I say fiscal conservatism is not equal to libertarianism.

“maybe you should take a look on how easy it actually is to succeed in a country where people without rich parents have to pay enormous amounts of money to go to college or where an accident or an injury can lead to a life in debt?”

I didn’t have rich parents. My grandfather was an agricultural labourer. I succeeded on my own, and paid back all the debts years ago. It takes hard work, but it’s far from impossible.

Social climbing is very common in the US, with one of the greatest numbers of self-made millionaires in the world. The number of millionaires has roughly doubled in the past ten years, less than 10% of them having inherited it, and less than 2% of their total wealth being inherited.

“But I guess that everyone who has ever been on welfare is a smoocher and a lazy low-life?”

No. (And the word is “moocher”.) A limited amount of short-term welfare for those in genuine need can act as a safety net, and allow people facing temporary set-backs to survive and get back into productive activity. That’s an investment well worth paying for – although there’s no particular reason the government has to run it. Before the welfare state, “friendly societies” managed the job reasonably well.

We are not saying people without money are lazy, we are saying that people who only don’t have money because they are lazy or incompetent shouldn’t be given it for free. It’s a terrible waste of their lives and talents, too.

“hypocritical thinking on personal merits and demand not to work in sweat-shops or have access to basic health-care.”

The point of a sweat shop is to reduce operating costs to the point where even the least skilled labour can produce enough to supply their needs – and as such is a fantastic aid to the poor. Sweat shops are one of the most successful ways by which unskilled people have got out of poverty, and one of the biggest drivers of wealth creation and the enormous recent advances of the developing economies. They have done far more to alleviate poverty than welfare ever has, or could.

You are welcome to “demand” what you want – but what are you going to give back in exchange? Health care costs the time and effort of other people. Would you study hard for 15 years to get a good education, study another 7 years for a medical degree – one of the most demanding there is – only to be told when you come out that you have to work 50 hours a week for no pay because somebody “demands” basic health care, and has no ability or intention to pay for it – no skills or assets with which to give a fair exchange? Isn’t the inevitable result that nobody goes to all the effort to become doctors, and you’re even less likely to get health care?

Do you simply want others to be obliged to work and give what they earn to you, with no obligation on your part to do any work or give the same back for the benefit of others? That’s your idea of a higher morality? A lack of hypocrisy?

I have an easy answer to your “demand”. Go and learn to be a doctor. Then you can treat yourself for free, and afford to work where you like.

Or alternatively, be honest about what you’re doing, and simply steal it from other people.

They took power, with the help of the GOP (among others) to fight communism and defend the free market. Sounds fiscally conservative to me what do you say?

“Everybody thinks they themselves are rational. It doesn’t mean they are.”

Exactly, maybe you should take a look on how easy it actually is to succeed in a country where people without rich parents have to pay enormous amounts of money to go to college or where an accident or an injury can lead to a life in debt? There is a reason that social climbing is practically nil in the US and the rest of the neo-liberal anglo-saxon world. But I guess that everyone who has ever been on welfare is a smoocher and a lazy low-life? Someone who shouldn’t have too much and doesn’t suffer enough already in today’s world? Well in that case you just confirmed my entire point. Conservatives hate black atheist lesbians, libertarians hate poor people whenever they point out your hypocritical thinking on personal merits and demand not to work in sweat-shops or have access to basic health-care. The rest of us hate your inhuman views on poverty. We all work the same way psychologically, isn’t it marvelous!

Do you have any evidence that either of those two started as Libertarians?

Libertarians do not despise poor people. Poor people who work hard, entrepreneurs doing everything they can to get themselves out of poverty, are greatly admired. Those that succeed, more so. I’m guessing from the way “poor people” transforms into “lazy people” later on in your paragraph that what they were actually criticising was welfare looters, and that your philosophy equates somebody who does nothing and contributes nothing but demands to be well paid for it to “the poor”. That those who work hard to earn money should hand it over to those who don’t, in exchange for being hated and insulted, for no other reason than that you have money and they need it.

Charity and safety nets are admirable, and nobody I know of wants anybody to starve, but the former should be voluntary and the latter not relied on more than absolutely necessary.

I’m guessing the rest is similarly misinterpreted, or that you’ve met some people who claim to be libertarian but who aren’t.

Everybody thinks they themselves are rational. It doesn’t mean they are.

I find it ironic that a Swede like yourself ( and I’m assuming you are one by your second paragraph) is typing about the hate of others such as conservatives, libertarians and “teabaggars”, when you yourself hate these groups of people!. Now I myself don’t like Swedes, not hate Swedes since hate is a far stronger more powerful sentiment and word, to me they come across as too wishy-washy and bland.

But here is all you need to read. http://mises.org/daily/2190 and http://mises.org/daily/955 and finally http://mises.org/daily/4936

Oh really? Do the names Ian Smith or Augusto Pinochet mean anything to you?

-

Even though I probably hold views to the left of most commentators on the blog I have to question the idea that rightists, wether racist, conservative or libertarians, think differently than us anti-racist, feminist and queer eco-socialists.

First of all, shouldn’t libertarians be considered hateful and biased as well? I haven’t met a single one in my life who didn’t despise poor people. Some self-proclaimed “progressive libertarians” have actually told me that the state should let the unemployed, and even thier children, starve to death, or that the right to vote should be distributed to citizens according to what they pay in taxes. How can the wish to see a vilified group, “lazy people” in this case, die NOT be an expression of bias and extremist hate?

Secondly, how do my perceptions of US Republicans, UK Tories or the Swedish Democrats in my own country differ from Rick Perry’s views on the poor, LGBT-people or African Americans? Not at all! I sincerely hate and despise the GOP and all it’s voters. My psychology is just the same as that of any random teabagger. The only real difference might be that I think my views are infinitely more rational. People that I hate can easily turn into people I love or at least respect, they just have show some f-g morals and start caring for others. They don’t have to give up their religious beliefs, work in a sweat-shop, change their skin-color or their sexual orientation.

Pretending that the mind of a liberal works in a different way than that of a conservative is just plain silly. Voting for the Democrats makes you right, and possibly a better person – defenitivly not sane. What is the scientific proof for the “conservative mind”?

This is an interesting approach: redefining a philosophy as its complete opposite by simply asserting it. It’s sort of like saying a monotheist is one step away from being an atheist. I’m really not clear on how it is supposed to work, though.

When Chris tried it, he did at least have a sort of chain of argument that if you squinted your eyes up and didn’t look too closely at it, did at least make some sort of vague connection. But #40 and now this one don’t even bother with that. It comes out like a slogan; giving no argument as if it expects none to be needed. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

The unexpanded contradictions do give it a slightly Zen-like air of profundity, but I don’t see the effect of your koan lasting more than a few seconds. One can’t help thinking, which particular autocrats would those be? Stalin? A bit of a left-winger. Mussolini? Communist. Hitler? Flirted with Communism before sticking at Socialism. Pol Pot? Mao? Kim Jong Il? Castro? Famous Libertarians, were they? I’m struggling here.

It is true that some autocrats start off claiming to be liberal, and many have claimed that the good of the people justifies them bossing people about, for their own good. But I don’t think they’re actually liberal; they just say it to disarm people’s concerns. However, so few people know what a libertarian really is that I don’t see that there’s much advantage to them claiming to be one for propaganda purposes. And I think the same applies here.

There’s more than a little justification to the claim that a substantial number of libertarians can be a bit angry and obsessive, and they do have some strange ideas about economics, but autocrats and authoritarians they’re not. They just want everyone to be free.

I wonder why you’re all so opposed to that?

Well, I can certainly see you feel strongly about it. I know people who get just as angry about the government banning people smoking, or eating improperly-labelled cheesecake, so I can certainly understand it.

I’m curious, though. Did you notice that you contradicted everything you said earlier at the start of your final paragraph?

#40,

I’ve no idea even what that means.