Daily Caller: How libertarianism helps the poor

[Anarchist420]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/09/how-libertarianism-helps-the-poor/:

People make three important errors [2 are listed and mentioned in this thread] when thinking about libertarianism and the poor.
The first mistake is to believe the government when it claims that its policies are intended to help the poor. They almost never are. The great bulk of redistributive taxation and subsidization goes to benefit interest groups that are politically powerful, not economically vulnerable. Think [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Medicare[/COLOR][/COLOR], agricultural subsidies, and the mortgage interest deduction. And most existing regulation of business is, paradoxically enough, for the benefit of business itself. Regulation raises the cost of doing [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]business[/COLOR][/COLOR], and so establishes a barrier to entry that benefits large existing firms at the expense of their smaller competitors. Occupational licensing, for example, whether of doctors, lawyers, or barbers, is almost never forced upon an unwilling industry by public-spirited regulators. Rather, it is actively sought after by established members of the profession itself, eager to insulate themselves against potential competition. And politicians are all-too-willing to cater to the interests of the economically powerful. Libertarians, in contrast, believe in free markets, and truly free markets are the enemy of big business.
The second mistake is to confuse intentions with results. Even if government policies were intended to benefit the poor, we would have good reason to expect them to fail. Good intentions often produce unintended consequences. Increased safety regulations at airports lead more families to travel by the much more dangerous method of driving and so lead to a larger number of deaths. Laws that limit price increases on essential goods in the wake of natural disasters lead to fewer of those goods being brought to market and more people having to suffer without them. [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Government [COLOR=green !important]bailouts[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] of failed firms encourage more failed firms. Perverse consequences like this sometimes surprise us, but they shouldn’t. Society is a complex and dynamic system. Politicians lack both the knowledge and the incentive to cope with it effectively. Libertarians propose to deal with it by decentralizing decision-making to individuals who are free to make choices based on their expert knowledge of their particular circumstances. Individuals and corporations should reap the benefits of good decisions, and pay the costs themselves when their choices turn out poorly.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/09/how-libertarianism-helps-the-poor/#ixzz1OuFWhwP2

Why do so many progressive hate libertarianism? Are they really corporatists? Many of them support corporatist policies; after all, the first "progressive" President, TJR, certainly was a corporatist trying to disguise himself as a man of the people. If he actually thought he was helping the poor, then he was an idiot.

All the welfare state does is create dependents, and that's been proven since the country was founded. The common man opposed the Constitution because it was mercantilist. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? That was one of millions of examples in which big government tried to help big business. Jefferson was laissez-faire and Adams was against the free market; the former was favored by the yeoman farmer, the latter was favored by the big businessman. Then there was Jackson, the laissez faire liberal vs the mercantilist JQ Adams/Clay; the middle class favored Jackson and the rich favored JQ Adams.

More people need to realize that if there is government, then the rich will dominate. If there is not government, or at least if there is superconfederalism, then no one could use the government to get richer.