It’s fortunate that God constructed the world as He did. When we commit moral actions, they have an objectively good result on the world around us, and when we commit misdeeds, they have a deleterious effect. If not for this, it would be a sad reality indeed. We would have to make the difficult decision as to whether we should commit good deeds knowing that they will make the world worse off, or to commit misdeeds because we know that they will do good in the long run. This probably seems true to you, because you were taught the opposite. You were taught such lies as, “FDR did the right thing by murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese and German civilians, because it saved lives.” You are conditioned to think that the world is a paradox wherein bad actions are actually good, but only if enacted under the beneficence of an all-knowing ruler (if private citizens were to do the same things for the same reasons, however, it would be bad). When properly fact-checking the histories of the world, it will inevitably be found that moral right coincides with factual right. Because “government” actions are necessarily violent and hence morally wrong, they are also factually wrong; that is to say, they do not bring about the good results that they are meant to, and in fact have a negative effect on the world. One such act is welfare, wherein “government” steals money from certain persons to give it to others. I have no doubt that everyone involved in the distribution of welfare has only good intentions; otherwise the road to Hell would be unpaved.
As a struggling worker myself, I understand that life can be difficult and finances can be very tight. I once almost became homeless because I got downsized and was about to lose my apartment. Toward the end, I was selling my things and eating ramen to get by. Believe me when I say that my opposition to welfare has nothing to do with a lack of experience (an EBT card could have bought me some better food than 10-cent noodles) or a lack of sympathy. On the contrary, I oppose welfare out of sympathy. I realize that everyone would be much better off in the end without the violent distribution of money. I want the poor to cease being poor and I know that violence isn’t the answer. I understand economics and history fairly well, which makes me the enemy of a great many persons. Learning how to recognize one’s own bias and then trying to set it aside is very difficult even if you want to. But if you staunchly refuse to listen to reason because you’re controlled by your emotions, there is very little, if any, hope for you. The following is a prime example of this.
On another blog of mine, I posted a graph showing the rise in welfare spending in the US. The content is pasted below. My blog’s name in the following exchanges is “myhouseofrandom.” When I posted this picture, I included the tagline, “Thanks, LBJ. Over $20 Trillion spent on the war on poverty so far, and poverty hasn’t been reduced at all.” The first stranger to have a dialogue with me is “entitledrichpeople.”
In response to this graph, entitledrichpeople wrote:
[image description: a bulls**t graph about “1Trillion in Welfare Spending”]
The idea that poor people getting food, health care, running water, electricity, indoor plumbing, and housing *gasp* is meaningless if the poverty rate remains unchanged means this person is okay with poor people literally starving, dying form [sic] lack of health care, having no shelter, etc. And even more than that, that poor people mean so little that alleviation of suffering means nothing, nothing at all.
Here’s the explanation of why this chart is not only misleading but rather total bull**** is available here (this link doesn’t note how blatantly racist it is that the misleading numbers include virtually all BIA spending, but I’m noting it).
But even beyond that, I went to a school build [sic] by the Johnson administration, know people who lived without running water, electricity, or health care before the 60s. A while ago I had a coworker who yelled at everyone who badmouthed LBJ because before his administration she lived in a house without electricity and running water and helped her mother give birth at home. And the “War on Poverty” you find so laughable changed all of that for her.
Not to excuse his horrible violent racist foreign policy, but LBJ could win an election in Appalachia tomorrow.
Poor people’s lives and wellbeing matter, not just as abstract measures of national economics, but as real human beings that have needs and feelings and value. So yes, thanks, LBJ, for the War on Poverty. It saves lives. (Not so much thanks for escalating the war in Vietnam that was horrible, genocidal, and a violation of human rights).
Ignoring the fact that there is no real difference between violence used in Vietnam versus violence used in the US, I wrote the following response:
myhouseofrandom:
I was quite taken aback by your response for several reasons, not least of which for its vehement attack on my character. Just as with most other progressives who’ve spoken to me over the years, you seem to be intolerant of views that challenge your own and fairly arrogant in your beliefs; and as a result fail to challenge your own beliefs–not fact-checking unless the source you use to fact-check tells you exactly what you want to hear. But aside from this, you assault the character of whomever disagrees with you. If I believe that welfare does not help the poor, then what do you think of me? You don’t think that I’m well-intentioned but misled; you don’t think that I’m loving but ignorant; no. You think that I want poor people to starve. This is alarming. I defy you, sir, to bring a single person of sound mind before me who truly wants the poverty-stricken to starve. The manner in which you attacked my character speaks volumes about your expectations and opinions of mankind. Progressivism truly is a religion of anger, hatred, and intolerance. I wouldn’t be surprised if you considered your ideological opponents sub-human. I feel that you owe me an apology for so recklessly demeaning me. I was actually having a good day yesterday until I read your response to my post.
As for the rebuttal of these numbers, I invite you to re-read the article you linked to on InTheseTimes. In this article, the definition of welfare is given thus:
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “welfare” like this:
a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
In that same article, however, the author claims that other programs, such as education grants for poor students or cancer screenings in poor communities, don’t count as welfare. If welfare is aid to the needy, as the dictionary says, then any program that is aimed at helping the needy can be considered welfare. (If we stick to this definition, incidentally, then it would be inconsistent to refer to corporate tax breaks as “corporate welfare” since they’re not meant to help the poor). The author also claims that some programs go to Americans who don’t live below the poverty line; and some other programs such as upgrades to water lines benefit everyone whether poor, well-off, or rich; and therefore don’t count as welfare. But if we look at the dictionary definition, welfare helps those in need. If people in a town are in need of new water lines and government monies fund them, then by this definition that would count as welfare. This means that either the definition of welfare that you endorsed is incorrect, or that the way you think about welfare is. Either way, the amounts of money depicted in the above graph accurately reflect the US government’s welfare spending. Also, if you think that it’s racist to include BIA spending as welfare, then you’re saying that those people inherently aren’t really in need–that would make you the racist, sir.
As to your second article attributing the war on poverty to a reduction in poverty, this is a fallacious argument. You assume that because a reduction in poverty happened during LBJ’s administration, then it means that LBJ was responsible. If you look at the facts, however, you’ll see that the poverty rate had been falling drastically since the end of the Great Depression and continued well into LBJ’s administration.
If the level of poverty was in drastic decline before the war on poverty, then how can a further (temporary) reduction be credited to that very war? It’s important to look at the big picture, not just a six-year timeframe. The big picture shows that poverty was reduced before the war on poverty but has not reduced in years during the war on poverty. How can you claim that the war on poverty was in any way a success when it has kept the poverty rate stagnant?
And your claim that Nixon “gutted” the welfare system is misleading at best. Nixon did reduce overall federal welfare spending and wished to get rid of it altogether, but only by replacing it with the Family Assistance Plan. Many Americans opposed the FAP because it would increase total welfare spending. |x| |x| If you want to focus on the destructive policies of Nixon, you ought to focus on policies that actually hurt the poor–the end of the gold standard, price and wage controls, runaway inflation–all policies of a big government interfering with the market. |x| |x|
But even beyond that, I went to a school build by the Johnson administration, know people who lived without running water, electricity, or health care before the 60s.
Oh, wow. Anecdotal evidence–that’s the best kind! The fact that you’re bringing up Appalachia is laughable. Those states have always been poor precisely because of strong government interference. |x| |x| Mentioning that these states, especially WV, were poverty-stricken–when they were being crushed by government regulation–isn’t helping your case at all. It only proves my point, that government interference in the market only hurts the poor. I believe that everyone should have access to electricity and running water. But I know that the market can provide services more cost-effectively and efficiently than government coercion, if only you’d let them.
Not only this, but it’s insulting for you to say that it’s ok to harm other people by taking money away from them, in order to give it to someone else a thousand miles away. Welfare doesn’t work. |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| (And neither does any other government program. They only hurt the people they’re trying to help.) But even if it did work, there would still be no moral justification for it. The ends do not justify the means. Stealing from one person to give to another is wrong, and nothing you say, do, or think will ever make it stop being wrong. You are not entitled to another person’s money. You sit there reading this on a computer that hundreds of millions of people across the globe could never afford, and yet you don’t give away your money to them. If you have money in your bank account and spare change in your pocket then you are among the wealthiest 8% of people in the world. But I digress.
If anything I have written here has opened your eyes, I invite you to read more of what I’ve posted. A good place to start would be a research paper I wrote dealing with poverty |x| and another good resource for information would be the tag economics on my tumblog. If, on the other hand, your confirmation bias compels you to dismiss everything I have written because it doesn’t fit in to your beliefs, then all I can say is good day, sir. I’ll pray for you and ask God to change your heart. I hope that you’ll learn to one day love your fellow man instead of hating them. It’s not good for you.
Sincerely,
John
I never heard a response from this fellow, but one of his followers was much more vocal. I submitted my above response to one of “entitledrichpeople’s followers, “askawelfarecaseworker,” because this person had reblogged his response and did not get a chance to read mine. I wanted to show both sides of the story, after all. This was the worker’s response:
askawelfarecaseworker:
OK, first, not sure why you’re submitting this instead of tagging me in it, or just letting the reblog sit, but….
entitledrichpeople is a poor person, with all the awfulness that generally entails. When you say to entitledrichpeople “welfare doesn’t help poor people” or “we should eliminate welfare”, you are actually saying “you don’t know what helps you, and I want to take away the tools you use in order to feed yourself and get medical care.”
That’s what you’re saying. Regardless of how well-intentioned you are, regardless of how “loving” you are – you are literally telling someone “I want to take away your groceries and your medical care, because you’re not intelligent enough to know what’s best for you”.
And you get taken aback when that sentiment is met with anger?
I can’t even understand why you thought your comment, or your response, would be met with anything else.
Something you should know about me is that I’m usually a very patient person. I am patient to a fault–it comes in handy when teaching small children how to play the violin and cello. My patience, however, is directly proportional to the purity of the motivations of the person I’m dealing with. If I sense that a person only wants to tell me off and uses straw man arguments or ad hominem attacks to do so, my sweet demeanor goes out the window pretty quickly. With that warning in place, here’s what I wrote in response.
myhouseofrandom:
Wow, that is a complete and utter lie. I’m not saying that “I want to take away your groceries and medical care.” I’m saying that I want to abolish welfare. You are assuming that if not for welfare, then people wouldn’t be able to acquire anything, which is the complete opposite of the truth. It’s a logical fallacy to say, “If not for X, then Y wouldn’t happen at all” without considering the possibility of Z or some other letter providing Y. I demonstrated quite clearly that welfare is keeping people in poverty. If you cared about the truth then you would realize that, but you are appealing to your emotions instead.
Every dollar spent on welfare is a dollar not spent on creating jobs. The fact of the matter is that almost everyone who is poor, is poor because they are unemployed or underemployed. Those few who are employed full-time an [sic] still poor, are poor because of crushing taxes and regulations that make it extremely difficult to get ahead. If employers had a trillion dollars to employ people with, then those people would not only be getting money from their jobs, but they would also be producing something of value and adding to the economy. Is food expensive? Well if there were more workers being paid to produce food then food would be cheaper. If there were more people who could afford food because they have steady jobs, then there would be no lack of demand. It’s really not a difficult concept to grasp as long as you’re open-minded. But as I said, confirmation bias will compel you to dismiss everything I said.
And honestly, I wasn’t expecting my comment or response to be met with anything else. As I said before, I’ve dealt with progressives before and their attitude is always the same. It’s all gut reactions, logical fallacies, accusations, anger, hatred, and intolerance. That’s what I’ve gotten from both of you over this post. I’m used to it by now.
What I’ve learned from worshipers of “government,” who are so deeply entrenched in confirmation bias that they wouldn’t admit their hair is on fire unless standing in front of a fire, is that reading is difficult. It must be–no one I’ve ever debated has read what I’ve written or what I’ve linked to. That explains the next response.
You literally demonstrated nothing? [sic] There was no proof at all that welfare keeps people in poverty? [sic]
And since poor people such as entitledrichpeople get their groceries through food stamps and their medical care through Medicaid, you saying you want to abolish welfare – without actually suggesting any alternative in your original post, such as a universal basic income – IS saying “I want to take away your groceries and medical care”.
You need to actually say what you think would be good, rather than just saying “the way you currently take care of yourself is bad”.
Also, you’re still being really paternalistic and patronizing and telling poor people they don’t know what’s best for themselves, so please stop that. entitledrichpeople knows better than you what poor people need, since they are actually poor and living their life with government aid. I know better than you what poor people need because I lived on government aid and I’m still trying to climb out of the mountain of debt I incurred just trying to pay my rent and treat my asthma.
Listen to us before you go off making up random, untested theories about what poor people need and how poor people don’t understand how government aid hurts them.
And my rebuttal:
Oh my goodness. You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills, love. In my previous response I did in fact provide much evidence that welfare keeps people in poverty.
The big picture shows that poverty was reduced before the war on poverty but has not reduced in years during the war on poverty. How can you claim that the war on poverty was in any way a success when it has kept the poverty rate stagnant?
Welfare doesn’t work. |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| (And neither does any other government program. They only hurt the people they’re trying to help.)
Now, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you either forgot about that, or didn’t realize that those x’s were all links. But there is your evidence. If that’s not enough, then here’s some more evidence: |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| It’s overwhelmingly clear that welfare hurts the very people it’s trying to help.
But I can’t give you the benefit of the doubt in your next claim–that I offered no alternative to welfare. Writing about the alternative made up about half of my most recent response.
Every dollar spent on welfare is a dollar not spent on creating jobs. The fact of the matter is that almost everyone who is poor, is poor because they are unemployed or underemployed. Those few who are employed full-time an still poor, are poor because of crushing taxes and regulations that make it extremely difficult to get ahead. If employers had a trillion dollars to employ people with, then those people would not only be getting money from their jobs, but they would also be producing something of value and adding to the economy. Is food expensive? Well if there were more workers being paid to produce food then food would be cheaper. If there were more people who could afford food because they have steady jobs, then there would be no lack of demand. It’s really not a difficult concept to grasp as long as you’re open-minded. But as I said, confirmation bias will compel you to dismiss everything I said.
Look at that. That paragraph is huge and you completely skipped over it. I clearly stated that full-time employment is the best alternative to welfare. (Another, of course, is charity |x| |x|.) Statistics from the BLS show that only 4% of all Americans who work full-time are in poverty. |x| Astoundingly, that number drops to 0.3% for full-time workers who have a high school diploma/GED and don’t have children until they’re married. To recap: If you work full-time, have a diploma, and wait to have children until after marriage, your chances of being poor are 0.3%. |x| The most effective way to eliminate poverty is to change your behavior, not to pick my pocket.
And that is the real issue behind the debate about government benefits. Government benefits stand in opposition to individual responsibility. It’s really hard to get out of poverty (although it would be a whole lot easier without government interference) and I sympathize with anyone who is in poverty. What I do not sympathize with, however, is the belief that you have a right to someone else’s money. I could have gone on welfare four years ago when I lost my job and my apartment, but I chose not to because I believe that slavery is wrong. Not only would I be a slave to government money, but I would also be enslaving others who work for a living and are having their paycheck plundered.
And why should I stop telling poor people what’s best for them? You wouldn’t have a problem with a doctor telling sick people what’s best for them. Why the double standard? I’ll tell you why: Because you fail to understand that economics is an actual science with laws and theorems. Sure economists are wrong sometimes just as doctors are wrong sometimes. But facts are facts no matter what people’s opinions are. Economics is not a matter of “feeling.” It doesn’t matter how badly you feel for the poor. What matters is the truth; and the truth is that no amount of government spending can help the poor. In fact, that’s the opposite of the truth. Whether you want to believe it or not doesn’t change the facts. You can choose not to believe in gravity, but you’ll still fall if you jump out a window.
Finally, let me point out that you’re behaving exactly as I predicted you would.
It’s all gut reactions, logical fallacies, accusations, anger, hatred, and intolerance.
You accuse me of not knowing what it’s like to be poor, even though you know nothing about me. You’re just making up assumptions and accusing me (while employing the logical fallacy “ad hominem,” I might add). Of course, there’s another characteristic of the progressive debater that I failed to mention: that is the inability to actually read what your opponent is writing and just ignore it, then reassert what you stated previously like a broken record. “You want people to starve!” “Well, no, actually. I don’t want people to starve. That’s why I oppose this program.” “You want people to starve! You want people to starve! You want people to starve!” Honestly, I would rather try to have an argument with a wind tunnel.
Good day to you.
I was really hoping that that was the end of it. I ought to have known better. Most people love to hear themselves talk (or watch themselves write, as it were). This person was far from finished. Here we go.
I’m cracking the hell up at this because, yes, I read you. You’re not actually providing any viable alternatives, and you’re just spouting random nonsense that doesn’t add up to anything logical.
But oh, I’m supposedly the one talking about gut reactions and logical fallacies.
Let’s start with this:
The War on Poverty has failed because conservative politicians gutted anti-poverty measures. AFDC was gutted in favor of TANF – with its 5 year LIFETIME limit and focus on job hunting (you have to do 20-30 hours a week of “job-related” activities to stay in compliance – which makes it harder for people to actually find a job, because they get sanctioned if they don’t show up for their job program, even if they’re missing it to do something like, oh, GO TO A JOB INTERVIEW.
Funding for actual skill-building, education, etc. has been slashed to the point where nothing productive can be provided. Again, this is not the fault of LBJ or any progressive politician that actually wants to fight poverty. This is the fault of conservative politicians gutting the programs.
Let’s continue with this:
Every dollar spent on welfare is a dollar not spent on creating jobs. The fact of the matter is that almost everyone who is poor, is poor because they are unemployed or underemployed. Those few who are employed full-time an still poor, are poor because of crushing taxes and regulations that make it extremely difficult to get ahead. If employers had a trillion dollars to employ people with, then those people would not only be getting money from their jobs, but they would also be producing something of value and adding to the economy.
This is all nonsense. First of all, you’re ignoring the existence of disabled people. Second, you’re ignoring the fact that unemployment is a standard part of capitalism – that’s how it works. This is literally in any economics textbook, so I’m not sure how you missed it.
Plus, this idea that removing taxes creates jobs because now employers have more money to throw around? You can’t be serious. Especially when CEO pay is at an all-time high, while worker wages are stagnant and the minimum wage is falling in value. CORPORATIONS ALREADY HAVE MONEY. It’s just going to the CEO instead of job creation or worker pay.
Not to mention only 11% of tax revenue goes toward safety net programs, so eliminating welfare isn’t actually going to lower your taxes that much. Getting rid of ALL taxes means getting rid of interstate highways, firefighters, police officers, public parks, etc. IDK about you, but I like being able to easily drive out of state to visit my family. I like hiking and enjoying public works for free. I like that I got to go to a state-run school instead of having to try to pay $20k a semester for private tuition. None of that would be possible without taxes.
And the idea that a minimum-wage worker wouldn’t be in poverty if taxes were eliminated? Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. That’s $1160/mo. Have you tried to survive on that? That’s about the net amount I took home from my first post-college full-time job, and let me tell you, it wasn’t sustainable. Between rent, groceries, phone bill, and electricity, I was out of money within a week of being paid – and that’s even before my student loan payment. I can’t even imagine how impossible it would have been if I had had kids.
Also you’ve fundamentally misunderstood slavery if you think welfare is in any way comparable. Let me give you a hint: The worst thing that can happen to you while on welfare is losing your welfare. Your caseworker doesn’t own you. You’re free to walk away at any point. If you get a job that pays well enough, you walk away without being forced to do anything else. Slavery? Is actually nothing like that. There’s descriptions of the reality of slavery in most history textbooks, and firsthand accounts of actual slaves out there if you really want an accurate picture (and none of them contain the phrase “It was just like receiving cash assistance from the government!”).
I read your points earlier. I just summarily dismissed them as the nonsense unreality that they were.
You’re still being patronizing and lecturing poor people on what’s best for them – which needs to stop. You’re still assuming you know better than poor people – when you have no idea how taxes, welfare, or the free market works.
Just. Stop. Read some actual sources, do some actual critical thinking, and please don’t respond again unless you actually get some context and stop living in Ayn Rand’s fantasy world.
I remember it took me over an hour to write the following response because of all the sources I had to dig up from the bowels of my archives. That was not fun at all. I had things to do that morning. So, I ignored the fact that this person is ableist because they think that disabled people can’t find work, but I was going for the big points. Here’s that.
Congratulations, you’ve written the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
If you were interested in the truth and you wanted to listen to me explain these things to you, I would be happy to do so. But because you think that you already know everything, you can’t be convinced of anything. And considering how quickly you wrote this response, it’s obvious that you didn’t devote any serious time to reading and digesting my previous posts or my cited sources.
First off, entitlement spending has not been gutted. As the graph in my original post shows, entitlement spending has only been increasing. In the late 1960′s it was 6% of GDP and is now 15%. |x| And a job interview doesn’t take 140 hours. If you only have to work 30 hours a week for this program and you have a job interview, that’s not going to be impossible in your schedule. Nice try.
Capitalism causes TEMPORARY unemployment. It doesn’t destroy jobs, it only relocates them |x|. Millions of Americans became unemployed when the automobile became popular, but it didn’t last. You see, before the automobile up to a third of all American crops were grown just to feed horses. Millions of Americans were employed just for horses–to breed them, to raise them, to train them, to feed them, to clean them, to fit them with horse shoes, etc. Yet you didn’t hear about long unemployment lines in the early 20th century. This is because those Americans previously employed for horses went on to be employed elsewhere. They went on to build gas stations, to erect stoplights, to build cars, to wash cars or fix cars, to become taxi drivers or driving instructors. Capitalism shifted employment because cars are more useful to us than horses. It is true that the ultimate goal of capitalism is to create permanent unemployment for everyone, because employment only exists to satisfy our need for scarce resources. I am quite familiar with economics, thank you.
Predictably, you fall on tired old economic myths and misunderstandings to support your feeble beliefs. If you were to read anything in my tag economics on my blog you would see that I’ve already written or posted rebuttals to everything you’ve written. But as I said before, you’re not open-minded and you have no interest in challenging your own beliefs. It doesn’t matter that CEOs are making a lot of money because it doesn’t come at the expense of everyone else. |x| Saying that workers’ wages are stagnant is greatly misleading. |x| And most companies don’t have nearly as much money as you think. |x| Sure, there are multi-billion dollar corporations, but there are also multi-billionaire people. The average CEO makes slightly more money than the average dentist. |x| Also, the evidence is insurmountable that minimum wage kills jobs. |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| You would know this already if you had read through the posts on my blog like I asked.
And now comes the next logical fallacy: If not for government, there wouldn’t be X. Two posts ago I pointed out that this was a fallacy and said that there were alternatives. Last post I repeated this and was much clearer about why this is fallacious. And here you are repeating it again, just as I said you would:
that is the inability to actually read what your opponent is writing and just ignore it, then reassert what you stated previously like a broken record.
So here you are again with that fallacy, assuming that without the government, then X wouldn’t get done. This is absurd. Before the 20th century virtually all roads in the US were privately built and owned. Today in Sweden, two-thirds of all roads are privately built and owned–and the private roads are in much better condition, for less maintenance cost than public roads, and with much less traffic volume. |x| Not only can we do things without the government, we can do them a whole lot better than the government!
Your claim that only 11% of spending goes to welfare is dubious |x| but aside from that it’s a red herring. I said that if we had $1 Trillion less spending, then we would have an extra $1 Trillion. That’s not really something that can be disputed; it’s simple math. If we had an extra $1 Trillion to spend on creating jobs for 8.3 Million |x| unemployed Americans, we could pay them each $120,000 per year, assuming no overhead. If they were working, then they would be producing something of value and adding value to the economy. Economic growth is the primary mechanism whereby the poor are lifted out of poverty |x| |x| |x| |x| If more people work and make the economy bigger, everyone else will benefit.
Also, minimum wage pays more than poverty. The poverty line is currently defined as being around $11K and minimum wage pays about $15K. To earn less than poverty wages you would have to work minimum wage for less than 32 hours a week. |x| And to answer your question, yes I have tried to live off of $1,000 per month. It was difficult. I had to ride the bus everywhere and I couldn’t ever eat out because it was too expensive. I had to make a lot of concessions, give up most of my luxuries, and even do without a few important things like new glasses. But I survived. As I said before, I do have sympathy for everyone who is poor. But I don’t have sympathy for an attitude of entitlement.
As to your description of slavery, I must point out that your definition is terribly limited. I’m not going to try to explain it to you because I know that you won’t read it anyway. I know this for a fact because I said before that you only ignore me and repeat yourself like a broken record. You proved me correct when you wrote:
You’re still being patronizing and lecturing poor people on what’s best for them – which needs to stop.
Now, I responded to this last time and wondered why this is a problem. You didn’t say why it’s a bad thing, you just told me that I need to stop. And then you told me again, like a broken record.
Like a broken record.
Like a broken record.
[END]
My favorite moment from the argument was writing this: “the evidence is insurmountable that minimum wage kills jobs. |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x| |x|” That was really satisfying. Look at all those beautiful x’s. Anyway, I’m certain that this person did respond to my post again, although I don’t know what they wrote because I refused to read it. I won’t let someone waste any more of my time if they insist on being that stupid. Just to be clear, stupidity has nothing to do with how much you know; it has to do with how little you choose to know. Anyone can be forgiven for being ignorant of economics. There’s a lot that I don’t know. There are even things that Frederic Bastiat or Ludwig von Mises didn’t know. But the unwillingness to learn and admit that you’re wrong will make you stupid. And that is the case here.
Please learn from this and don’t repeat the same mistakes. If there’s a cause you’re passionate about, challenge yourself before you challenge others. Ask, “Is my cause really a good one? How do I know? Am I trying to accomplish it by good means or evil means? Am I an imbecile?” After this, continue to attempt to discredit your beliefs. You’ll definitely miss an argument the first few times and think your beliefs are good, but if you keep at it you’ll discover some falsity you missed before. Everyone is very good at criticizing other persons’ beliefs, but very few are good at criticizing their own. This is because we believe that if we feel something, then it’s true. So stop it. You’ll be doing yourself and others a great service by realizing that facts are independent of your feelings.
If your eyes have been opened and you want to learn more, there are many good resources below for you to check out. Some are easy to digest and some are rather nebulous, so be forewarned
The State
Punching Holes in the Public Goods Argument by Tracey Zoeller (article, 2,700 words)
Four Things the State Is Not by Thomas Woods, Jr. (video, 59:43)
Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard (book, 62 pages)
The Law by Frederic Bastiat (book, 107 pages)
Statism
Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion by Larken Rose (video, 12:35)
“It Can’t Happen Here!” by Larken Rose (video, 1:34:23)
No Treason by Lysander Spooner (book, 51 pages)
Economics & History
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (book, 198 pages)
Myths that Conceal Reality by Milton Friedman (video, 52:43)
Applying Economics to American History by Tom Woods, Jr. (video, 36:48)
Free to Choose by Milton Friedman (video- 10 part series, ~10 hours)
America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard (book, 411 pages)
Additional Resources
Please excuse the self-promotion, but it’s easy for me to consolidate things on my tumblr, and it saves me the trouble of having to update this list every time I find something new. When I post/reblog something new on tumblr, the following links will include them so there’s no need to come searching here.
http://myhouseofrandom.tumblr.com/tagged/economics
http://myhouseofrandom.tumblr.com/tagged/government
http://myhouseofrandom.tumblr.com/tagged/politics
http://myhouseofrandom.tumblr.com/tagged/history
This article, along with several others, is available in Kindle and paperback form from Amazon. If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting me by purchasing a copy for yourself or someone you know.
Cake's Corner 