What can I say to a socialist that says libertarians don't care about poor people?

[Jeremy]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?

[Xenophage]

Government creates poor people. I'm poor people.

[gls]

Government benefits the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. Until he comes to realize this historical fact there is not much more that can be said.

[MRoCkEd]

give him a book to read

[ihsv]

Tell him if he's worried about poor people, you'll be happy to take his paycheck and spread it around to help those in need. If he objects, tell him he doesn't care about poor people.

Make them put their money where their mouth is (literally). Works every time.

[Jeremy]

Tell him if he's worried about poor people, you'll be happy to take his paycheck and spread it around to help those in need. If he objects, tell him he doesn't care about poor people.

Make them put their money where their mouth is (literally). Works every time.
i promise you that wont work everytime, especially with this guy

anyway, i said most of the things in this thread already =)

he's kind of like a class clown kinda person... his facebook message said that obama isnt a real socilaist :rolleyes:

he calls himself 70% socialist, 30% libertarian... o...k...

[ItsTime]

why bother with him?

[ceakins]

Have him talk to a Russian American that was in Russia during the cold war.

[UtahApocalypse]

Explain to them the concept of charity.

[ihsv]

i promise you that wont work everytime, especially with this guy

anyway, i said most of the things in this thread already =)

he's kind of like a class clown kinda person... his facebook message said that obama isnt a real socilaist :rolleyes:

he calls himself 70% socialist, 30% libertarian... o...k...

Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. At some point you may have to just shake the dust off your feet and move on.

[Jeremy]

Explain to them the concept of charity.

yup, did that too

i get him to agree with me a lot too... but whatever... hes probably not anywhere near as serious about these things as we are

[luaPnoR]

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Government subsidizes poverty by throwing money at it. We get more poverty.

Also, go ask the five million Ukrainians (http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/) how socialism worked out for them. Oh wait, you can't; they're all dead.

[dannno]

Page 76 and 77 of Revolution: A Manifesto

[Andrew-Austin]

Poor people don't care about poor people, including me. lol

[ShannonOBrien]

Explain to him that economic freedom brings people out of poverty. There's not a single country in history that has a free markets and a high percentage of people in poverty. But there is an endless list of countries where they have big socialist governments that are out to help the poor that have massive amounts of people living in poverty. Not just places that have dictators. Some of these places have democracy too. Look at India, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Go to nationmaster.com and show him the statistics. If you add up all the money the US spends on reducing poverty, it amounts to $40,000 per poor person. They would do better to just give them the money.

Maybe you can also use the example of child labor. So before countries industrialized, parents would send their children off to work. Not because businesses were unethical and luring children into these jobs but because families would starve to death if they didn't make their children work. Then, as the economy grew, people started earning more real wealth and suddenly parents could afford the luxury of sending their kids to school instead of work. Governments didn't end child labor and lift people out of poverty. There are plenty of examples in places like Africa where child labor is against the law but they work illegally because if they don't, they will starve to death.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

why bother with him?

+!

Pearls before swine...

[ashura]

why bother with him?


+!

Pearls before swine...

I would think the obvious answer would be to get as many hearts and minds over to our cause as possible.

[dannno]

+!

Pearls before swine...

What does that mean??

I get a much higher percentage of leftist leaning people interested in Ron Paul than republicans.

All you have to do is show them page 76 and 77 of Revolution: A Manifesto and tell them that he wants to bring our troops home from over 130 countries that we currently occupy and that he wants to end the war on drugs. It's in the bag.

[ultimaonliner]

Say what the greats have said before.

"Capitalism is the unequal sharing of prosperity. Socialism is the equal spread of misery."
-Winston Churchill

Also you can say what I usually say when somebody asks why I don't want "free" healthcare.

I reply, "I would rather be able to have a job in a free market economy to be able to pay for what I need, including healthcare, then to have it given to me by the government."

I continue, "There is also nothing 'free' about healthcare. If you choose to have 'free' healthcare, you're still going to be spending money for it. The difference is that you will be forced to spend your money (through taxes) into a healthcare system run by the f'ing bloated inefficient government, rather than you choosing your own insurance plan and doctors."

I also would add, "By the way, it is a myth that 'free' healthcare does not exist for the poor. It already exists. Universal healthcare will essentially require even those who can afford healthcare to have the same, government-run care."

"Even if there is a 2 tiered system, the private companies even if they are efficient and well-run, cannot compete with a crappy government entity, since that government run entity can be as bloated and inefficient a it wants and just asks Congress for more taxpayer money."


That's what I usually say and people are speechless. BTW, there really is 'free' healthcare for the poor to anybody who wants it. This fact seems lost to many.

[dannno]

BTW, there really is 'free' healthcare for the poor to anybody who wants it. This fact seems lost to many.


Yep, just cite Hipocratic oath.

[ihsv]

Yep, just cite Hipocratic oath.

Doctors don't take that oath anymore, do they? I thought they stopped doing that... maybe I'm wrong.

[Kludge]

Government creates poor people.

Poor people create poor people. It's statistically proven over and over again.

[Mini-Me]

This is the most infuriating economic argument around, and I'm sorry you have to deal with someone arguing something so naive and ridiculous...there are no economic policies that would help the working poor more than libertarian policies. I'm too worn out to elaborate at length, but if I were you, I'd develop arguments around the following basic points:
Inflationary monetary policies hurt the middle class and poor people more than anybody else, because they discourage savings, encourage borrowing and spending, water down the buying power of every saved dollar, and make prices rise much faster than wages in a way that wages cannot keep up.
The economy is not a zero sum game, and there's not some fixed amount of wealth. The more efficient the economy is at producing the most goods and services for the cheapest, the more there will be to go around in the first place.
Following from that, read up on why central planning and redistribution makes markets more inefficient, leading to much less wealth to go around the more and more central planning and redistribution are used.
It's really naive to think that business regulations are a net positive for poor people, small business, and the working class. Here's one of my better posts on explaining why: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1723944&postcount=26

Does he not think it suspicious that candidates like Obama - supporting "the poor people" and universal health care - are given soooo much damn money from corrupt financial companies like Goldman Sachs and from the pharmaceutical industry?
Look at all of the bigass financial companies supporting Obama! (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) Do some names not ring a bell from the bailout? Recall that bailout recipients are spending a lot of that money on mergers, acquisitions, employee bonuses, and golden parachutes, rather than what it was "supposedly" intended for - loosening up credit to "help Main Street." :rolleyes:
Now, in comparison, look at their contributions to John McCain, who is himself a corporate fascist (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00006424)! Notice also that all 20 of Obama's top contributors gave him more money than McCain's #1 contributor gave him.
Now check out the contributions from big pharma (http://www.pharmalot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/2008-prez-race.jpg). That chart is from January. Check out the more recent list of who the pharmaceutical industry gave their money to. (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=H04) The universal health care proponents sure raised a whole shit ton of money by the end, didn't they? Obama raised more than twice as much from big pharma than John McCain, and he raised almost twice as much as Hillary - who still raised more than John McCain, despite the fact that she didn't even make it to the general election. John McCain in turn raised way more than any of the other Republicans.
There's a reason for this. Your friend has been misled by the corrupt, who benefit more than any others from centralized and socialized systems, and he's been duped about the true purpose of liberal and socialist economic policies. He's been misled into thinking we've been a "free market," when we really have not...we've been a corporatist market, which is very different from free market capitalism, and we're now moving into more firmly established socialism or national socialism...which will only make things worse in the long run. The corporate elite want people thinking along one of two lines: Either the way he's thinking, or the way that Faux News Republicans tend to think (you know, the ones who are oblivious to the wealth gap, corporate welfare, etc., and who support John McCain and George Bush's fascist version of the "free market"). He's been herded into controlled opposition...or really, I think it's actually the Faux News Republicans that have been herded into controlled opposition. After all, they were fooled into believing in a fake and heavily manipulated fascist version of the free market that is so indefensible and broken that the obvious and predictable reactionary movement of others would be towards full-blown socialism.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

I would think the obvious answer would be to get as many hearts and minds over to our cause as possible.

Yes, starting with the receptive ones FIRST!!

[dannno]

Yes, starting with the receptive ones FIRST!!

If somebody debates you on the topic, that doesn't neccessarily make them un-receptive. Un-receptive means they don't want to listen to you at all.

[dannno]

Doctors don't take that oath anymore, do they? I thought they stopped doing that... maybe I'm wrong.

They still do it, or at least they did 5 years ago when I took a debate/logic class.

[RCA]

Socialism makes everyone poor eventually by removing the incentive to be successful.

Ex: If Homeowner A can't afford is mortgage anymore and is bailed out by Homeowner B, what reason does Homeowner B have to pay his own mortgage?

[Mini-Me]

Dammit, meant to edit, and my browser screwed up and kicked me into a double-post :/

[Krugerrand]

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Government subsidizes poverty by throwing money at it. We get more poverty.

Also, go ask the five million Ukrainians (http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/) how socialism worked out for them. Oh wait, you can't; they're all dead.

Wow. That's some page. I'm not a gun owner ... but that's as clear an example as I have ever read as to why people should be allowed to own ANY type of gun and not worry about registration.

[Brian4Liberty]

Since you are talking about "poor" people, we'll assume we are talking about some sort of government handout. Handouts drain people's motivation. It drains their sense of pride. Handouts do the opposite of what is intended. It makes them dependent and weak, instead of making them stronger. You can't grow muscle if you are carried around like an invalid. You won't value anything if everything is just given to you.

And many politicians want people to be dependent on them. It increases their personal power, and saps that power from the "poor" people you are trying to help.

If you are a parent, how do you want to raise and motivate your children? Just give them money forever? Have them live in your basement?

[TonySutton]

socialism removes a person's self esteem, without it they may as well remain poor.

libertarianism builds their self esteem so they can better themselves.

Private groups do a better job of providing charity to others. Their contributors and volunteers are not obligated to continue giving their money and/or time if they feel the charity is not using the assets wisely.

When a government program is ineffective, they throw more money at it. The money they are coercing from you and me!

[Mini-Me]

By the way, StormCommander, I've been editing my post above, and I added a whole bunch of links to campaign donations for Obama vs. McCain. It should be eye-opening for anyone who thinks he or his policies are meant to help "the little people." ;)

[SeanEdwards]

And everyone knows those timeless words from the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of being a patriarchal meddler in the affairs of the little people.

[constitutional]

But if we let charity handle everything, people won't donate much in the first place.

How do you argue that?


Handouts drain people's motivation. It drains their sense of pride. Handouts do the opposite of what is intended. It makes them dependent and weak, instead of making them stronger. You can't grow muscle if you are carried around like an invalid. You won't value anything if everything is just given to you.

But the person I'm arguing says he would not have made it (a successful teacher or any other profession) if it wasn't for the government. How do you argue that?


Thanks a lot, I always fall short against these arguments.

[fletcher]

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." – Frederic Bastiat

[danberkeley]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?

Kick him in the nuts then take his wallet. Then ask him, "where was the government to protect you?" And laugh at him for a minimum of two hours.

[Brian4Liberty]

But the person I'm arguing says he would not have made it (a successful teacher or any other profession) if it wasn't for the government. How do you argue that?


Thanks a lot, I always fall short against these arguments.

What if that person could make it without the government? People have always made it without the government, so a little government help doesn't prove that it was necessary, or even really helpful.

If I give your friend a little money, will I get eternal gratitude and a cut of his future profits? (of course I already did "donate": the government stole it from me, and gave a very small cut to him, after they took a huge cut for overhead)

All of that being said, I am not personally against a good, "basic" public education at the State/Local level. One of the very few things government can do to promote the general competence of it's citizens. But it should NOT be a replacement for all others forms of education and learning.

[mport1]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?

Economic and fact based arguments won't work on most people. You can try explaining that the free market and private charity are the best things for the poor but I have found this to be ineffective. Explain that it is wrong to steal people's money to fund programs to help the poor and that libertarians care deeply about the poor but think that this should be done on a voluntary basis.

[Soccrmastr]

give him a book to read

+10

[torchbearer]

How much did Obama spend on his bid from president?
How many people could he have fed and sheltered for that money?
How can anyone who ask "but what about the children?" even eat a slice of bread before they spend their own incomes on the poor starving children.
If they don't.... then they don't care about the poor people.

[constitutional]

Thanks a lot Brian4Liberty for your insight!


How much did Obama spend on his bid from president?
How many people could he have fed and sheltered for that money?
How can anyone who ask "but what about the children?" even eat a slice of bread before they spend their own incomes on the poor starving children.
If they don't.... then they don't care about the poor people.

Voluntary basis you say? Then people would not donate. Same goes for a voluntary income tax. People simply won't follow through, people are self-fish and greedy. These 'socialists' basically have no faith in mankind and this is the argument they use against me.

^ What would your response be? I'm trying to get better at educating people, please help.

[Deborah K]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?


Show him this....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA

[torchbearer]

Thanks a lot Brian4Liberty for your insight!



Voluntary basis you say? Then people would not donate. Same goes for a voluntary income tax. People simply won't follow through, people are self-fish and greedy. These 'socialists' basically have no faith in mankind and this is the argument they use against me.

^ What would your response be? I'm trying to get better at educating people, please help.

If they admit its force, then they admit its a crime.
The next thing you need to do is to take their wallet by force and give their cash and credit card to a homeless guy.
I can't think of a better example.

[Brian4Liberty]

Voluntary basis you say? Then people would not donate. Same goes for a voluntary income tax. People simply won't follow through, people are self-fish and greedy. These 'socialists' basically have no faith in mankind and this is the argument they use against me.

^ What would your response be? I'm trying to get better at educating people, please help.

In the real world, people do donate (above and beyond what they pay in taxes to the government).

Charity is just another example of something people won't do (as much) if they think that government will take care of it for them. It's the path of least resistence. Once again, Government hinders the motivation to be actively involved in charity. If you want something done right, do it yourself. If you want it done wrong, depend on the government to do it...

[georgiaboy]

Thanks a lot Brian4Liberty for your insight!



Voluntary basis you say? Then people would not donate. Same goes for a voluntary income tax. People simply won't follow through, people are self-fish and greedy. These 'socialists' basically have no faith in mankind and this is the argument they use against me.

^ What would your response be? I'm trying to get better at educating people, please help.

Look at all the money that is currently given to charitable organizations today. Yes, they can be used as tax deductions, but nonetheless, the tax savings doesn't come close to the actual amount spent in giving to charities. This charitable giving exists in an existing US governmental system that provides for the poor.

Now imagine that 'poof' the government stopped all social programs that provide for the poor. Do you think this would cause an already charitable nation of citizens (see above paragraph) to become more or less charitable?

[nbhadja]

Hit him with the "fiat currency+government printing press destroys people's savings so liberals do not care about poor people or any people counter" talk

[georgiaboy]

On a personal note, if you are already a charitable giver, and you are also a libertarian, then there's no better argument than pointing to yourself as an example of how libertarian and charity go together.

[Mini-Me]

Thanks a lot Brian4Liberty for your insight!



Voluntary basis you say? Then people would not donate. Same goes for a voluntary income tax. People simply won't follow through, people are self-fish and greedy. These 'socialists' basically have no faith in mankind and this is the argument they use against me.

^ What would your response be? I'm trying to get better at educating people, please help.

On this particular subject, it may help to challenge his basic assumptions by showing him pages 74 and 75 of The Revolution: A Manifesto.

[Mini-Me]

If they admit its force, then they admit its a crime.
The next thing you need to do is to take their wallet by force and give their cash and credit card to a homeless guy.
I can't think of a better example.

Team up with a few people, take half of the money out of his wallet, give it to a homeless guy, and then say that he lost to a majority vote. ;)

[OferNave]

Here's a good socialism refutation.

Helping the Poor: Analyzing a Banana Republic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySOgWb9PI-k

[dannno]

On this particular subject, it may help to challenge his basic assumptions by showing him pages 74 and 75 of The Revolution: A Manifesto.

76 and 77 VERY IMPORTANT to this topic as well!! (though I mentioned them earlier in the thread)

[MusoSpuso]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?

Well first I'd start by asking for specific examples.

Ask him to define his terms: how specifically do libertarians not care about poor people?

[Krugerrand]

Show him this....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA

EXCELLENT! thanks for sharing.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?

Call him a moron. How did the Soviet Union help the poor? Made everyone poor.

[Young Paleocon]

give him a copy of The Law

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. "-Frederic Bastiat

[Carole]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?
Tell him the government wants to give him a handout and keep him poor, while people who really care for him will give him the tools he needs to plant his garden, or help him learn the skills to make his own way. That is true giving and caring. :0

You might also mention the bailout of Wall Street. :D

BTW all those billions the government "gives" out are printed and create inflation. There is hug waste as it trickles down to the recipient after paying all thos bureaucrats along the way. The inflation it causes makes the poor person pay more for goods and services, therby, hurting the poor person in yet another way. Cost of living and inflation eat up the handout and also serves to make the middle class more poor. What will happen when the middle class can no longer afford to pay? They will also be poor.

So socialism brings people down, tells them they are failures, and NEVER EVER builds people up nor economically betters their situation. It is a losing strategy for human beings and a winning strategy for politicians/government/lobbyists--all the PTB.

[newyearsrevolution08]

What can I say to a socialist that says libertarians don't care about poor people?

Socialist - you don't care about poor people
Libertarians - so, whats your point?

[Carole]

Thanks a lot Brian4Liberty for your insight!



Voluntary basis you say? Then people would not donate. Same goes for a voluntary income tax. People simply won't follow through, people are self-fish and greedy. These 'socialists' basically have no faith in mankind and this is the argument they use against me.

^ What would your response be? I'm trying to get better at educating people, please help.
Voluntary donations have always been well supported in America. However, when we have the government stealing from us to forcicbly support socialism,that leaves us with much less to voluntarily donate.

[mrwiizrd]

That's his argument. He's saying I don't care about people so I explained that we care for people the most because government makes it worse for poor people, etc.

Anything else I can say to him?

this is the best ammo I've found so far, Dr. Ruwart makes a VERY compelling argument:

http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html

[Carole]

Show him this....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA
Well done. :D

[purplechoe]

have him watch this video:

G. Edward Griffin - Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press - 1984

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2307456730142665916&ei=USQTSfTfF6Gc-QHm5L2MBg&q=Interview+KGB

[mczerone]

Call him a moron. How did the Soviet Union help the poor? Made everyone poor.

That's exactly how we've been helping the poor in America, too, and now we'll be upping the efforts to make all the proles "equal". Equally poor, Equally disenfranchised, equally willing to fight wars for our state, equally dependent on the dole.

Universal Education and Health Care will leave us universally dumb and unhealthy. But "the poor" won't be at a disadvantage anymore...

I say let Obama do his worst. It'll only accelerate the revolt.