Yeah there were no poor before government came along. Nor in the countries today which have little or no government. Good point.

Like medicaid? How exactly does it help the poor if you take that away?

They suffer from suzzer syndrome - if you have good intentions it doesn't matter if it works. If you try to critically look at the problem, you clearly hate poor people and don't agree with the goal.

More like in love with what the mob thinks of them.

Since money is hurtful to poor people the state should take away as much as possible so they can lead better lives.

Isn't this what is happening? Minus the better lives part.

The way that the economics are set up is absurd. I am a social worker in MA and am pretty familiar with the in's and out's of 'poor people's' financial situations.

Take a person on SSI (disability check for someone who doesn't have hardly any work history).

They get ~ $740/month cash. And most all of them have a section 8 apartment where they pay 30% of their income to rent. So that means another $780/month (based on an apt that rents for $1,000). Healthcare for free which is easily good for another $500/month. That's $24,000/year tax free. That's equal $11.50/hr under the table based on a 40hr/week work week, which of course for them is a 52 week per year paid vacation.

Now, if they want to work they get 50% of their earnings as their SSI check is reduced by $1 for every $2 they earn in gross pay. So their $10/hr job at Walmart turns into a $5/hr job right off the bat. And since they have to pay 30% of their income towards their rent, their rent goes up $3 for every hour they work. That turns this job into a $2.00/hr job. And they do have to pay some taxes, like social security, railroad tax or whatever the little bs taxes people get hit up for. So the $10/hr job turns into a $1.50/hr job.

So it does not surprise me that not many people who get paid $11.50/hr tax free for doing whatever they want to do all day, every day turn down a job for $1.50/hr where they would have to deal with a boss and all the various hassles that go along with working. Not to mention that by working they are demonstrating behavior that would potentially put their income and livelihood at risk as the reason they collect the money and free stuff is because they are deemed not able to hold meaningful employment. Their livelihood is based on them not being able to work.

So entitlement programs suck for them and for us. I know who my really crazy clients are, they are the ones who actually take a job despite all the disincentives. After all, don't you have to be crazy to work for $1.50/hr when you collect $11.50/hr for watching Gerry Springer all day?

I fully agree some entitlement programs are screwed up and creating all kinds of perverse incentives out there. Many need to be completely reformed. But these problems are fixable if the political will is there. See the Clinton welfare-to-work (GAIN) reforms that put a max on the amount of time someone can receiver welfare and forces them to take job training classes to keep receiver benefits.

And nothing you said still shows how taking away medicaid helps poor people in any way shape or form.

I thought we were giving poor people unlimited free ponies, which was screwing up their lives? You guys might want to get your stories straight on this one.

.

See what I mean? Disagree with the means, you must disagree with the ends!

Call me when Suzzer moves a person who 'needs help' into his house and lets him live there without requiring him to lift a finger to either help himself or do any chores in the house, month after month, year after year.. all the while giving the guy some pocket money and buying him groceries and cooking him meals and providing free health care and free clothing, etc....

If many of these people who don't actively argue against the status quo had 'the needy' actually living with them and got to see up close and personal how ridiculous it is to give out money and goods and services in the name of 'helping them' without requiring them to help themselves they would change their minds in a hot second.

But I guess that is the genius of the state, charge a ton of money to supposedly help people while the day to day in's and out's of the 'help' are not witnessed and the system will keep having it's supporters despite it being a miserable failure.

It's the suzzer theory of help as well. If I vote for someone who supports stopping some genocide (whether or not he actually does anything), I'm morally off the hook from helping. But if you don't write down the right name, YOU ARE A MURDERER WHO ALLOWS GENOCIDE!

You guys could try nominating a guy who isn't against civil rights legislation?

with regards to his body of work, ive only payed attention to his work on free market mechanics, and how anarchy works. His book "Everday Anarchy" is a very good read imo, and is something any non anarchist can read and take away a better understanding on how free markets work.
I dont know why he so heavily moderates his forum, but I take that as just an annoying inconvenience. He did manage a software company back in the day, so it could just be in his nature to micromanage whatever he puts out on the internet. His defooing stuff seems strange, idk, i ignore it lol

As someone who grew up in a terribly abusive family I am particularly sensitive to the mistreatment of children. There are teenagers who drift onto his internet forum looking for some kind of direction and acceptance in life, vulnerable kids. He abuses his position of power and influence over such children, convincing them to turn their lives upside down, to abandon their families and to follow him. This is unconscionable to me.

Here are some traits of a cult/cult leader. If you are familiar with the way he runs his internet forum examine these traits and see how similar they are to the internet forum he runs:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

* I say this one is obviously true of him/his forum

‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

* This one too

‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

*Not so much this one, but he does have, or at least did have, a weekly skype session people of the forum were strongly encouraged to listen to.

‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

* Cutting off ties to their families, who people should associate with is also preached by him

‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

* This is true to an extent too.

‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.


‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.


‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.


Obviously a lot of this isn't true, but he just runs an internet forum, it's not a live-in organization. To the extent an internet forum can be a cult, I would say his is up there much closer to a cult than most all others and much moreso than any other internet forum I have ever heard of.

He doesn't just tightly moderate his forum, he moderates it is such a way that people are rewarded to think like HIM, not like anarcho-capitalists. If you doubt it I'll go over there and join his forum and start to post in such a way as to encourage independent thought and you will see the forum become tumultous.

It's condescending only if you think there is nothing to change. Obviously, since the Libertarian party has never elected anything (that I'm aware of), there is room for improvement in how it markets itself to the American people and how it formulates its approach to policy if nothing else.

I figured the intolerant wing of the 2p2 libertarian faction would eventually embrace, extend and extinguish this thread. As has been pointed out numerous times, they probably prefer being ideologically pure and materially irrelevant.

FYP

Yes because all social safety nets are 100% permanent and never to help someone who's fallen on rough times and needs a helping hand. There's never any room for middle ground or tweaking the system here. Every social safety net is a complete freebie that lasts forever and a total and utter failure. At least that's how it is in your mind, which is all that matters.

Please show me where I support a lifetime dole system. I've come out against it countless times on this forum.

That doesn't even mean anything wrt to my post. ikes, is that you?

This makes no sense.

It's the same argument. My candidate supports more/less of something (stopping genocide/wars of aggression), therefore your candidate is a baby-killing murderer.

The only reason I started bringing up the genocide thing is because I get tired of being called a defective human being for supporting Obama. All coming down from a sanctimonious high horse by people who support a candidate who has plenty of views society finds morally questionable.

I never claimed my candidate was a saint or much more than a politician. Somehow you all have this mythology that your candidate is so ideologically and ethically pure that you can freely chastise anyone else - with the sincerity of a devout evangelical - while completely ignoring the messy stuff like the racist newsletters, gay-bashing and unwillingness to step in to stop the murder of 6 million people.

You are saying if you are against safety nets you hate poor people. Safety nets (the means) are one such possible solution to helping poor people (the ends). You are saying if you disagree with having safety nets (means), you must be against helping poor people (the ends). It has everything to do with your post.

How does voting for someone who is for a war of aggression get you off the hook? What libertarian thinks that not voting is the same as murdering? This makes no sense. Your FYP is terrible and you probably just screwed up what you were trying to say (giving you some credit). Did you mean stop wars of aggression?