Are you afraid your ideas and beliefs are too XTREME?

Post Reply New Topic

I really like how he wants to raise and cut taxes on gasoline, but you are right, Orwell was more of a libertarian socialist and admired Spanish anarchism.

I'd argue that in the long-run economic growth benefited the poor. Where do we have advances in technology and in capital allotment per laborer if not from economic growth? Not only that, but even if we do argue that the poor were not well-off, where did the middle class come from other than the industrial revolution? Families with few children were very much a result of the fast-growing society. Let's just look at it this way, back in the Industrial revolution, there were a lot of poor people, now there are a lot less, and a lot of this benefit does not seem to come from regulations either.


Maybe, maybe not. An anarchistic system has proven not to be too bad for Somalia, but there are some who would claim historical evidence supports your view. Not that anarchies fail, but rather that more anarchistic societies tend to be less productive than those run by good governments.

As a libertarian, I'm constantly afraid of how my non-partisan viewpoints will affect people.

True. My views have changed somewhat, but what I primarily admire about Orwell was his opposition to oppressive government. Government should not interfere in an individuals life, even if it is "for the better." I share his cynicism, but I don't have to be a clone of someone's beliefs in order to admire them.


False. 19th-century England had a lot of government propping up wealthy corporations, sort of the hangover from mercantilism. And the poor ultimately did benefit from the economic growth. That tremendous growth and increase in productivity led to great enough surpluses being created that the overall standard of living could rise. Your brand of "humanitarian" government would have kept us in the Paleolithic Age for fear of exploiting "the poor," who in my view are not necessarily a discrete monolithic oppressed group but rather a collection of individuals who either suck at life or got screwed by the system. Anyways, the Industrial Revolution was a very special case of a transitional period in the global economy and so examples from that period can't really be used effectively to support or refute economic ideas as conditions are very different now as compared to then. As a side note, you misinterpret my views if you think I advocate unlimited economic growth at the expense of the poor. The two of us are apparently going off of different working assumptions, you assume that government control over the economy is to the benefit of the poor, I disagree as the government is controlled by the wealthy who have no real interest in helping the poor. Many government regulations of industry actually are pushed by the largest companies in that industry in order to create barriers to entry and stifle competition. Government welfare programs have not done much, if anything, to reduce poverty. These plans clearly do not work (and they have gotten more experimentation than anarcho-capitalism) so why not try something different?

I disagree.


You sound a bit like McGovern here. I don't see why government should worry about those things because, again, we seem to be arguing from different working assumptions. I do not believe the role of government is to establish a "desirable" social order. There are charities, and people can give to them if they so choose (and the wealthy do give a great deal to charity). If I steal your car, sell it, and give the money to the poor, it is still a crime and I have still deprived you of something that is rightfully yours. Can I go into court with the defense that you don't care about the poor? Of course not, so why does government get to take this course of action not only with impunity, but also be praised for it?