When I was young I found Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance" quite persuasive and powerful. Entitlements are collectivism and cowardice made manifest. A mindset and worldview of self-reliance is the beginning of individualism and freedom.
***** I don't understand your question. Personally I don't do my own surgery or even change the oil in my car. I cooperate with others voluntarily for such things and it works out great. They specialize in what they're good at, I specialize in what I'm good at, and we're both made better off by working together. I love cooperating with others on mutually agreeable voluntary terms. Being self-reliant doesn't mean being alone, or refusing to cooperate with others. I encourage you to read the essay if you haven't.
***** *"Does it not benefit society as a whole rather than just the individual?"* Society is just an abstraction, not a real thing. Society doesn't exist, individual people do. Doing a thing that benefits some people and harms others is not a universal good, I'm sure you agree -- it's at best mixed. When people talking about "society" and "greater good" type arguments this is often just a tool for obfuscating who is being helped vs. hurt by speaking in abstractions. We should bring the discussion down to the level of reality and talk about individual people. If one person wants something and their neighbor wants to provide it to them, that's great -- charity is a fine thing. If one person wants something, and they rob their neighbor to pay for it, that's immoral. *"What about a family that cant afford paying for their new born childs medical treatment if they have a malformation or even just the delivery for that matter. Wouldnt that child grow up and give back to the system that saved its life?"* They may or may not. Many people do not "give back." But that's merely a utilitarian argument anyway. If people want to voluntarily cooperate to provide for various things like child medical treatments I think that's a great thing. The question is what the just application of force is. I claim it's morally unjust to take money by force from people, even if you give some fraction of that stolen money to needy people. *"Would you rather keep your tax dollars instead of saving another persons life that cant afford treatment?"* That's a false dichotomy. I'm opposed to taking money by force. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to charity. Most of the money taken from people by force is used to fund wars and cronyism and waste, not help needy people anyway, so it's a misleading way to frame it. *"40,000 Americans die each year because they dont get the medical treatment they require"* That's a very emotional way of framing the issue. I could just as easily point out how many people have children they lack the material, emotional, intellectual, and psychological means to raise them into well-adjusted adults. Should I be forced to subsidize this? No. Whatever you subsidize you get more of. People who lack the means to raise children into well-adjusted adults via voluntary arrangements shouldn't have kids. Personal responsibility matters. Parents need to take responsibility for providing for their children and not impose by force a burden on their innocent neighbors.
***** *"We are entitled to being loved"* This right here is the worst kind of thing to believe. You are absolutely not entitled to *being* loved. Love is something you are entitled to *earn*, as it is and has always been a reward. You are loved by others for what kind of person you are, love is not blind as the children's tales would have you believe. To say that you are entitled to being loved is to say that someone is *required* to love you. Suppose only you and one other person, someone you could be attracted too, were alive on this planet. In such a scenario is this person required to love you? If your answer is no, you only need to realize that whether this planet has one or a trillion people no one is ever required to do anything for you, least of all love you. If your answer is still yes, I can't see how you'd ever deserve to be loved.
***** *"Healthcare isnt a want. It is a need."* Need is insufficient to justify using force against an innocent person. If you're outraged that there are children who aren't being taken care of, then you should be outraged at the people responsible for their suffering: their irresponsible parents who had children even though they lacked the means to care for them. I agree it's deplorable. If people are shielded from the consequences of their actions -- especially if their bad choices are subsidized -- then there is no feedback loop to promote a change in behavior. I want there to be less suffering in the world. Moving in that direction requires that people learn to live within their means and take responsibility for their actions. What is ethical and just is to let people be free to make their own choices and deal with the consequences via voluntary means.
But we live in an interconnected, interdependent society and if we don't contribute through taxes everything falls apart. If there are no taxes, and we rely on good will, some people will contribute but most won't. Is that fair? Eventually a more formal system will spring up, demanded by everyone. The only reason people don't want to pay tax is selfishness. All other justifications are excuses
So what about the right to due process in a court of law? That is also something that others must produce. If someone is accused of a crime, should they be forced to pay for a public defender - and may not have one if they cannot afford one?
Good question. Just look at how lousy that defense is. You get what you pay for. Government pays for it to be able to retain the ability to process indigents through the legal system since they face the threat of incarceration. It is more or less a make work program for bad lawyers.
emberwilde...really good point. On the other hand, you're not on trial of your own volition but because of another party basically making an accusation. The onus is on them instead, perhaps. There is additionally the cost of the trial and incarceration itself, but even the most ardent libertarian would have to concede these costs will have to be borne by people other than the recipient! There are some costs a society has to accept.
Great question. Bastiat, I think, would differentiate between due process in a court that is enforcing just laws, and due process in a court that is enforcing unjust laws. In the first case, to have rule of just law requires due process, and so if the members of a region has selected to have rule of law, then part of having justice will include paying (as part of living in the region) for that justice. In the second case, because it is already an injustice, due process is meaningless, and no more than an excuse to impose unjust burden: the only just solution is to change/eliminate the law in such a case.
Emberwilde Productions Since no current social contract is valid, no. If you did have a valid social contract (meeting of minds and explicit consent) then part of the contract would likely contain such provision.. if so, then yes.
welfare was started after WWII when women were forced to forfeit the work that they were doing while the men were fighting. unfortunately, even though most women who lost their husbands and needed the money to support their families the government decided that it would be better for the children's well-being if the mothers stayed home. Tell the truth!
The knowledge that I am entitled to *nothing* is actually a very comforting thought.
When I was young I found Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance" quite persuasive and powerful. Entitlements are collectivism and cowardice made manifest. A mindset and worldview of self-reliance is the beginning of individualism and freedom.
***** I don't understand your question. Personally I don't do my own surgery or even change the oil in my car. I cooperate with others voluntarily for such things and it works out great. They specialize in what they're good at, I specialize in what I'm good at, and we're both made better off by working together. I love cooperating with others on mutually agreeable voluntary terms. Being self-reliant doesn't mean being alone, or refusing to cooperate with others. I encourage you to read the essay if you haven't.
***** *"Does it not benefit society as a whole rather than just the individual?"* Society is just an abstraction, not a real thing. Society doesn't exist, individual people do. Doing a thing that benefits some people and harms others is not a universal good, I'm sure you agree -- it's at best mixed. When people talking about "society" and "greater good" type arguments this is often just a tool for obfuscating who is being helped vs. hurt by speaking in abstractions. We should bring the discussion down to the level of reality and talk about individual people. If one person wants something and their neighbor wants to provide it to them, that's great -- charity is a fine thing. If one person wants something, and they rob their neighbor to pay for it, that's immoral.
*"What about a family that cant afford paying for their new born childs medical treatment if they have a malformation or even just the delivery for that matter. Wouldnt that child grow up and give back to the system that saved its life?"* They may or may not. Many people do not "give back." But that's merely a utilitarian argument anyway. If people want to voluntarily cooperate to provide for various things like child medical treatments I think that's a great thing. The question is what the just application of force is. I claim it's morally unjust to take money by force from people, even if you give some fraction of that stolen money to needy people.
*"Would you rather keep your tax dollars instead of saving another persons life that cant afford treatment?"* That's a false dichotomy. I'm opposed to taking money by force. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to charity. Most of the money taken from people by force is used to fund wars and cronyism and waste, not help needy people anyway, so it's a misleading way to frame it.
*"40,000 Americans die each year because they dont get the medical treatment they require"* That's a very emotional way of framing the issue. I could just as easily point out how many people have children they lack the material, emotional, intellectual, and psychological means to raise them into well-adjusted adults. Should I be forced to subsidize this? No. Whatever you subsidize you get more of. People who lack the means to raise children into well-adjusted adults via voluntary arrangements shouldn't have kids. Personal responsibility matters. Parents need to take responsibility for providing for their children and not impose by force a burden on their innocent neighbors.
*****
*"We are entitled to being loved"* This right here is the worst kind of thing to believe. You are absolutely not entitled to *being* loved.
Love is something you are entitled to *earn*, as it is and has always been a reward. You are loved by others for what kind of person you are, love is not blind as the children's tales would have you believe.
To say that you are entitled to being loved is to say that someone is *required* to love you.
Suppose only you and one other person, someone you could be attracted too, were alive on this planet. In such a scenario is this person required to love you?
If your answer is no, you only need to realize that whether this planet has one or a trillion people no one is ever required to do anything for you, least of all love you.
If your answer is still yes, I can't see how you'd ever deserve to be loved.
***** *"Healthcare isnt a want. It is a need."* Need is insufficient to justify using force against an innocent person. If you're outraged that there are children who aren't being taken care of, then you should be outraged at the people responsible for their suffering: their irresponsible parents who had children even though they lacked the means to care for them. I agree it's deplorable. If people are shielded from the consequences of their actions -- especially if their bad choices are subsidized -- then there is no feedback loop to promote a change in behavior. I want there to be less suffering in the world. Moving in that direction requires that people learn to live within their means and take responsibility for their actions. What is ethical and just is to let people be free to make their own choices and deal with the consequences via voluntary means.
People are entitled to everything they earn and nothing more. They should be entitled to keep what they earn and not be deprived of it by government.
But we live in an interconnected, interdependent society and if we don't contribute through taxes everything falls apart.
If there are no taxes, and we rely on good will, some people will contribute but most won't. Is that fair? Eventually a more formal system will spring up, demanded by everyone.
The only reason people don't want to pay tax is selfishness. All other justifications are excuses
I miss Nathaniel Brandon. He influenced the course of my life more than anyone. Rest in peace.
Just finished reading "The Six Pillars of Self-esteem" and thought it was a great book, the fact that he's a libertarian makes me like him more.
they do have a right to an attorney,from the constitution , thats different because the gov. would take their liberty away if proven guilty.
So what about the right to due process in a court of law? That is also something that others must produce. If someone is accused of a crime, should they be forced to pay for a public defender - and may not have one if they cannot afford one?
Good question. Just look at how lousy that defense is. You get what you pay for. Government pays for it to be able to retain the ability to process indigents through the legal system since they face the threat of incarceration. It is more or less a make work program for bad lawyers.
emberwilde...really good point. On the other hand, you're not on trial of your own volition but because of another party basically making an accusation. The onus is on them instead, perhaps. There is additionally the cost of the trial and incarceration itself, but even the most ardent libertarian would have to concede these costs will have to be borne by people other than the recipient! There are some costs a society has to accept.
Great question. Bastiat, I think, would differentiate between due process in a court that is enforcing just laws, and due process in a court that is enforcing unjust laws. In the first case, to have rule of just law requires due process, and so if the members of a region has selected to have rule of law, then part of having justice will include paying (as part of living in the region) for that justice. In the second case, because it is already an injustice, due process is meaningless, and no more than an excuse to impose unjust burden: the only just solution is to change/eliminate the law in such a case.
... so do people have the right to an attorney when charged with a crime or nah?
Emberwilde Productions Since no current social contract is valid, no. If you did have a valid social contract (meeting of minds and explicit consent) then part of the contract would likely contain such provision.. if so, then yes.
welfare was started after WWII when women were forced to forfeit the work that they were doing while the men were fighting. unfortunately, even though most women who lost their husbands and needed the money to support their families the government decided that it would be better for the children's well-being if the mothers stayed home. Tell the truth!
gibs me dat nigguh
They believe they are entitled because they are told over and over that they are entitled.
Exactly its a taught paradigm!
As prevasive as it is we should just call it "entitlementality".
this man was a genius
Thanks, LP great clip.
Beautiful.