Enjoy.
Sharyl Attkisson testifies on transparency and freedom of the press in the Obama administration
Exposing the consequences--intended and unintended--of statism and social engineering.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Anti-libertarian lies in liberal literature
Check it out.
Now here's my response.
Well, given a choice between ignorance and dishonesty, which would you prefer? Stop. I already know the author's answer. The author prefers dishonesty.
Referring to Rand as a "failed screenwriter" rather than a "successful author" is an example.
Claiming that "libertarianism is opposed to almost every feature of Catholic morality" is another. Libertarianism has no specific morality. It is about individual choice, and about promoting the democratic process via states' rights. It is about allowing diversity in morality by encouraging ideological solutions that are as local as possible. The poll results the author cites are clearly intended to suggest ideological "confusion" among libertarians; all they really do suggest is diversity. We are not collectivists. We do not all think alike. We do not all demand the same solutions from government. We do, however, agree that the government is not the best source of solutions to social problems. We do agree that society should be allowed to change organically, as the result of ordinary social evolution at its own pace, and not as the result of legislation forced onto unwilling hundreds of millions. We do agree that social solutions do not have permanent, one-size-fits-all solutions, but instead are a constant in society, a consequence of living in civilization, and will have to be re-addressed by each generation and in each locality according to the prevailing social conditions in those settings.
And the author gets basic Catholicism wrong too. The church doesn't advocate for government policy to help the poor, and in this, it agrees fully with libertarianism. There is a difference between taking personal action to help people, and demanding that government do it.
There are some other poll results the author should look into, such as the fact that liberals are very selfish when it comes to personally helping out charities, as compared to conservatives (including right-libertarians). There is a major difference between assuming that your charitable obligations are discharged by paying taxes, and going the extra mile to help out personally. Conservatives do this; liberals do not.
We do not have a working definition of what freedom is? You lie. Freedom is self-ownership. Freedom is the condition that exists when we are free of coercion, when the Non-Aggression Principle is in play.
We have no interest in whether the poor can eat? You lie. We do more, individually, to help poor people (and all kinds of disadvantaged people) than liberals do. And we do it better than government can. Allow us to keep more of our money, and see how vast a difference it makes. Americans are the most charitable people on the planet. We more than have it in us to see to everybody who needs help. The liberal error here is in assuming that everyone who needs help deserves help, or that everybody must be compelled to help those whose lifestyles and choices are an affront to our own. Let us CHOOSE who to help. Kinship matters. There is a patron out there, somewhere, for every victim, no matter how depraved. We shouldn't all be compelled to be everybody's patron. Government aid is notoriously inefficient, notoriously perverse in incentive, and notoriously expensive. It's not charity if you're forced into it.
The author clearly has a bone to pick with libertarianism, and hopes that her readers are ignorant enough about it to be easily led to her favored conclusion. No mention of self-ownership. No mention of the Non-Aggression Principle.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Elizabeth. Either you're as ignorant as you're claiming Knox is--in which case, I hope I've alleviated some of your ignorance--or you're just dishonest, in which case you should be hounded out of journalism.
Now here's my response.
Well, given a choice between ignorance and dishonesty, which would you prefer? Stop. I already know the author's answer. The author prefers dishonesty.
Referring to Rand as a "failed screenwriter" rather than a "successful author" is an example.
Claiming that "libertarianism is opposed to almost every feature of Catholic morality" is another. Libertarianism has no specific morality. It is about individual choice, and about promoting the democratic process via states' rights. It is about allowing diversity in morality by encouraging ideological solutions that are as local as possible. The poll results the author cites are clearly intended to suggest ideological "confusion" among libertarians; all they really do suggest is diversity. We are not collectivists. We do not all think alike. We do not all demand the same solutions from government. We do, however, agree that the government is not the best source of solutions to social problems. We do agree that society should be allowed to change organically, as the result of ordinary social evolution at its own pace, and not as the result of legislation forced onto unwilling hundreds of millions. We do agree that social solutions do not have permanent, one-size-fits-all solutions, but instead are a constant in society, a consequence of living in civilization, and will have to be re-addressed by each generation and in each locality according to the prevailing social conditions in those settings.
And the author gets basic Catholicism wrong too. The church doesn't advocate for government policy to help the poor, and in this, it agrees fully with libertarianism. There is a difference between taking personal action to help people, and demanding that government do it.
There are some other poll results the author should look into, such as the fact that liberals are very selfish when it comes to personally helping out charities, as compared to conservatives (including right-libertarians). There is a major difference between assuming that your charitable obligations are discharged by paying taxes, and going the extra mile to help out personally. Conservatives do this; liberals do not.
We do not have a working definition of what freedom is? You lie. Freedom is self-ownership. Freedom is the condition that exists when we are free of coercion, when the Non-Aggression Principle is in play.
We have no interest in whether the poor can eat? You lie. We do more, individually, to help poor people (and all kinds of disadvantaged people) than liberals do. And we do it better than government can. Allow us to keep more of our money, and see how vast a difference it makes. Americans are the most charitable people on the planet. We more than have it in us to see to everybody who needs help. The liberal error here is in assuming that everyone who needs help deserves help, or that everybody must be compelled to help those whose lifestyles and choices are an affront to our own. Let us CHOOSE who to help. Kinship matters. There is a patron out there, somewhere, for every victim, no matter how depraved. We shouldn't all be compelled to be everybody's patron. Government aid is notoriously inefficient, notoriously perverse in incentive, and notoriously expensive. It's not charity if you're forced into it.
The author clearly has a bone to pick with libertarianism, and hopes that her readers are ignorant enough about it to be easily led to her favored conclusion. No mention of self-ownership. No mention of the Non-Aggression Principle.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Elizabeth. Either you're as ignorant as you're claiming Knox is--in which case, I hope I've alleviated some of your ignorance--or you're just dishonest, in which case you should be hounded out of journalism.