The libertarian response

[PacRimRider1]

The crime that has occured in NO is inexcusable. There have been no examples of this level of rape, murder and outright theift in history (and I don't mean looting bread.) Doctors have been atacked, engineers have been shot and shooters are aiming at the helecopters trying to rescue them. This artice is just one way of explaining this mess. Please don't flame me, I'm just the messenger...




An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the
Welfare State

by Robert Tracinski
Sep 02, 2005



by Robert Tracinski

It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure
out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them,
because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials
is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation
to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the
flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists,
natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people
pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors,
nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and
rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to
do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are
suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself included--did
not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but
about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by
federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane
Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television
channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not
happen over the past four days. It happened over the past four decades.
Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be
confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave
in an emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other
emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been
saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even
what we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion.
They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously
organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We
are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than
waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this
a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light
had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve
as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and
large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a
description from a Washington Times story
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050902-122920-2415r.htm> :

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists,
knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and
police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen
poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened
Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill
orders.

" 'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,'
she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops
know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if
necessary and I expect they will.' "

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article
shows National Guard troops, with rifles and armored vests, riding on
an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of
squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks
exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for
an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to
storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers
to drive away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack
the doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further
destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help
them?

My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a
sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News
Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She
studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in
the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes,
one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The
projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and
irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_Homes> .)

What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a
whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the
informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave
some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New
Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so
who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects.
Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early reports from
CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the
prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose.
There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing
projects, and vice versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the
deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people
from two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected,
over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness.
The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent
administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of
the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the
city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city
corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow
of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political
supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact,
some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for
example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted
an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from
the Toronto Globe and Mail
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...RMPSYCHOLOGY02
/TPStory> , by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American
"individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was
caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of
the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is
behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the
responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond
to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome
the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the
government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a
disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about
saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything.
Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how
they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is
a way of life for them.

The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains
and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness
that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.

Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005

[Core Shot]

FKNA - right on truth told.

The missing part is how the Robert Taylor vertical ghetto in Chicago has been replaced by "scattered site" public housing so that folks on welfare see their neighbors get up and go to work and improve their lives; so that the kids see some kind of role model other than fellow welfare jobless families dependent on the teat of government; and so that the american dream can be realized for everyone.

Public housing in Chicago is better than ever. Things can be improved. Folks can be taught the classic american values of hard work and self-reliance, but they need role models and guidance.

Not to say that the poor victims in NO got what the deserved - they deserved better and have deserved better for years.

[Benny Profane]

yup, it's those damn negros on welfare.

[Dexter Rutecki]

I guess that sounds good if you're a total moron, and are looking for any excuse to opt out of societal responsibility.
The whole Libertarian position sickens me, as it's little more than a thinly veiled desire to not pay taxes and ignore the social contract.

And that guy's just a whore for Microsoft, anyway.

Amoral Defense
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
April 24, 2000

We've just come from a press conference held by the Center for the
Moral Defense of Capitalism.

The Center called the press conference to announce its opposition to
Earth Day.

At the press conference, the Center's executive director, Robert
Tracinski, asked the question that was on everybody's mind -- why in the
heck would anybody be against Earth Day?

"People think that environmentalism just means being for clean air and
clean water -- and who could possibly be against these things?"
Tracinski asked. "In fact, we believe that environmentalists don't
really care about clean air and clean water. Their real goal is to
destroy technology and to subordinate mankind to nature."

"Watch the crowds of environmentalists who will gather on the Mall
tomorrow, and notice that they have never met a form of technology they
liked," Tracinski said. "Every kind of new technology is attacked, from
nuclear power to genetically modified foods. But they also oppose every
old, existing technology, from fertilizers and pesticides to the
internal combustion engine. And they always place the blame for every
problem on one basic target -- the Industrial Revolution."

We pointed out to Tracinski that most environmentalists don't want to
get rid of all technology -- they just want to get rid of dirty
technologies and replace them with cleaner technologies -- electric cars
for gasoline powered cars, for example.

"If they are for a new technology, let them go out and invent it,"
Tracinski said. "But they say -- get rid of the old technology first and
maybe somewhere in the future we will have some new technology."

Not really Bob. The new technology is here and being actively blocked
by the old technology industries. Don't you read the papers?

The Center, based in Spotsylvania, Virginia, is closely affiliated with
the Ayn Rand Institute. Rand was the philosopher who laid the
intellectual groundwork for Reaganism (Alan Greenspan is a Rand fan) --
no law restraining corporate power is a good law.

The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism feels the same way. Its
web site (www.moraldefense.org) is dominated by articles denouncing the
antitrust laws and the government's case against Microsoft.

One article, which is representative of the tone of the others, is
titled "The Injustice of Antitrust Laws as Reflected in the High-Tech
Lynching of Microsoft."

The article is written by Richard Salsman, a senior policy analyst at
the Center. Salsman compared the government's case against Microsoft to
a KKK lynching of a black man.

"Like the black man, the local victim didn't do anything wrong -- on
the contrary, he seems to have done everything right," Salsman writes.
"Still he is hated. He is despised. He is being lynched. For no other
reason. What will you do?"

Comparing the lynching of a flesh and blood human being to the
government's antitrust case against Microsoft is a bit over the top.

So, we wanted to know, who is funding your Center, Bob? Where is this
money coming from, anyway?

"We really don't feel comfortable giving out our donors -- we don't
consider it important," he said.

Wait a second Bob. What do you mean you don't consider it important? Is
this Microsoft money talking?

"I'm not going to answer that question," Tracinski said. "I don't
consider it to be important."

But then Bob breaks down -- a little.

"We have received money from Microsoft, but we aren't going to say how
much," Tracinski said.

Microsoft's Rick Miller confirmed that the company had donated to the
Center, but he too refused to reveal the amount of the contribution.

Miller said that Microsoft gives to a wide range of interest groups
across the political spectrum and doesn't support everything every one
of them says or believes. Gates, for example, is not in favor of
dismantling the antitrust laws, as is the Center, although Gates
believes the antitrust laws are being misapplied in the case at hand.

Still, if implemented, the extremist views of the Center for the Moral
Defense of Capitalism would lead to a society where big corporations would
be allowed to roam freely without restraint -- lawless corporations in a
lawless land.

Tracinski said he didn't understand why we wanted to know whether
Microsoft was funding his operation.

We want to know exactly what beast we are dealing with here, Bob. Don't
be like the Wizard of Oz, yelling at us not to look behind the curtain.

A whole pack of Totos is pulling on that curtain and nothing you can do
will prevent it from being ripped to shreds.

[Core Shot]

yup, it's those damn negros on welfare.

Dont forget them cracker rednecks on welfare too. Plenty of them out there too
Their ranks are growing thanks to crystal meth!

Ever gotten to know a Black African that immigrated to America? They can't believe how good we all got it here. No victim mentality. No expecting the government to solve their problems. They don't see "the man" oppressing them and holding them back. They see this land as the ultimate land of opportunity where a man can be a sucess through hard work.

Sorry if you find that offensive.

yes, we need a safety net, but no it should not be a multi-generational feeding trough. Folks need a hand up, not a hand out.

Teach a man to fish. Where have I heard that one????

[Benny Profane]

Their ranks are growing thanks to crystal meth!

I don't think so. nope, ranks are thinning fast with crystal around.

[cj001f]

It's nice to see every ideology is putting their $.02 in. Like most ideological puff pieces this one takes some shred of common wisdom, generally false, and extrapolates it to prove whatever their inane point to be. This one starts with the faulty premise that people worked together cooperatively for the common good in times of stress before "the welfare state".

Funny to hear you complain about the public project slums of Chicago. Clearly what those projects replaced, market produced ghettos filled with the poor would have been a better solution.

[PacRimRider1]

Instead of just discrediting the author, why not take a stab at the content?

The entire arguement of Mokhiber and Weissman is backed up with nothing more than an insult:

The new technology is here and being actively blocked
by the old technology industries. Don't you read the papers?

They then go on to do a very good job of smearing Tracinski with a tried and true strategy: guilt by association.

The Center, based in Spotsylvania, Virginia, is closely affiliated with
the Ayn Rand Institute. Rand was the philosopher who laid the
intellectual groundwork for Reaganism (Alan Greenspan is a Rand fan) --
no law restraining corporate power is a good law.

So basically, Tracinski is nothing more than an Alan Greenspan groupie. Hurray. Can we get back to the why he is wrong about his opinion?
Not quite yet, they have to dig the grave a bit deeper:

The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism feels the same way. Its web site (www.moraldefense.org) is dominated by articles denouncing the antitrust laws and the government's case against Microsoft.

Oh gosh! Microsoft! this must be terrible!

The rest of their article shows the link between The center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism and Microsoft. Who else would support such a center but a major corporation? I know the whole purpose of you posting this was to show that

And that guy's just a whore for Microsoft, anyway.

but I have to ask, what does this have to do with anything?

Obviously, there are major simularities between libertarianism and objectivism (what Rand called her philosophy, not Reaganism which was a very cleaver way of linking her to a conservative republican - aka the enemy.) Neither believe in the quinary sector's control of society. This is the reason objectivism has been refered to as the opposite of socialism. Ayn Rand escaped from Russia after communism left her family on the brink of starvation, so you could see where her ideals come from.

Please, instead of trying to slander the author of the article, try to come up with an arguement to it. Or even better, justification to why rescue workers are getting shot at.

[splat]

cj, I gotta say I almost always appreciate what you bring to the discussion.

[TJ.Brk]

It's horrible that it happened. Instead of calmly busting our ass to help those in need. We have politicians pointing figures, or journalists making overly rash judgements. Neither of which is doing any fucking good for those that need good things to happen to them.

I'm tired of hearing both spout off.

[PacRimRider1]

yup, it's those damn negros on welfare.

I didn't get this same message from the article. I think it's this damn system that leave the "negros on welfare" completely dependent on them for basic survival, then completely lets them down when it matters most. Of coarse you see people on the news yelling at Bush to help them; who else is there to do it?
In geography 101 we learn that a high IBR and IDR cannot be reduced by lowering the IBR. You have to stop the babies from dying. Poverty will not be eliminated by giving people checks every month. You have to give them jobs.

Government provided jobs resurected America from the great depression, NOT WELFARE!

[Dexter Rutecki]

Instead of just discrediting the author, why not take a stab at the content?

I thought it was interesting to see what hole this guy had crawled out of, and wasn't too surprised when I found out (although it took about three minutes longer on Google than I had intended).

The entire arguement of Mokhiber and Weissman is backed up with nothing more than an insult:

Only if all you choose to see is the insult, and know nothing of what big oil wants to do with alternative fuels.

They then go on to do a very good job of smearing Tracinski with a tried and true strategy: guilt by association.

But he is guilty as charged, so why avoid it?

So basically, Tracinski is nothing more than an Alan Greenspan groupie. Hurray. Can we get back to the why he is wrong about his opinion?
Not quite yet, they have to dig the grave a bit deeper:

So you buy into Voodoo Economics? I thought all you guys were gone.

Oh gosh! Microsoft! this must be terrible!

You think it's a feather in his cap?

The rest of their article shows the link between The center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism and Microsoft. Who else would support such a center but a major corporation?

I can't think of anyone else either, and that should tell you something.

I know the whole purpose of you posting this was to show that
but I have to ask, what does this have to do with anything?

Something tells me you already know the answer (see the Reagonomics part for more on that).

Obviously, there are major simularities between libertarianism and objectivism (what Rand called her philosophy, not Reaganism which was a very cleaver way of linking her to a conservative republican - aka the enemy.) Neither believe in the quinary sector's control of society. This is the reason objectivism has been refered to as the opposite of socialism. Ayn Rand escaped from Russia after communism left her family on the brink of starvation, so you could see where her ideals come from.

Call it what you like, I ain't buying it no matter where that Rand wacko came from.

Please, instead of trying to slander the author of the article, try to come up with an arguement to it. Or even better, justification to why rescue workers are getting shot at.

Like I said, I just wanted to know a little more about the guy. He's a crackpot who wants to starve the beast, but there are a whole bunch of those types running around, and I frankly don't see what can be gained by pretending his arguments have any merit. CJ did a pretty damn good job of showing how silly his premise (more money for rich corporations is good, essentially) is. It just irks me how unrealistic the libertarian position in general is, and how it seems to be just a label used as a shield for those who don't want have any responsibility for their own society (meaning they'd rather not pay taxes, except for roads and police and other things that immediately benefit themselves).

[Core Shot]

Funny to hear you complain about the public project slums of Chicago. Clearly what those projects replaced, market produced ghettos filled with the poor would have been a better solution.

English!!
Do you speak it, motherfucker!!!

I assume you are trying to say is that vertical slums funded by the governement are better than low rise slums funded by the private sector slumlords??

Actually, if you re-read my more coherent than yours post, I said that the good news in Chicago is that the high rise public housing slums are being replaced by scattered site public housing, and I was not complaining - I was applauding the development.
One of the historical downfalls of the black community was that civil rights and integration allowed the black middle and upper classes to move into the nicer white neighborhoods leaving in their wake nothing but the poorest folk that could not afford the move (and those few that could afford it but stayed out of an admirable idealism that their community should remain mixed income).

The modern development (scattered site) seeks to ameliorate the situation by scattering public housing throughout the more affluent community so that the future generations see that there is more to life than the limited welfare or poverty existence. These kids finally have the middle class role models that their grandparents generation had.

In a related sideline, I think Bill Cosby has been admirably speaking the truth lately (although you probably consider him a sellout) on this and many other important issues of modern black culture that are not helping the community to suceed as well as it should.

[PacRimRider1]

I'm going to have to agree with you that the guy is a crackpot, but that doesn't negate the entire article. Both Tracinski and Rand where extremists, but so are a lot of people from whom we can learn. Did you hear Van Gogh cut off his ear? Unbelievable! I will NEVER look at any of that shit!

If there is a cheaper alternative to oil there will be nothing big oil can do to stop it if they have no government to help them(as described in Atlas Shrugged.)

Anyone with an idea that can make money should supporst some aspects of objectivism, mainly a free and unlimited marketplace. Was it the unmonopolization of Microsoft by the courts that dug Apple out its hole? No! It was a very good idea called the iPod. Call this Voodoo Economics if you want, but I'm young and a college drop out so I don't know what that means.

I don't call myself a libertarian, but my father does and occasionally he makes some sense. Yes, the guy doesn't want to give half his paycheck to a government that can't handle fixing a road in a timely manner, much less a major relief effort of a very important city to our economy. Is that so bad?

I think Tracinski came close to the point but didn't explain it well enough. Like I said earlier, the people in the projects, be they white, black or any shade in between, depended on their welfare checks for survival. Can this be argued? The same government they depended on for survival was not there when they needed it. Can this be argued? They might as well have taken their housing and checks away from them at the same time.



Wait, that is what happened.

[cj001f]

If there is a cheaper alternative to oil there will be nothing big oil can do to stop it if they have no government to help them(as described in Atlas Shrugged.)

In the world of fiction that may be true. In the real world things aren't so simple. Especially when government funds most of the worlds science because most of industry doesn't have the attention span to develop anything that won't appear within the current CEO's reign (read 2 years).

Was it the unmonopolization of Microsoft by the courts that dug Apple out its hole? No! It was a very good idea called the iPod. Call this Voodoo Economics if you want, but I'm young and a college drop out so I don't know what that means.

The DOJ sued Microsoft, because, among other things, Microsoft approached Netscape and told them without a seat on the board and a stake in the Netscape they'd run them out of business. They'd run Netscape out of business because Microsoft would no longer allow early developer access to the Windows API for Netscape programmers, i.e. Netscape wouldn't run on Windows computers in any reasonable time after a Windows release. If it'd work'd the first time I'm sure Microsoft would have tried that with Apple this time around.

I don't call myself a libertarian, but my father does and occasionally he makes some sense. Yes, the guy doesn't want to give half his paycheck to a government that can't handle fixing a road in a timely manner, much less a major relief effort of a very important city to our economy. Is that so bad?

He gets massive benefits from society, why shouldn't he pay for them?

I think Tracinski came close to the point but didn't explain it well enough. Like I said earlier, the people in the projects, be they white, black or any shade in between, depended on their welfare checks for survival. Can this be argued? The same government they depended on for survival was not there when they needed it. Can this be argued? They might as well have taken their housing and checks away from them at the same time.

So without aid they wouldn't be poor? Or they wouldn't live in New Orleans? Without the welfare state they'd be better prepared to handle floods? History says: no. History also shows hundreds of events pre, post and during "welfare states" where humans acted like savages in times of crisis.

[PacRimRider1]

A government would not do anything that would not benifit them directly. In this way, they are acting just like any corporation. When Japan or China or whoever it is develops cold fusion or efficient solar cells or whatever it is do you think they are going to just give it to the other countries of the world? Do you think they are going to just give it to their people even? This is not an act of governing, it is an act of capitalism. The only difference is they have not generated their R&D funds by creating new products, but by taxing their people.

The DOJ sued Microsoft, because, among other things, Microsoft approached Netscape and told them without a seat on the board and a stake in the Netscape they'd run them out of business. They'd run Netscape out of business because Microsoft would no longer allow early developer access to the Windows API for Netscape programmers, i.e. Netscape wouldn't run on Windows computers in any reasonable time after a Windows release. If it'd work'd the first time I'm sure Microsoft would have tried that with Apple this time around.

Where oh where would we be without Netscape? Is anyone here using Netscape?

Microsoft did everything in their power to eliminate Apple from the market despite the fact that their share was only about 10% of computer sales in the late 90's. An idea, the iPod, essentially saved the company. Now we see these companies making software compatible with eachother not because of court mandates but because it brings more attention to the market and thus a bigger pie for everyone to take their piece from.

This

He gets massive benefits from society, why shouldn't he pay for them?

is circular logic. His only problem getting "benefits he pays for" is that he didn't "pay for the benefits" (see, I can do it too! ) My point is, I can see how someone might be upset when they come home to find their lawn mowed and a bill in the mailbox from the kid down the street.

I am saying, since LBJ declaired a "War on Poverty," those born unto poverty have no better chance of advancing themselves than they did 51 years ago prior to this declairation (gosh, these "War on ____"'s don't work out so welldo they.) The "welfare state" has set the people who are stuck in it up for failure and demolition when put up against a catastrophy that welfare could not prepare them for. If they were able to aquire a surplus of supplies or the means to leave the projects when the hurricane hit, the situation would have been different. This will never happen when people are given the bare minimum to survive. In fact, this will never happen when people are given anything at all. They need to earn it.

Of coarse there are examples of savagery in history. It is my opinion, however, that they have no place in 21st century America. If there is a problem that has caused what happened in NO, we should do everything within our power to seek it out and prevent it from happening in the future.

[shamrockpow]

I am saying, since LBJ declaired a "War on Poverty," those born unto poverty have no better chance of advancing themselves than they did 51 years ago prior to this declairation (gosh, these "War on ____"'s don't work out so welldo they.) The "welfare state" has set the people who are stuck in it up for failure and demolition when put up against a catastrophy that welfare could not prepare them for. If they were able to aquire a surplus of supplies or the means to leave the projects when the hurricane hit, the situation would have been different. This will never happen when people are given the bare minimum to survive. In fact, this will never happen when people are given anything at all. They need to earn it.

This claim about the WOP is one that gets thrown around all too loosely. Sure, poverty still exists, but there is overwhelming empirical research that demonstrates how we yanked literally millions of Americans off the poverty rolls. Since 1973 (and the Nixon/Reagan/Bush ascendancy) the median hourly wage in the U.S. has only risen 2 cents, while per capita income has increased 75 percent (this info is per Robert Reich's recent NYTimes op-ed). If you want to get a better look at the poverty trend lines, get access to econlit.org (most libraries and any university library) and search for Robert Gordon's work. He has done some of the most exhaustive work on the subject. I would argue that by either normative or objective measures, this type of gap is bad for society.

As for more extreme libertarian concerns about society, specifically the gov'ts role therein, I am sympathetic to an extent. In my view, there are a number of roles that an organized government can serve. One is to stifle opposition over competing property claims. The other is to deal with market failures, which in our modern world may be numerous. It doesn't help matters that many of the most extreme advocates of a libertarian world are in fact the greatest beneficiaries of our current system. Property rights are paramount in this view since any violation is an encroachment towards "negative liberty." I don't believe equity in and of itself is an ideal, but simply working off of existing property claims seems to be a recipe for disaster and disorder.

There are a lot of moral/philosophical arguements that you can feel free to expand on (that's not my subject), but from an economic viewpoint most libertarian ideas remain horribly under-tested and in the most extreme cases of experimentation (Chile, 1973-1989) have performed poorly by any interpretation. I have yet to see a convincing arguement from a libertarian that explains how to get from point A (our present system) to point B (a true libertarian system) without sounding like a wide-eyed fascist or anarchist.

Bash away!

[PacRimRider1]

I am not a libertarian and never claimed to be one. I posted that article simply because it brings up a point that has gone, in my opinion, overlooked. Fox News has been calling the looters (of electronics and other non food items) criminals and theives with no concern of why there came to be so many of them. They write them off as evil, amoral people without examining how they came to be that way.
This article gave a very extreme and uncompassionate explaination of how they came to be that way. It seems to have pissed people off (which I understand) and unfortunately, caused them to associate it to my thoughts on the subject.
So I will explain exactly where my thoughts contrast those of Tracinski's.
He describesthe majority of the refugees (and that is what they are, not evacuees) who were stranded in the Superdome after the flooding as comming from two groups - criminals who were let out of jail, and those of the "welfare state," people "selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness."
I disagree with this statement. These people are multigenerational welfare collectors who knew no other way of life, were not given opportunities to better their lives, and more importantly, the motivation to do so. Welfare checks where introduced by President Johnson to a generation whose parents dug themselves out of a natural disaster that claimed many more lives and left many more desolate than Katrina - the crash of the stock market which lead to the Great Depression. It was a way of keeping people from starving to death, which I don't think anyone with a heart can argue with. The generations that followed realised they did not need to work and lost the drive to. It was a failure of the government in not comming up with a better solution than printing checks out every month that caused this, not a "lack of initiative." What they needed was education, and the knowlege that things can be so much better than barely enough, something that cannot be taught in high rise projects hidden from the rest of the country.

So please, do not call me a rich white asshole. I know I hit the jackpot when I was born to a father with a master's degree and a mother who was able to care for me. I know the stranded people in NO cannot be blamed for having no initiative in evacuating the city when the call when out, nor the means to do so. But do think for a moment that this is not about initiative and means. It is the only reason some people got out of that city, and some didn't.

[Game Over]

cj, I gotta say I almost always appreciate what you bring to the discussion.

same here.

[The AD]

I've always thought it must be difficult to run as a Libertarian candidate. "Vote for me and I promise to do as little as possible."

[jSki]

I've always thought it must be difficult to run as a Libertarian candidate. "Vote for me and I promise to do as little as possible."

Stopping the government from invading countries, stop locking millions up for nonviolent drug crimes and reducing a $2.5+ trillion budget is as little as possible?