and dispose of waste properly.
Most importantly, do not think that the only reason not to do these things is that they are against the law. The law is only a piece of paper that cannot force anyone to comply. No. Refrain from doing these things because NOT doing these things is the moral and right thing to do. These are all parts of the social contract that libertarians claim does not exist.
It seems that libertarians have a very unsophisticated, woefully inadequate understanding of human psychology. You cannot simply trash almost all social rules -- charity, low cost healthcare options, mandatory education for children funded by all of society, mandatory food for children funded by all of society -- and then still expect said society to function in a safe, orderly, healthy manner.
You cannot simply say that rich people can do whatever they want to do, such as not have to care about sick and poor people -- and then turn around and say that poor people cannot do whatever they want to do, such as mug and rob rich people, or commit public group beatings of a rich person out on the street.
I realize now that the aforementioned societies are exceedingly libertarian. This is not a good thing. They most certainly would not label themselves libertarians. But as I have noted many, many times before, people are not good at assessing themselves.
Remember my previous article on how civilizations mirror the growth and development of a human life cycle? That still applies here. But in some societies, such as those of Bangladesh and most parts of India, conservatives have evidently allowed themselves to be too emotionally damaged by the state of affairs around them. They are bitter, cynical, and jaded; they are emotionally damaged to an extent beyond repair.
Those societies have snowballed to the point that conservatives have lost all hope. A libertarian is in essence a conservative that has lost any and all faith whatsoever in humanity. They do not see an optimistic future for society. They have given up completely. This is why they are okay with things like illicit street drugs and prostitution, and yet at the same time they are fiscally very conservative. They no longer give a crap about anyone.
Very important to note: just because a given conservative turns into a libertarian, this does not automatically mean that he/she is more "evolved." Here is what I mean by that. Many former liberals do evolve a bit, after gaining knowledge of the whole unfiltered truth. They see news and current events, they begin understanding more comprehensively about society, and they read their history. They then realize that their opinions and perceptions begin leaning more to the right.
However, very much unlike that, a libertarian is not a more "evolved" conservative. A libertarian might have started out as conservative, fine. But a conservative-turned-libertarian is like milk that has turned into spoiled milk. Spoiled milk has aged, and sure, it has reached the next step in its biochemical development. But it sure as hell has not improved. It has gotten worse. It is now no use to anybody. It is better to have it removed from society at that point, because the harm it could do greatly outweighs any benefits to society.
In a way, turning into a libertarian is a form of de-evolution. It has changed, it has mutated, but it has not evolved. Evolution denotes an improvement. Becoming a libertarian is a process of shriveling up,__
Be careful what you wish for, libertarians, for that world already exists today. You would wish a future in which nobody would feel obligated to help anybody. You would choose a world in which there is no social cohesion, a world in which there are no social programs, no cooperation, no method of lifting people up out of abject poverty. This is what you would inflict upon the world. I feel that a public service announcement is in order.
You libertarians feel that you have absolutely no obligation to abide by the social rules of empathy, compassion, or concern for your fellow humans. In this mortal coil.
...But you think they will still somehow magically follow the social rule of consent??
Let us take a gander at the Indian subcontinent, the land of Hindustan. The heritage from which I hail. This is what a libertarian society looks like. This is the world that you would wish for.
Libertarianism means nobody has to do absolutely anything they don't want to do, correct? I hope that includes police officers, because that is how India and Bangladesh apparently interpreted it. If the police officer over there doesn't feel like investigating a crime, whether violent or white collar, they won't. If a cop doesn't feel like apprehending a crime in mid-execution, they won't. If a cop doesn't feel like making an arrest, they won't.
Same goes for emergency rooms. If a patient does not present cash up front, the doc doesn't have to help them.
Politicians and corporate bigwigs embezzle money, or skim it off of workers' pay, which is essentially embezzling it in a legal manner. They store this money, of course, in Swiss bank accounts, effectively stealing it out of the nation's economy.
What's that you said, libertarian, workers couldn't possibly consent to that? Well, actually, workers cannot withhold consent from what they don't even know is happening.
There are no social programs to aid suffering people.
To aid the sick and poor
No WIC programs. No monetary welfare. No druggie/alcoholic/etc. rehabilitation programs. Look, I am not necessarily "pro" all of these things. Lord knows I dislike welfare queens and baby daddies including corporate welfare queens as much as the next person.
No taxpayer-funded public grade school systems. No taxpayer-funded vaccination programs for children. There aren't even any charity organizations in place that might afford at least some poor people the chance not to die of preventable illnesses. There are no homeless shelters or even soup kitchens. Ha, yeah, right! Homeless shelters? What's that?
When I talk about helping the poor and downtrodden, I do not mean things like affirmative action or social promotion. I think the verdict is in on those movements -- they do not work. All that those farces of political correctness do is usher unqualified people into schools and jobs that they are wholly unprepared for. It does nothing but perpetuate and reward failure.
A society could have remedial programs in education, like academic rehab. It is best to have a society that is at least somewhat literate. Get the general population up to some minimum standard.
But in your dream libertarian society, this would not exist, either.
No taxpayer-funded or city-wide sewage system or plumbing system. No city water tank or water-pasteurizing system. No city garbage collection or handling.
Why do none of these things exist in the Indian subcontinent? Because noone ever wanted to undertake any massive city-wide project to establish these systems. So what if it is a matter of public health, order, sanitation, and ultimately safety? No one wants to do it, and that's that.
Remember, in a libertarian society, no one has to do anything they don't want to do.
No programs for mental illness
No welfare for poverty stricken people
You say you do not have any obligation to give money to charity. No obligation to do volunteer work in the community. No obligation to make sure everyone in society is at least doing better than grinding abject poverty.
You got rid of the social rule that says, "Do unto others." You got rid of the social rule that says that all children have a right to grade school education. You got rid of the rule that says all of society has a responsibility to care about all children. You got rid of the social rule that says that people have a right to basic food, nutrition, sustenance.
And yet you think the people that are directly harmed by all these decisions -- people in obliterating poverty, that is -- should still somehow magically obey the social rule of consent and not mug you??
I find it mind-boggling that so many libertarians insist that there is no social contract to which people ought to adhere. Erm, excuse me? When you see a green light-- go; yellow light-- slow down; red light-- stop.
Don't drive your car carelessly or mow over pedestrians. Don't commit crimes. Don't mug people. Don't throw trash on the street. Look for a garbage can, and dispose of waste properly.
Most importantly, do not think that the only reason not to do these things is that they are against the law. The law is only a piece of paper that cannot force anyone to comply. No. Refrain from doing these things because NOT doing these things is the moral and right thing to do. These are all parts of the social contract that libertarians claim does not exist.
It seems that libertarians have a very unsophisticated, woefully inadequate understanding of human psychology. You cannot simply trash almost all social rules -- charity, low cost healthcare options, mandatory education for children funded by all of society, mandatory food for children funded by all of society -- and then still expect said society to function in a safe, orderly, healthy manner.
You cannot simply say that rich people can do whatever they want to do, such as not have to care about sick and poor people -- and then turn around and say that poor people cannot do whatever they want to do, such as mug and rob rich people, or commit public group beatings of a rich person out on the street.
I realize now that the aforementioned societies are exceedingly libertarian. This is not a good thing. They most certainly would not label themselves libertarians. But as I have noted many, many times before, people are not good at assessing themselves.
Remember my previous article on how civilizations mirror the growth and development of a human life cycle? That still applies here. But in some societies, such as those of Bangladesh and most parts of India, conservatives have evidently allowed themselves to be too emotionally damaged by the state of affairs around them. They are bitter, cynical, and jaded; they are emotionally damaged to an extent beyond repair.
Those societies have snowballed to the point that conservatives have lost all hope. A libertarian is in essence a conservative that has lost any and all faith whatsoever in humanity. They do not see an optimistic future for society. They have given up completely. This is why they are okay with things like illicit street drugs and prostitution, and yet at the same time they are fiscally very conservative. They no longer give a crap about anyone.
Very important to note: just because a given conservative turns into a libertarian, this does not automatically mean that he/she is more "evolved." Here is what I mean by that. Many former liberals do evolve a bit, after gaining knowledge of the whole unfiltered truth. They see news and current events, they begin understanding more comprehensively about society, and they read their history. They then realize that their opinions and perceptions begin leaning more to the right.
However, very much unlike that, a libertarian is not a more "evolved" conservative. A libertarian might have started out as conservative, fine. But a conservative-turned-libertarian is like milk that has turned into spoiled milk. Spoiled milk has aged, and sure, it has reached the next step in its biochemical development. But it sure as hell has not improved. It has gotten worse. It is now no use to anybody. It is better to have it removed from society at that point, because the harm it could do greatly outweighs any benefits to society.
In a way, turning into a libertarian is a form of de-evolution. It has changed, it has mutated, but it has not evolved. Evolution denotes an improvement. Becoming a libertarian is a process of shriveling up,__