Forum Post: People should be Libertarian. Governments should be socialist.
Posted 12 years ago on July 27, 2012, 5:59 p.m. EST by Shule
(2638)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
People should not expect a government to take care of them. No government totally can. Besides, governments are not our mothers. People need to look out for themselves. People should be libertarian.
Governments are (or should be) the collective representation seeing to the collective needs of a community. We can debate about to what degree, but that in essence is all that socialism is. A government not seeing to the needs of its people, i.e a government not socialist, is really not government at all. Governments should be socialist.
It comes down to not being selfish.
The great poet Kahlil Gibran once wrote, and a great American President reiterated, " ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country."
People like to speak about 'Personal Responsibility' yet no one EVER mentions ACCOUNTABILITY.
None of lives in a bubble, we interact, we interact in ways that are affected by personal responsibility, which should lead to personal accountability, but rarely does.
In the scenario of personal responsibility a person with knowledge of carrying a communicable disease, goes to work, infecting others, who in turn will infect others...who is accountable?
Is it not better for the originator to remain isolated thus not infecting others, accepting that those others will insure the originator maintains life and living standards?
Over simplification but apt.
Yes that is what I'm also talking about; accountability.
and what should society do when such a person chooses to be unaccountable for his actions, i.e. irresponsible? Do we call a government's actions in such cases "infringement on personnel freedoms?" I sure hope not.
People should be themselves
What about the fact that government has the duty to protect public assets?
What about when people's private affairs begin affecting the public?
A new STD breaks out in the gay community; Whoops, now it's time for a ban on homosexuality, just like in New York during the AIDS crisis, because you're affecting "public health" and costing society.
What about people's weight? Can't we forcibly prevent people from getting fat and costing society? Come with us, you need to come to rehab.
Socialism first, then, whoops, bye bye libertarianism. It's all for the common good!
Just call it socialism, it's more appropriate in the long run.
I'd like to call it socialism. Too bad too many people twist the word, and make it out to be something bad.
A government would not have to force anything upon an individual who is being socially responsible.
I think a lot of people uphold the Libertarian philosophy as a means to avoid their social responsibilities. Too many don't admit that with libertarianism comes personnel responsibility.
Socialism (of the state) and Libertarianism (of the individual) go hand in hand. The government protects (or should protect) the individual as there are not only forces from outside to contend with, but also unethical and irresponsible people within. Socialism protects the Libertarian.
I note that in very many well run "socialist" countries, most people tend to live freer, more independent, and happier lives.
Would you mind naming a "well run" socialist country?
I'd be happy to admit that social libertarianism foster personal responsibility. I'll say it a thousand times, because I am responsible for myself. Why is it not my right to opt out of social programs and be responsible for myself? Surely you like personal responsibility.
Sweden, Norway, France, Germany, ......etc.
I'm sure you drive on roads built by a government. You breath air which hopefully you don't want polluted, drink water or bath in water coming from a city. There are folks who can't take care of themselves for one reason or another. Yes, as part of a community you do have a share in that responsibility to take care of them. I'm sure you don't want stupid kids running around who'll grow up and rob you. Yes, you do have an interest , and responsibility, in seeing to it they grow up smart and educated...If you opt out, then you're not picking up your share of the responsibility you have to the community in which you live. Personal responsibility includes having responsibility to the community.
Yes, we indeed have a responsibility to make sure we don't hurt others, through our actions, but we don't have a responsibility to ensure others don't hurt themselves. If you want to gain 500 pounds, be my guest. Just don't ask me to work so you can have medical treatment. If you want to smoke, binge drink, or sleep with a thousand people in a weekend, that is your right. I will offer help if the person wants to come to me and ask for it, but I am not paying for their poor choices. And likewise, if I make poor choices, or if something bad happens to me by chance, I don't want anyone else to pay for it.
This is not cruel; cruel would be saying that other people should have to pay for me but I shouldn't have to pay for them. I want nothing of the sort, I don't want to pay for anyone else and I don't want anyone else to be enslaved to pay for my things. If you want such a system, go ahead, but allow me to opt out.
Of course I drive on roads, and I am more than happy to pay for whatever road use I use, through fuel taxes. If someone would rather not pollute the environment with a car, they shouldn't be contributing to the fuel tax. It's called a user fee.
Stupidity does not create crime, some of the smartest people in the world are criminals. The entire political establishment is run essentially by organized crime. If someone attempts to rob me, let the best man win. Wink.
And personal responsibility has nothing to do with the community, that's why it's called personal responsibility, and not community responsibility.
I'll remember that. Should I ever see ya lying on the road, bleeding, needing help, I'll drive on by.
Fine by me. So we have a deal, you won't expect me to pay for any social programs?
Yes, you can live in a cave. But don't try to dismantle the social programs I share with my neighbors, or get pissed off when you see us living better and making more money than you.
Okay, lol
wait a second, do I sound like the kind of person that gets angry when I see someone making more money than I do? I'm not a jealous person.
And for that matter, this is really an empty promise; even though I'm willing to not stop you from openly violating the constitution, you're still going to support a social program bill that you like, whether it has an opt-out provision or not. You don't care about my feelings, desires, or rights in the long run.
Actually, I would stop and help if you saw you on the side of the road bleeding irrespective of what you think. That's my moral duty as a human being.
Of course I'm going to support social programs that help the poor, needy, handicapped, stupid, and otherwise helpless. That is my moral duty too.
As to the U.S. Constitution, I don't see anything in there that says one should not help others through government social programs.
As far as you thinking its not also your moral duty to help others who are in need for whatever reason, that's your problem. Personnel responsibility does mean having responsibility to others around you. There is no possibility of having a viable community or state otherwise. Sorry, but I'm not into supporting selfishness. I'm am hoping you might reconsider your anti-social positions.
I'm liking the lack of a rebuttal here, it's looking like solemn agreement.