Stossel Show - Who Gives More To Charity ? (Dr. Ron Paul)

[qwerty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vRk4XiOKWc&feature=&p=779B5240D59E2A70&index=0&playnext=1

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/eu3fj/stossel_show_who_gives_more_to_charity_dr_ron_paul/

[Bman]

Watching this now. Thanks for posting.

[dannno]

Part 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk4iBNFumVA


Part 3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_UptfxPLBI

[crazyfacedjenkins]

so preachy

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mckp-JQzfS0&feature=player_embedded

[Wesker1982]

Much better quality here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otl2RSe60ZY

Good article on taking care of the poor:




You are not the only kind person on the planet…

Another point that I would like to make up front is that there always seems to be a strange disconnect or isolation in people’s concerns about the helpless and dependent in society.

For instance, whenever I talk about getting rid of public schools, the response inevitably comes back – automatically, it would seem, just like any other good propaganda – that it would be terrible, because poor children would not be educated.

There is a strange kind of unthinking narcissism in this response, which always irritates me, much though I understand it. First of all, it is rather insulting to be told that you are trying to design a system which would deny education to poor children. To be placed into the general category of “yuppie capitalist scum” is never particularly ennobling.

A person will raise this objection with an absolutely straight face, as if he is the only person in the world who cares about the education of poor children. I know that this is the result of pure indoctrination, because it is so illogical.

If we accept the premise that very few people care about the education of the poor, then we should be utterly opposed to majority-rule democracy, for the obvious reason that if only a tiny minority of people care about the education of the poor, then there will never be enough of them to influence a democracy, and thus the poor will never be educated.

However, those who approve of democracy and accept that democracy will provide the poor with education inevitably accept that a significant majority of people care enough about the poor to agitate for a political solution, and pay the taxes that fund public education.

Thus, any democrat who cares about the poor automatically accepts the reality that a significant majority of people are both willing and able to help and fund the education of the poor.

If people are willing to agitate for and pay the taxes to support a State-run solution to the problem of education, then the State solution is a mere reflection of their desires and willingness to sacrifice their own self-interest for the sake of educating the poor.

If I pay for a cure for an ailment that I have, and I find out that that cure actually makes me worse, do I give up on trying to find a cure? Of course not. It was my desire to find a cure that drove me to the false solution in the first place – when I accept that that solution is false, I am then free to pursue another solution. (In fact, until I accept that my first “cure” actually makes me worse, I will continue to waste my time and resources.)

The democratic “solution” to the problem of educating the poor is the existence of public schools – if we get rid of that solution, then the majority’s desire to help educate the poor will simply take on another form – and a far more effective form, that much is guaranteed.

“Ah,” say the democrats, “but without being forced to pay for public schools, no one will surrender the money to voluntarily fund the education of poor children.”

Well, this is only an admission that democracy is a complete and total lie – that public schools do not represent the will of the majority, but rather the whims of a violent minority. Thus votes do not matter at all, and are not counted, and do not influence public policy in the least, and thus we should get rid of this ridiculous overhead of democracy and get right back to a good old Platonic system of minority dictatorship.

This proposal, of course, is greeted with outright horror, and protestations that democracy must be kept because it is the best system, because public policy does reflect the will of the majority.

In which case we need have no fear that the poor will not be educated in a free society, since the majority of people very much want that to happen anyway.

Exactly the same argument applies to a large number of other statist “solutions” to existing problems, such as:

Old-age pensions;
Unemployment insurance;
Health care for the impoverished;
Welfare, etc.

If these State programs represent the desires and will of the majority, then removing the government will not remove the reality of this kind of charity, since government policies reflect the majority’s existing desire to help these people.

If these programs do not represent the desires and will of the majority, then democracy is a complete lie, and we should stop interfering with our leader’s universal benevolence with our distracting and wasteful “voting.”

We will get into this in more detail as we go forward, but I wanted to put the argument out up front, just to address the ridiculous objection that removing a democratic State also removes the benevolence that drives its policies.- By Stefan Molyneux

[qwerty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mckp-JQzfS0&feature=player_embedded

nice!

[dannno]

so preachy

Preachin' the free market!!

Whoa brotha', Amen!!

[kah13176]

Democrats make people DEPENDENT on charity!! I watched that first video in the first post and raged just seconds in. After years living in the shackles of taxation, people take the attitude that they give when they file their tax returns.