SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (98078)3/15/2005 10:19:44 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I simply don't think private institutions can pick up the slack for the kind of social safety net I want to see- so yes, I want to see government mightily involved

I understand your scepticism, but... If, theoretically, private institutions and lower level government could provide that safety net, then I assume you would be OK with that, too. Your objective--to provide the safety net--is understandable. And your perspective that someone unwilling to provide a safety net is selfish is also understandable.

You have apparently concluded that federalism isn't inherently selfish since states may may be able to provide that safety net. Then it logically follows that libertarianism wouldn't be inherently selfish, either, if private institutions could do the job. What you dispute is that private institutions can do the job.

Where do libertarians stand on that? Well, some may believe that private institutions and localities can do the job. Some probably don't give a damn about the safety net and its clientelle. And some don't agree with you at a safety net is in the best interests of society. It seems to me that you could reasonably call that middle group selfish--not giving a damn about those who have afflicted. But I think it's a bum rap for the rest. You may reasonably call them ignorant, mistaken, or deluded in their POV, if you like, but not selfish.