Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
It seems that libertarians are against welfare because it's taken from federal tax dollars, the use of which is clearly outlined in the Constitution. If State's held votes for welfare, and approved it and wrote it into the state law, would libertarians still be against it?
i would never object to something simply because it's unconstitutional. if something was unconstitutional, but a good idea, i'd be recommending constitutional amendment, not adherence to bad policy... i just happen to usually agree with what the constitution says... the *unconstitutional* bit in political discussion is generally just a side note.
Quote: It seems that libertarians are against welfare because it's taken from federal tax dollars, the use of which is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
First of all, libertarians are not a monolith group. There are anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, constitutionalists, and just about everything you can think of inbetween. I would say the vast majority of libertarians do not oppose welfare specifically for the reason you listed, though that is one argument against it. Most libertarians oppose welfare because it is grossly immoral. Welfare is simply government-authorized theft and since most libertarians believe that members of government, as individuals, have no more of a right to initiate force against peaceful individuals than any other person, welfare is illegitimate and unconscionable. That's the natural rights argument, that welfare, being an initiation of force against peaceful individuals, is immoral. The utilitarian argument against welfare is that it doesn't work on both the economic and personal levels. Economically, the diversion of wealth from the private sector to the public sector is horrid -- this is why the Keynesian Paradigm is garbage. Personally, welfare simply doesn't work; most of the money allocated towards welfare gets sucked up by bureaucracy, it reduces incentive for those who can work to attempt to make their way in the work-place, it is degrading, and it leads the producers in society to look with derision upon 'the parasites,' or those who are utilizing the welfare.
You wrote, the use of which is clearly outlined in the Constitution. Did you merely screw up the syntax or are you saying that the federal government has the constitutional authority to dole out welfare?
Quote: If State's held votes for welfare, and approved it and wrote it into the state law, would libertarians still be against it?
I, personally, would be against it and would, assuming the federal government was reduced to it's Constitutional limits or a Minarchy, either fight against welfare on the state level or consider moving to a freer state. As Mushmaster said, welfare is at least legal on the state level even if I feel it is still immoral. On the federal level it is an egregious violation of the supreme law of the land.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil 573 topic views. 4 members, 2 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]