Originally Posted by issodhos
Unless you consider yourself superior in compassion to others, there is no reason to think that others would not also provide financial and other assistance to those in need. Of course, you and others would find yourselves at liberty to freely choose what charitable programs of assistance you think worthy of your support based on what their purpose is and how efficient they are at delivering that support. In other words, a power co-opted by the state would be returned to its rightful source -- you.

Well, probably Olyve is a few leagues ahead of most in terms of voluntary giving. In fact, you have highlighted one of the problems with libertarian "solutions", they fail to take into account reality.

The people who can most afford to give things of value to those who have too little to survive or survive with dignity do not always share their wealth, do they? And if we take away the tax incentive, we might suspect that they would not be as voluntary as you predict.

Furthermore, charities discriminate. There is not an even spread of charities for all those who might have needs, and what is to be done of those left out because no charity is available or willing to assist?

It seems to me libertarians dodge the cold hard fact that many would simply be left to die. You cannot have a midway point on this. Either there is some government program to support those who would otherwise have none in your "voluntary charity" system or they are left to flounder and die. If there is even a small such government program, eventually it will morph into the "collectivism" you so demonize.

Furthermore, what is voluntary about employment. What a crock of crap that is. Do you really contend that workers, no matter how high up the ladder they are, actually volunteer to do what they have to do and volunteer to do it for, say, minimum wage? Do you contend that people voluntarily accept $15 per hour, or $10,000 per month even, rather than get paid what high rollers get? You live in a fantasy world if you think that is voluntary.

No, life is a series of dance steps to moderate between coercion and enjoyment, good and bad, things you like and much you don't. What I have read from those who post here and elsewhere in favor of libertarian ideals reminds me of the "clarity" with which I saw life as a young person. So many obvious answers and so few experiences to temper them.

Originally Posted by issodhos
As to paying for things you do not support, they are happening under the current system that you prefer to keep -- with minor tweaking by you as to who gets how much -- a collectivist-based system which continues to fail to improve the condition of those for whom you express concern. Indeed, the groups of people you reference seem to be increasing yearly.

It should also be noted that "bail outs" would not take place in a libertarian-influenced society, and elective wars would be difficult to launch because the monetary system (through the government created Federal Reserve, fiat money, and fractional banking) would no longer be an extention of the government for purposes of financing its power-accreting programs and wars. These are things that take place under the system you continue to support. It is time for change. Yes we can!!;-)

I take it that this post collectivist world would be populated by something other than humans. Else how can this world come about and who would inhabit it? Humans do not make intelligent decisions most of the time much less peaceable ones.

Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul