Flawed Libertarianism

Discussion in 'Libertarian' started by Balbus, Oct 7, 2014.

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    There are many forms of libertarianism, the one I’m talking about here is the one that seems to have become prominent in the US (and elsewhere) that of right wing libertarianism (RWL) this can also have many shades but all I think all seem flawed on a fundamental level.

    I’ve explained my criticisms many times but let’s go through a few in no particular order and remembering that many of these ideas are interlinked and cross pollinated.

    Let’s begin with competition

    Competition in an evolutionary sense (survival of the fittest) seems to underpin a lot their ideas they seem to think that ‘natural’ and to some degree unfettered competition will bring about the most natural and beneficial outcome. It colours their view of economics and of social issues.

    There are many things wrong with that outlook.

    It’s an evolutionary approach – based on natural selection - so just as in the wild the old and weak lion at the head of the pride will be taken down by a younger stronger competitor, so will (and should) old and weak individuals and companies be taken down by younger stronger newcomers. The better and fitter will naturally rise to the top. Those at the head of society therefore must be ‘naturally’ superior having fought their way there.

    But humans don’t live in a state of nature, the rules and institutions we live by are artificial.

    I mean the old lion doesn’t make a will and hand over the pride to his relatives with police and the courts there ready to protect his property (even if they are younger and physically and mentally ‘better ‘than him).
    So at the fundamental level competition in an evolutionary sense doesn’t work because the whole thing about evolution is that it is based on natural selection.

    That's the criticism and you can stop reading here - but if you want additional information you can read on.

    Humans in many places live in a artificial environment under human created and manipulated systems.

    As to companies, new ones can arise with new innovations but many out there are very old and still going – for example take DuPont – the DuPont family are the descendents of French nobility, the family moved to America and the DuPont Company was established there in 1802, they were well off and then made a huge fortune in the American Civil War and they are still one of the richest families in the US, (surviving the conviction of one heir for murder and another for child rape) and the company is still going strong.

    The thing is that once wealth becomes established it has a tendency to try and hold on to its position and I don’t many American realise that they are growing their own inherited wealth ‘nobility’. With incredibly wealthy families who’s riches come from passed on assets.

    The Rockefellers are probably the most famous, but there are obscurer ones like the Mellon’s (rich since the 1840’s) the last heir being Richard Mellon Scaife one of the biggest contributors to right wing causes (like the Cato Institute) and founder of the Heritage Foundation where he was vice-chairman.


    One of the things highlighted by Thomas Piketty’s in Capital in the 21st century is how wealth once acquired can be held and accumulated and he warns of the rise of a system of “patrimonial capitalism”, dominated by inherited wealth.

    You see as a group these families are most likely to try and bring influence to bare in their interests - it’s not just the obvious ones like the Koch and Walton family who pay for influence. For example take the lobbying around inheritance tax, while some like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are roughly supportive of such a tax many rich families are deeply opposed -

    "A 2006 report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy -- both nonprofits opposed to concentrated wealth -- identified 18 families financing a coordinated campaign to repeal the estate tax altogether. Among the leading names behind that push: the Gallos (E&J Gallo Winery), the Kochs (Koch Industries), the Mars' (Mars Inc.), the Waltons and the Wegmans (Wegmans Food Markets). At the time, the report estimated the families' collected net worth to be at least $185 billion” http://money.cnn.com..._lobby.fortune/

    Thing is that I don’t think many American realise that they are growing their own inherited wealth ‘nobility’. With incredibly wealthy families who’s riches come from passed on assets.

    OK I’ll write another criticism soon
     
    3 people like this.
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Competition : Part 2

    Another criticism of right wing libertarian views of competition is that it seems contradictory; they claim to want to have equality while seemingly singing the virtues of inequality and having ideas that would make already bad inequality even worse.

    I’ll explain – they say they want fair and balanced competition between individuals and between individuals and institutions. But if that was true they would be promoting ideas that would make that more likely (e.g. more balanced wealth distribution, regulatory bodies that champion such things as the environment, laws that protect people (Health and Safety legislation for example), legal assistance for the disadvantaged etc).

    However that not what right wing libertarians seem to promote, in fact in a lot of cases to one degree or another it’s the exact opposite.

    They seem to want tax regimes that are most likely to increase inequality, many seem to want to cut down or close regulatory bodies and support ‘business friendly’ deregulation as well as seeming to want a social model based on ability to pay (advantaging wealth).

    This makes me think that they are either naïve, incredibly ill informed, have no experience of the real world or are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes (trying to con us).

    Because it’s obvious that in a money based economy wealth will bring advantage over those that have less, any competition would be rigged it wealth’s favour. That can be checked but they don’t seem to want much or even any check on it - in fact they seem to want to increase inequality to even further advantage wealth.

    **

    It is like having a race between two runners of equal potential but one has to carry a 100lb sack of potatoes while the other is unencumbered or that one runner is given a 50 meter head start in a 100 meter race.

    You then stand at the winning line and praise and reward the winning advantaged runner while lambasting the other disadvantaged runner as not putting in enough effort.

    It’s an unfair race that’s rigged in favour of the advantaged.
     
    2 people like this.
  3. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Decent observations but I don't understand why all these virtues are being given the name right wing libertarian. It is a fact in the U.S. that votes do not influence policy but money and access do. I think Americans are aware of plutocratic influence and recurrently struggle with it or support it for the promise that they too may some day be wealthy or ignore it for the sake of preserving their sanity in the face of overwhelming odds. The profit motive itself has imbalance structured in. Whereas the theory is you get what you pay for based on economics the capitalists in fact expect to invest little and get much more in return and someone has to pay the difference in that equation.
     
    2 people like this.
  4. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    It's all about competition for these people, and they don't seem to have the word 'co-operation' in their dictionary.

    But since you mention an evolutionary view - humans, like our closest relatives chimps and bononbos, are social animals. When we did live 'in nature' it's more than probable that our survival depended on co-operation on a scale it's almost impossible for us to conceive of today. I think that's something we have to consider before extolling the virtues of competition, or suggesting that it's our 'nature'.


    But really I just see these people as would be neo-feudalists. All values are subordinated to money values. A hierarchical power structure would be absolutely inevitable if they got their way, despite the so called claims of libertarianism. What they want is the liberty to screw not only the 3rd world poor, but anyone not in the top 10% in western societies.
     
    2 people like this.
  5. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    Interesting opinion, not to be regarded as fact, since it is just one obviously biased take on what is really nothing more than a proposed political system that has never been fully implemented anywhere.
     
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Thedope



    Virtues? I’m being critical of this form of libertarianism, virtue is usually associated with a positive viewpoint are you saying you are in favour of RWL to some degree, which doesn’t seem to fit in with the tone of the rest of your post?

    I call it right wing libertarianism to distinguish it from left wing libertarianism which is much more collectivist based centered around joint ownership, and cooperation (as opposed to competition).



    The US is still a democracy even if many think it a dysfunctional democracy – votes can have an influence but there are many out there who’d like people not to vote or to vote for things that would likely make a bad situation worse.

    I’m just pointing out one of those influences - right wing libertarianism - which has seemingly gain support even though it seems fundamentally flawed and can even be defended from criticism from its own supporters.
     
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    This has been understood by many for thousands of years Aristotle observed “[SIZE=12pt]Man is by nature a social animal” [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=12pt]It then comes down to what social system and structures you wish to live under all those ‘archy’s and ‘ism’s (oligarchy, democracy, capitalism, socialism etc) of the history of political thought. [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=12pt]And also it is a matter balancing individual and communal rights and desires.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=12pt]I’m trying to argue that right wing libertarianism would not be the best social system to live under because it is so fundamentally flawed.[/SIZE]


    I agree – but what I find so interesting is that many right wing libertarians seem to continue to hold onto these ideas even though none of them seem to be able to defend them from criticism.
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Still



    Sorry but this argument doesn’t make sense – I’m pointing out the risks I see associated with right wing libertarian ideas – just as I’d point out the risks I’d see associated with jumping off a skyscraper without a parachute.

    Are you implying you’d prefer not to hear about the possible risks and instead jump and just see what happens?

    I mean you don’t seem to be putting up any counter arguments to criticisms, other than we should just, stop thinking, stop questioning, stop debating just jump with you.

    Of course I’m biased against RWL I’ve looked at it, examined it and found it wanting, flawed and dangerous, would you say I was biased against gravity because I didn’t want to jump off that skyscraper?

    If you really think RWL is so great why can’t you address the criticisms?
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Personal Responsibility

    The flaw in the right wing libertarian views on personal responsibility may be clear to those that have already read the post on the flaws in their ideas on competition.

    Their ideas are very similar to a very old self serving argument put forward by the better off to justify not helping the poorer off.

    It is that of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

    So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

    The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.


    Many RWL also seem to have this viewpoint but they word it in terms of personal responsibility they seem to say - if people are responsible and make “better decisions” then they will not need assistance but those that are irresponsible and make “poor decisions” then don’t deserve assistance.

    The problem is that an individual cannot always be in personal control of circumstance, at the very fundamental level the RWL view of personal responsibility falls down – No one can choose to whom they are born and that is one of, if not the biggest thing to impact a person’s life.

    I’m sure if people could choose they’d want to be born into wealth or at least comfort rather than abject poverty. For one it would likely lead to a happier and healthier live but the opportunities to fulfil your potential would be far greater.

    In an unequal system there cannot be equality of opportunity the more unequal a society the more difficult it can be for the disadvantaged to fulfil their potential and rise in social standing (what is referred to a Social Mobility).

    For a lot of people they are in the position they are because of lack of opportunity rather than lack of potential.

    Also as well as giving greater opportunities advantage can also allow greater levels of irresponsibility or the making of bad decisions, advantage can cushion individuals and institutions from the effects.
     
    2 people like this.
  10. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    Well, I agree. It would be a pretty bad system.
     
  11. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    Not at all. I think I have looked into the various political systems and their dogmas enough to know that I much prefer a libertarian system over any other, if we have to have a political system at all.


    I have already made it clear that it is pretty pointless to argue with you about something that at this point is only speculation. They are just ideas right now, some people think they are good ideas, others, like you, obviously do not. What is the point of arguing over them? And no, I have never even intimated that anyone should "just jump with me" and stop thinking, questioning, etc.. In case you have missed it in all my posts in these forums, I am pretty hung up on facts, truth, and having things proven to me before I accept them, and I think it behooves others to do the same. Blind faith in anything is dangerous.


    Now you are obfuscating the issue. So you don't agree with what you call "right wing libertarianism". No problem. People have different views on everything, that is a fact. You seem bent on pigeon holing certain facets of libertarianism into something you call right wing libertarianism without regard to the whole philosophy. By doing that, you attempt to discredit something that has merit for people who prefer more liberty over the restricted "civil liberties" that are "granted" by the various other forms of government.


    I never said something you call "right wing libertarianism" is great, you are the one hung up on that term. When I originally became interested in libertarianism it was because it espoused the view that people have rights inherent in them, and that political system is supposed to uphold those rights. That is a pretty simplistic statement on my part, but the gist regardless. In terms of preference for a government entity, if we even need one at all, I would always choose a libertarian one over anything else. The reason being is that if we can keep the people who become involved in operating it on the straight and narrow I think (notice the use a word here that denotes an opinion only and has no basis in fact as of yet) that it would offer something better than anything else next to no government at all. Given the fact that we are now experiencing the outcome of two political philosophies for quite some time and they have brought this country to the brink of ruin, taken away a large amount of our liberties, and created a police state, then I think it is time for something better. Libertarianism is just one option.

    Allow me to put forth a little scenario with a question just for you in it in the next post. It is directly related to what you call a "work or die" issue that you are really hung up on. I don't know when the cutoff comes for how long a post is so I will do another.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    @balbus

    Ok, in regards to your issues with what you call a "work or die" angle that you seem to think is found in the libertarian philosophy. I disagree with your take on that angle, by the way. I don't think it would play out the way you present it. Given that people are usually pretty generous when they can afford to be, I doubt the amount of people who would suffer under a libertarian system would be any greater than what we find right now in the world under the existing systems. Again, this is all speculation as we have no way of knowing for sure until the system is tried.

    To start:

    One of the doomsday scenarios that some people seem bent on putting forward ad-nauseum has taken place. (Really, it does not take a large catastrophe to make things difficult, just losing a job can be pretty difficult) It is difficult to find food and other goods we take for granted now. You were intelligent enough to see what was coming and had your own little survival thing going and are pretty well set up to cope. Some of your neighbors were not so forward thinking.
    One day, one of them shows up, hungry, and asks if you could help out a little. Being the good guy you are, you give him a meal and help him tidy up a bit, since if he wasn't concerned about food, then he probably didn't have much else in the way of personal needs covered either.
    A few days go by, and he comes back, hungry again. You help him out, again, as that is your nature, to try to help others if you can.
    Soon, he is there everyday. It is starting to strain your resources as you had things set up just for you. You ask him to give you a hand producing more food, working in your garden, hunting, etc. He mumbles a bit about having to get home and "take care of things there". Yet he continues to show up for meal time.
    Now, in addition to food, he asks if you might have a pair of shoes he could "borrow", as his are worn out from walking from his place to yours to eat. At first you tell him no, but later relent, as you are still a nice guy.
    After a few weeks of this sort of thing, you take stock of what you have and find that you are seriously depleting the things you put by for your survival. You give the guy an ultimatum, he either has to start helping, or you can no longer afford to help him, as your resources have been depleted to the point where your own survival is becoming questionable.

    So, what do you do if he does not help you? Do you continue to give up your own resources for a person who is not willing to help himself, or help you so that he benefits himself?

    It is pretty simplistic, I admit, and hopefully addresses your "work or die" opinion. I think you are wrong in that regard, since what I read about libertarianism tells me the opposite of how you present it. There is no good way to answer that issue for you, as there is no good or direct answer in any political system that can. Will it affect people who are disabled in some manner. The answer is most probably yes. Yet you forget the same thing is happening right now, around the world, in every form of political system in existence. There have been, and always will be inequalities in any political system. With the libertarian system the focus will be put back where it belongs, with the families and close communities of people those who are struggling live with. Not with government agencies who are unable to manage themselves properly, let alone other peoples lives. I have no idea if there is a better way, but I do believe the libertarian system would address the issue in a manner that would not just kick people to the curb and let them totally fend for themselves when they hit rocky spots in their lives. People would not allow that.

    I do believe, though, that if people are not willing to help themselves, then they deserve whatever fate waits for them.

    It would be easier if you addressed one point at a time instead of your blanket "right wing libertarianism is bad" views. Like I pointed out in other posts, yours is just a differing view. I have no problem with that, people do have them. But you keep using your hang up on one facet to disparage the rest, and my view is that libertarianism is a pretty decent concept for a political system. So we disagree. No big deal, it happens. As always happens with an impasse in any discussion, the end result is that the parties involved can only "agree to disagree".
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    In your OP for this thread you address what you call right wing libertarianism. In my opinion, pigeon holing aspects of something in this manner (right, left, whatever) denigrates the whole. In my opinion, libertarianism is a whole philosophy that is agreeable by itself without pursuing various aspects of it created by people who only want their take on it to be considered.

    To illustrate:
    Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to those libertarian political philosophies that advocate both self-ownership and private property rights and free-market capitalism.

    and

    Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism)[note 1] names several related but distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice. Most notably, radical left-libertarians tend to be analogous with left anarchism while more moderate types tend to be closer to Green Party[1] philosophy. Unlike right-libertarians, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights,[2][3] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold, trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under the condition that recompense is offered to the local community.

    Both of those definitions are from wikipedia.

    If we look at what just libertarian means:
    Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment.

    Also from wikipedia. I only use wikipedia for convenience, not for total accuracy.

    Libertarianism by itself is a pretty simple philosophy, easy to understand. When people start thinking in terms of left, right, or whatever, then they are no longer thinking about the original philosophy. They have created an aspect of it based on it, but are now discussing an entirely different thing.

    In the other thread, the OP asked why people were drawn to libertarianism. You tried to shoot down the whole libertarian philosophy by making it seem as though what you call right wing libertarianism is indicative of the whole philosophy, when it is not. If your views in that regard were accurate or true (again, we cannot know at this time) then I would not be for that either, as it contrasts my own views of what libertarianism is.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    By virtues I mean the things that make it stand out in your mind. Now that you have distinguished right from left libertarianism and suggested that voting for specific influences can matter
    i would suggest to you that the united states and the world in general is a coporatocracy and the profit motive is the only policy of public good there is regardless party or ideology. Whatever civil autonomy we have from the system in the form of a vote only appears that way because many social values issues are not important to the functioning of corporations. It becomes more obvious who is in control of policy when social issues come up against the profit motive as in the case of the environment.

    So I gather you think it important to choose a lesser evil to try and not make a bad situation worse but I think the only meaningful change is fundamental and as long as the corporatocracy continues it doesn't matter what political ideologies claim the election cycle. The thing that resists this fundamentally needed change is the fact that most of the people want to become more wealthy and in this way are functionally committed to the system.
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    I don't understand what this has to do with Libertarianism. The same scenario would hold for any other form of government. It could be a Communist system where one individual refuses to work, a Representative Democracy, a Pure Democracy, Totalitarian, Dictatorship, etc.
     
  16. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    Balbus brought up the issue with his "work or die" example of how "right wing libertarian" politics would not work. I agree with you, but balbus seemed to be saying that this issue would only come up under "right wing libertarian" politics. It was brought up under another libertarian thread.
     
  17. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    On the 'work or die' issue -

    What happens to people who are medically unfit to work and who have not earned enough in the past to have private insurance? I can't see how RWL would deal with issues like that.
     
  18. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    I would have to ask, "what did they do prior to private insurance?" It wasn't so long ago that we had no social welfare systems of any kind at the federal level. Prior to the Great Depression, there were about 18 million people in the country that lived at the poverty level. http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-14-3-a-how-welfare-began-in-the-united-states.html
    In 2013, 45.3 million people live at the poverty level.http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/how-many-people-are-poor
    I didn't figure in the ratios of how many people in the country then and now.
    The point is, there have always been people living at the poverty level, and always will be, for whatever reason.
    The libertarian stance on welfare is that it does not work when administered by the federal government. Libertarians prefer that the people handle the issues of helping each other out themselves. This: and this: http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm cover the issue better than I can.

    Note that the libertarian view on this is not anything new:

    Welfare Before the Depression
    A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.
    Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled.
    Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.
    In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt called a White House conference on how to best deal with the problem of poor single mothers and their children. The conference declared that preserving the family in the home was preferable to placing the poor in institutions, which were widely criticized as costly failures.

    The above found here: http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-14-3-a-how-welfare-began-in-the-united-states.html

    It is not that libertarians are against helping those in need, the problem lies in how it is administered.
     
  19. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    I was thinking more about the UK system. But I generally think that a lot of things would be best when dealt with on a smaller scale than the US federal govt.

    In the 19th century Britain adopted a system of 'workhouses' where the destitute were more or less incarcerated under quite unpleasant conditions. Eventually the system was abandoned on both humanitarian and economic grounds. So I think TR got it right. But because Britain had had to act much earlier on, in the 1830s, he had the failure and cost of British model to look at. Incidentally, England had the 'poor laws' going back to the 16th century, where parishes collected a tax that was then distributed to the needy in that parish. Quaint, and only workable in an agricultural society with a low population.
    But I'm not adverse to the idea that some more local form of welfare could be worked out.

    I don't think all libertarians are bad. But when I hear some of the ideas spouted by Peter Schiff for example, I worry. Mainly about how potentially environmentally destructive commercial activities such as fracking could be regulated if you had the kind of de-regulation he seems to be calling for. My concern is that RWL in an extreme form would just lead to a free for all.

    And I think that much tighter not less regulation is needed in the financial sector. Even under the present regulations there is serial wrongdoing. So if regulation was removed,I think you'd just have even more.
     
  20. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Above continued from Kickings post. Note that divorcees, deserted families, and minorities were excluded.


    18 million out of a population of 120,509,000; about 15% of the population lived at a bare subsistence level during one of the times of greatest prosperity in U.S. history. (That was with the 1911 Mother's Pension).
    Then we add another 13 million, that's about 26%, over 1/4th of the nation.
    How would local charities and state governments keep up, especially poor states and localities? Or are you argueing that it can never happen again?

    Of course your 401k is absolutely safe.

    1/4th of the workforce was unemployed, I presume they wanted to work.

    The Feds stepped in because the local charities and state governments could not keep up.

    How would Libertarians administer it?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice