tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post4242951787202247309..comments2024-03-28T07:34:33.613+00:00Comments on Man Against The State: What is Libertarianism?Graham Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-5910583435289920062013-06-23T14:22:20.618+01:002013-06-23T14:22:20.618+01:00@Wouter,
Tha is a common problem with people thin...@Wouter,<br /><br />Tha is a common problem with people thinking using the statism-centric mind of these days: they create an example that not only does not happen in real life but also reinforces their own view of the world. This is story-making...<br /><br />Is there such a situation that either you steal or you starve? Couldn't just you offer your work in exchange for the bread you need?<br /><br />By not providing some starving person a piece of bread no one is being immoral. Surely you are free to exercise your right to compassion and give a piece of bread for such a person, but by no moral code we have you are obliged to. Surely you can offer that piece of bread in exchange for something you need.<br /><br />That is the central problem with collectivists: they think everybody (taken collectively as "society") has some moral obligation towards every single person. This is a childish way of thinking: "the whole-powerful society have to provide for everyone". Real life is much more complicated. Every person is responsible for its own self.<br /><br />Look: we have charity organizations for people who want to be volunteers. People who are so concerned with their fellow person who would donate time, money and resources to help others. But this is something people do out of their good hearts. No one has the obligation to have a good heart. And surely no one can be mandated to have one. <br /><br />Free Market works and doesn't require idealized people to function. Your "the-society-has-some-moral-obligation-towards-all" world-view is flawed by requiring everyone to have a good heart. This is why collectivism in any of its forms is doomed and prone to have crooks as their leaders.<br /><br />This is a good animation that summarizes what I am trying to explain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0zu3BKegkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-89822988130550195042012-12-30T20:00:21.759+00:002012-12-30T20:00:21.759+00:00How would you respond to this. Consider this examp...How would you respond to this. Consider this example. You can either steal a bread or starve, is it justified to steal? You would probably agreed it would be justified. You could say the society isn't behaving in a moral way towards this person, so he doesn't have to behave morally towards society.<br /><br />So if a society doesn't pledge to take care of its citizens, it is justifying immoral behavior of citizens toward society, thus toward each other.<br /><br />Such a system should be considered to have immorality at its very core, and unless it can create a very favorable economic condition fast enough, is doomed to break down socially.Wouter Druckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11490626043197372135noreply@blogger.com