the IDIOT

the more i understand about liberty — a surprisingly slow process sometimes — my disgust and hatred for impostors calling themselves libertarian grows. if you’re in the circuit, you must’ve noticed the rise of these low creeps, concerned primarily with packaging their socialism rather than seeking liberty. so many of them scorn the principles of liberty openly that their adoption of anything based on that word may rightly be considered pure usurpation. as the now “classical” liberals lost their beautiful word (from the latin liber, meaning free), so have libertarians lost another.

the scary bit is that this onslaught often comes from snot-nosed PR whores more eager to see their name in internet lights than to advocate something bound to principle. perfect example (via “A libertarian think tank from Orange County, California”):

Doling for Columbine
Five Reasons Why Welfare Should Be a Libertarian Cause
Matt Harrison

The libertarian rightly distrusts the welfare state. It is, at its core, the politics of illusion, fostering the socialist fantasy that income can or should come as a result of inaction. It is ripe for exploitation by those who wish to free-ride on the system. And it also encourages laziness, depriving the economy of the very productivity that allows the welfare system to exist.

But at these costs, it has important benefits – both as an economic policy and a political position.

1. It keeps criminals off the streets and on the porch. Really

Welfare discourages crime. [...]

gonna interrupt right there. if you want to read the rest of that filthy paragraph, just go to the article. its thesis is dead straight out of the gate, because welfare is crime. may as well say that rape reduces crime, since it keeps the participants “off the streets”. pure lunacy. “welfare” is robbery via systematic dress. if anything, it’s worse than what normalons call robbery. there’s more illogic at work in his thesis, however, in that “welfare”, as any subsidy, encourages that which it claims to prevent. generations of shiftless recipients of stolen goods (AKA criminal class) can hardly be claimed to discourage more of the same. the author is a puked social engineer posing as an enlightened “third way” type. this shit is the prototypical example of some moron suffering from “brilliant article” disease. shocker.

it must be remembered above all that such utilitarian dreck adds up to nothing; scoundrels such as blowhard harrison must demonstrate that they have the right to steal from you, or STFU.

Would, say, J.K. Rowling have turned to writing Harry Potter if she were working instead of on welfare?

two words, fallacious, snot-nosed asshole: frédéric bastiat

but thanks for encouraging me to never again buy another product for which rowling gets a penny; didn’t know she was a welfare dog.

2. It makes Adam Smith sound relevant

The pursuit of welfare’s outright elmination is politically impossible, even for the doctrinaire free-market advocates who think it desirable. [...]

imprecision not surprising from this wet-behind-the-ears pup. the pursuit is not only possible, but highly desirable. that it may never be eliminated is no more persuasive against the attempt than the probably perpetual existence of murder. the goal should be zero murders, same as with welfare: zero.

[...] Libertarians should no longer reason as if we were crafting policy in the 19th century. We can leave that to the socialists, who so oblige everywhere else. [...]

classic disguise bullshit, as if the entire article from this fuckwad isn’t advocating socialism.

[...] But the greatest reason of all to accept welfare is that if we refuse to do so, we preclude ourselves from ever engaging in a politically-relevant discussion.

ahh, the “it takes a thief” theory of political domination — paul roberts laughably declaring at the mises institute,

i continue to hope that i can help you get your mind around this problem, so that you can participate in the policy that will be forthcoming.

back to dipshit boy:

3. It’s worked before, to the satisfaction of economists [...]

return to bastiat, clod, and that which is not seen. if any observers have the stomach to read the original article from this shallow quack, you’ll notice the disease of unthink running throughout; the nutcase truly does not recognize the theft at the heart of state “largess”. the paragraph under that heading has bullshit language re the state, such as “They offer generous benefits”. states create no wealth, dumbass, and therefore cannot be generous. and he’s writing for a goddamned “think tank”. right. “libertarian”!

4. America needs help

America’s welfare state represents, by contrast, how not to run a welfare state. It is bureaucratic and politicized. [...]

and it, like all “welfare”, is criminal theft which no yack yack can cover up.

We have spent a trillion dollars on welfare programs, and it has barely made progress in reducing deep poverty.

classic misuse of the word “we”.

here in all its buffoonery lies the end of the article, intact:

5. A good solution is finally here

All welfare programs in America should be replaced by the payment of a single subsidy to every poor American. The payment should be distributed through the IRS, with eligibility determined by taxable income. The subsidy amount should be at or above the government’s poverty line, adjusted to local cost of living, and adjusted according to relevant macroeconomic data.

The receipt of the payment should be contingent upon active efforts to find work, support any children, provide public services, and other similar methods of limiting free riders. The most important factor of all is ensuring that the subsidy amount itself should not become more appealing than honest employment, but not too stingy as to be ineffective at combating poverty. This balance is exceedingly difficult to achieve, but it is substantially easier through a single figure adjusted by economic factors than through a bureaucratic web of socialism.

Milton Friedman was one of the initial proponents of the negative income tax, where such subsidies are coupled with an flat tax. He recognized the economic appeal of such a system, and so should all who, like him, support free markets.

got it? if you support free markets, you recognize the “economic appeal” of institutionalized slavery.

“libertarianism”. any shock i now call myself a voluntarist? wonder when that word will be destroyed.

Tags: california, fallacy, frédéric bastiat, paul roberts, ron paul, utilitarianism

Posted 20070617 13:53 under coercionists, derailleur, government dumb, language kill. Follow responses through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.