John Stossel: Why I am a libertarian

[daishi5]

YOU ARE. Don't you vote for the Government? Or I thought we lived in a Democracy.

Wait, what AM I thinking anyway? Like 80% of the people in the US don't vote.

I live in Illinois, so my view may be distorted, but I have two choices to vote for every election, and no matter which one we choose, we eventually have to send them to jail. Amusingly, the last one was apparently accepting bribes to manipulate the licenses for building new hospitals. Which was one of the original examples.

Uhh, we do. You can request any and all information, even financial information, from any government agency. Only in the case of national security can you not gain access as an ordinary citizen. Charities don't count as national security to give you a clue. So you can look at all the books and "regulate" the government however you want. You do know you can do this right? Many people do, which is what puts the balance on government regulation from going overly corrupt as well.

You can do this with private charities as well, and many people do this for charities, why is it better for us to pay for a government that we need to oversee rather than overseeing the charities?

 

[Jaskalas]

I am a liberal... errm libertarian. John Stossel argues as I do.

 

[werepossum]

To make a point, your anecdote is amusing, but not enlightening. The reason you see additional "private" donations is not for charity sake. It's for tax write offs. It's a cost saving mechanism.

However, there will always be some individuals that would actually donate privately from the kindness of their own hearts. Truth be told, that is relatively few and would be significantly less available funds for charities.

The other problem is, many charities and charity money is regulated. Not all, but the big ones are. Why? Because before they were, the corruption in them was rampant. Not saying that there still isn't some corruption, but it not nearly at the crime wave level that it used to be. Incoming money from taxes allow the government to monitor and regulate the bigger charities to make sure your tax dollars aren't all going into one person's pocket.

It's hard to say who is more stupid, the person who donates $100 to save $40 in taxes or the person who THINKS people donate $100 to save $40 in taxes. I can only hope you hold this view of charity not from failed logic but because it makes you feel better about not donating to charities - since those who do so are only cynically cutting costs.

 

[werepossum]

I live in Illinois, so my view may be distorted, but I have two choices to vote for every election, and no matter which one we choose, we eventually have to send them to jail. Amusingly, the last one was apparently accepting bribes to manipulate the licenses for building new hospitals. Which was one of the original examples.

You can do this with private charities as well, and many people do this for charities, why is it better for us to pay for a government that we need to oversee rather than overseeing the charities?

These are very good points. With a charity one can just stop giving them money - immediately. With government one cannot stop giving them money (unless you're willing to spend some time at Club Fed learning interesting crafts like license plate making) and can only hope that the other crook is better than this crook.

I will say one thing on the other side though. There's a certain value in having those who truly cannot provide for themselves provided with a regular income that puts them at least at the poverty line, providing a certain level of independence. I don't think most charities would be comfortable or capable of funding such a person's independent life; rather they would fund some of the extra costs of supporting such a person or a group home where such people could live more cheaply. How much that value is worth, particularly in terms of government and its inefficiency, is an individual call, but I wouldn't deny there is some value there.

 

[nonlnear]

I live in Illinois, so my view may be distorted, but I have two choices to vote for every election, and no matter which one we choose, we eventually have to send them to jail. Amusingly, the last one was apparently accepting bribes to manipulate the licenses for building new hospitals. Which was one of the original examples.

You can do this with private charities as well, and many people do this for charities, why is it better for us to pay for a government that we need to oversee rather than overseeing the charities?

Extortion funded spending is better than private charity because it not only accomplishes charitable goals incredibly inefficiently, it also provides the opportunity to crowd out viable private industry that happens to be unfashionable among the demagogues of the day. For example, people can hold up the entire education budget as equivalent to a charitable work when even under the most - er - charitable assessment, only the slimmest fraction o fit is equivalent to services that would not be provided by viable private enterprise. Inflating the "charity equivalence" of government services in this way allows collectivists to prattle on about how only an unimaginably huge amount of charity could ever replace the services that our government so magnanimously extorts from us.

 

[HumblePie]

It's hard to say who is more stupid, the person who donates $100 to save $40 in taxes or the person who THINKS people donate $100 to save $40 in taxes. I can only hope you hold this view of charity not from failed logic but because it makes you feel better about not donating to charities - since those who do so are only cynically cutting costs.

I don't have to think, I know. I know exactly why Target "salvages" items to goodwill instead of clearing them out at the lowest price someone will pay or throwing them in a dumpster. They save and make far more to "donate" items to charity than to sell a failed product on their shelves that no one will buy.

That's just one example. I can give you many, many, MANY more example of people using donations for tax write offs. Actually, most people I know do. Clothing they no longer need? Donate and make it a tax write off. Car they no longer need? Donate and make it a tax write off.

Before the tax write off incentives, more people would just dump it. Sad to say, but it's true. I'm NOT endorsing this, but just pointing out facts. Without the incentive then many people would not donate. I know quite a few people are are very against giving, or receiving, any kind of hand out. You'd be surprised by how encompassing that view and attitude is. If you know psychology, it's an underlying symbol of weakness to give or receive charity that is inherent in the psyche of most people.

You can do this with private charities as well, and many people do this for charities, why is it better for us to pay for a government that we need to oversee rather than overseeing the charities?

As far as requesting financial information from private charities and receiving it.... Umm no. Again, before regulations you couldn't. Well to put it more correctly, you could always ask I suppose but no charity that is corrupt would give you a response back. The government has to give you a response back because A) it's the law, and B) the people can change the law and the people running it if they don't conform to our wishes. You can't change the people that run an unregulated private charity. You think anyone running a scam charity is going to give it up just because you ask them to? Or threaten to "vote" them out somehow? LOL.

These are very good points. With a charity one can just stop giving them money - immediately. With government one cannot stop giving them money (unless you're willing to spend some time at Club Fed learning interesting crafts like license plate making) and can only hope that the other crook is better than this crook.

Again, good logic but here's where it fails. You, me, and any sane person would stop donating to a charity that goes corrupt. But how would you prove it? How would find out in the first place? How would you know if an unregulated and corrupt charity is pocketing 95% of the incoming charity and only letting 5% go to the actual charity? Case in point, you wouldn't. Also a good "scam" charity would do it's utmost best to make it seem like all your donations are going to the "cause" it is championing so that you don't stop your donations. Since an unregulated charity has no obligation to be transparent about it's operations, how are you to know?

Yes it sucks when a government entity goes bad with our tax dollars. It happens. But there are ways to fix them and minimize their damage when it happens.

 

[woolfe9999]

There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."

I really want to know what rich countries currently practice libertarianism. I don't mean a country like the U.S. which had it's period of libertarianism (i.e. laissez-faire capitalism), in the late 19th century, which was a very useful stage in our economic development. I mean a country which currently practices anything like libertarian economics and is a wealthy and prosperous country. Can anyone substantiate this with an example?

- wolf

 

[daishi5]

As far as requesting financial information from private charities and receiving it.... Umm no. Again, before regulations you couldn't. Well to put it more correctly, you could always ask I suppose but no charity that is corrupt would give you a response back. The government has to give you a response back because A) it's the law, and B) the people can change the law and the people running it if they don't conform to our wishes. You can't change the people that run an unregulated private charity. You think anyone running a scam charity is going to give it up just because you ask them to? Or threaten to "vote" them out somehow? LOL.

How do you know the information given to you from the government is correct, they are already breaking the law if they are misusing the funds, why would you assume a man who breaks one law would obey the law that allows him to be detected?

Why can't we just use the same laws that require the government to give us good information and apply them to charities? Also, charity scams are illegal, so if I know they misuse the funds, I can turn them in. And, while I cant change who runs a charity, I can change charities that I give my money to. I can't stop giving money to the state of IL because they are allowed to send men with guns to my house, and their leaders are corrupt, and voting and laws haven't fixed that in a decade.

 

[HumblePie]

How do you know the information given to you from the government is correct, they are already breaking the law if they are misusing the funds, why would you assume a man who breaks one law would obey the law that allows him to be detected?

Why can't we just use the same laws that require the government to give us good information and apply them to charities? Also, charity scams are illegal, so if I know they misuse the funds, I can turn them in. And, while I cant change who runs a charity, I can change charities that I give my money to. I can't stop giving money to the state of IL because they are allowed to send men with guns to my house, and their leaders are corrupt, and voting and laws haven't fixed that in a decade.

Because no single government entity monitors itself. The government is supposed to be designed with checks and balances. Not only can the people gain access, but the external forces by other government agencies who have nothing to do another agency are designed to regulate and monitor as well. Ideally it's a three part system, but that adds a lot of overhead.

 

[nonlnear]

Because no single government entity monitors itself.

ROFL.
Well, this is true, but not in the way you think it is...

The government is supposed to be designed with checks and balances.

Keyword: supposed to. Government officials have been contorting the rules to neuter the efficacy of checks and balances since the dawn of... political power.

Not only can the people gain access, but the external forces by other government agencies who have nothing to do another agency are designed to regulate and monitor as well. Ideally it's a three part system, but that adds a lot of overhead.

Ideally indeed. And yes, yes it does - or would.

Can a government create a law so perfect that that same government can't break it?
Corollary: Is it possible for a government to hold its own budgeting practices to reputable accounting standards?

 

[Anarchist420]

I'm a libertarian because the state just doesn't work. It fails to achieve equality of results and it fails to keep us secure. So, it fails at doing whatever it says it wants to do. Stealing from people who have more money than they could spend to eliminate poverty plus gun bans and killing terrorists in the name of security sounds great on paper, but it doesn't work. In fact, it just backfires and makes us all poorer and in more danger.

 

[MJinZ]

I'm a libertarian because the state just doesn't work. It fails to achieve equality of results and it fails to keep us secure. So, it fails at doing whatever it says it wants to do. Stealing from people who have more money than they could spend to eliminate poverty plus gun bans and killing terrorists in the name of security sounds great on paper, but it doesn't work. In fact, it just backfires and makes us all poorer and in more danger.

I thought you were an Anarchist.

 

[daishi5]

Because no single government entity monitors itself. The government is supposed to be designed with checks and balances. Not only can the people gain access, but the external forces by other government agencies who have nothing to do another agency are designed to regulate and monitor as well. Ideally it's a three part system, but that adds a lot of overhead.

What prevents a charity from having such a structure. Why can't they use something like a CEO, a Board of directors, and independent auditors to act as checks against each other?

And isn't your suggestion just a variation of proposing another agency to monitor the agency that we have monitoring the charities? Which was my original question, Q: who do we have monitor the government that monitors the charities? And so, I think your answer is: More government agencies.

 

[MJinZ]

What prevents a charity from having such a structure. Why can't they use something like a CEO, a Board of directors, and independent auditors to act as checks against each other?

And isn't your suggestion just a variation of proposing another agency to monitor the agency that we have monitoring the charities? Which was my original question, Q: who do we have monitor the government that monitors the charities? And so, I think your answer is: More government agencies.

Ahahahahahahaa.

AHhahahhahahahahahahah.

^ Laughing at your donations that go towards paying the CEO the $100 million per year.

Ahhhahahahahahaha.

 

[Lemon law]

As usual, non Prof John loses me as soon as he says "I Think."

The point being, the libertarian party or parties have been amply represented by various candidates in Statewide and national elections, and then fail to even come close to being elected.

The logical flaw in Libertarianism is that they assume we can retain the infrastructure big government has provided, and IMHO, as soon as most people think about the total anarchy that would result, the libertarian doctrine flops flatter than a pancake.

Mankind has tried nearly every form of Utopian government scheme imaginable, and they always rapidly fail, the spirit may be willing but the flesh is always weak.

But as a challenge to Non Prof John or a fellow Libertarian advocate, name me one government in the history of earth that worked on Libertarian principles.

 

[daishi5]

Ahahahahahahaa.

AHhahahhahahahahahahah.

^ Laughing at your donations that go towards paying the CEO the $100 million per year.

Ahhhahahahahahaha.

Is my sarcasm meter failing me, or are you serious?

 

[MotF Bane]

As usual, non Prof John loses me as soon as he says "I Think."

The point being, the libertarian party or parties have been amply represented by various candidates in Statewide and national elections, and then fail to even come close to being elected.

The logical flaw in Libertarianism is that they assume we can retain the infrastructure big government has provided, and IMHO, as soon as most people think about the total anarchy that would result, the libertarian doctrine flops flatter than a pancake.

Mankind has tried nearly every form of Utopian government scheme imaginable, and they always rapidly fail, the spirit may be willing but the flesh is always weak.

But as a challenge to Non Prof John or a fellow Libertarian advocate, name me one government in the history of earth that worked on Libertarian principles.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

 

[TheBDB]

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

This is ridiculous. Assuming people with money earned it through hard work and people with little money didn't work hard enough is absurd.

 

[WHAMPOM]

"Libertarian" the new flag for the scoundrel to wrap himself with. Poofjohn, gotta come up with something better then that.

 

[woolfe9999]

As usual, non Prof John loses me as soon as he says "I Think."

The point being, the libertarian party or parties have been amply represented by various candidates in Statewide and national elections, and then fail to even come close to being elected.

The logical flaw in Libertarianism is that they assume we can retain the infrastructure big government has provided, and IMHO, as soon as most people think about the total anarchy that would result, the libertarian doctrine flops flatter than a pancake.

Mankind has tried nearly every form of Utopian government scheme imaginable, and they always rapidly fail, the spirit may be willing but the flesh is always weak.

But as a challenge to Non Prof John or a fellow Libertarian advocate, name me one government in the history of earth that worked on Libertarian principles.

I actually think there isn't anything strictly illogical about libertarianism. My problem with it is a lack of empirical proof, a real world laboratory which proves its efficacy. More than that, when you look at the world, the most prosperous nations are all based on some version of welfare capitalism, whether it the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia or Japan.

I still want to know which wealthy and prosperous countries operate on libertarian principles.

- wolf

 

[nonlnear]

"Libertarian" the new flag for the scoundrel to wrap himself with. Poofjohn, gotta come up with something better then that.

If you can't engage, then [disparage and] disengage.
A thinly veiled ad hominem often comes in handy when using this tactic.

 

[WHAMPOM]

What prevents a charity from having such a structure. Why can't they use something like a CEO, a Board of directors, and independent auditors to act as checks against each other?

And isn't your suggestion just a variation of proposing another agency to monitor the agency that we have monitoring the charities? Which was my original question, Q: who do we have monitor the government that monitors the charities? And so, I think your answer is: More government agencies.

That job used to belong to the FREE PRESS, just in case you are Texas educated.

 

[Lemon law]

MotFBane, asks me, "what the fuck are you babbling about, but then ducks answering the challenge I posed, "But as a challenge to Non Prof John or a fellow Libertarian advocate, name me one government in the history of earth that worked on Libertarian principles."

404 MotF Bane reasoning not found.

 

[nonlnear]

I actually think there isn't anything strictly illogical about libertarianism. My problem with it is a lack of empirical proof, a real world laboratory which proves its efficacy. More than that, when you look at the world, the most prosperous nations are all based on some version of welfare capitalism, whether it the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia or Japan.

I still want to know which wealthy and prosperous countries operate on libertarian principles.

- wolf

The power of the state has been retreating (albeit glacially) for millennia. I don't think there ever has been a truly libertarian state (of note, anyways), although many have pirated pieces of libertarian rhetoric. Demanding recorded proof of something that has never been attempted in good faith might be construed as disingenuous. I don't think you meant it as such, but now that it's been pointed out that you are asking for something which is an unreasonable standard, I think it would be disingenuous for you to continue to make this silly demand...

 

[Throckmorton]

Not content with owning yourself in the apartheid thread, are you? As irishScott said, there's a huge difference between libertarianism and anarchy.

Ah I see, the absolutist anti-government stance gets moderated when it's pointed out how ridiculous it is. So does that mean you rightwingers/libertarians/whatever will stop criticizing government on the basis that it simply is government?