0
1

[–] TeardropsFromHell 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Allow anyone who wishes to to abstain from donating to the fund and sure. Once you start forcing people to contribute to causes that you agree with and they don't then you are no longer advocating for libertarianism. That is one of my favorite parts of libertarianism. We don't want to force anyone else to be libertarian while democrats and republicans both want to force their own values on people.

1
-1

[–] CowWithBeef [S] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I do not believe it is possible to achieve purely voluntary contribution. Limited government complexity is more important to me than limited government economic influence. I'm more worried about corruption and waste than economic redistribution. The economy is a game and the government is the referee. It's best if the game is simple enough that the players can understand it. Overly limiting the tools the referees have to dissuade cheating seems like an invitation for disorder.

Perhaps Libertarianism is only the closest of the major American political ideologies to my own beliefs. For instance I believe giving $50 to a waitress generates more happiness than giving $50 to Warren Buffett, so a more equal distribution of wealth is an inherent good. A pure libertarian would believe that the increase in happiness would never be worth the decrease in liberty caused by forcing Warren Buffett to give a waitress $50, or would actually deny the truth that it increases happiness. I believe the rules of the economic game should be designed to give advantages to the people who are losing.

0
0

[–] TeardropsFromHell 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

For instance I believe giving $50 to a waitress generates more happiness than giving $50 to Warren Buffett,

You advocate in the belief in diminishing marginal utility of money but that theory can never be proved because value is based purely on the subjective beliefs of individuals. What if there is a rich man who values money above all else, every penny to him is priceless. He is a total miser, a real Scrooge McDuck. On the other hand you have a pure saint, a mother Teresa who cares not at all for money. Is giving the $50 to the latter going to generate more or less happiness? Less evidently. You are assigning your own personal beliefs, that poorer people gain more happiness from money, and using those beliefs to govern the economy as a whole.

A pure libertarian would believe that the increase in happiness would never be worth the decrease in liberty caused by forcing Warren Buffett to give a waitress $50, or would actually deny the truth that it increases happiness.

Almost but not quite. A "pure" libertarian would believe that you cannot do harm in order to do good, the ends do not justify the means and you have no right to decide what those means are or what ends are worth obtaining. At what point do you draw the line? If stealing from one to benefit another is okay. What about other forms of violence? If I can make one man a slave to feed a million for free is it worth it? Why or why not? Is it okay to murder a man to save a million lives? Why or why not?

I believe the rules of the economic game should be designed to give advantages to the people who are losing.

You believe that the more productive members of society should be stolen from to benefit the less productive. And you can say that you think that the millionaires today have earned their gains unfairly and I would agree with you. But we can talk about things in a purely libertarian society or we can talk about how things actually are today and today many people earn their money through the coercive arm of the government and they don't deserve that money but the answer is not to give the government more power to take their earnings (and therefore more power to dole those earnings out to whoemever they favor) but to remove the government's ability to make people rich in the first place. What you want, ironically, is the root cause of the thing you seek to destroy. Government can only cause inequality, it cannot fix it. Even systems such as the old Soviet one that purported to make everyone equal only serve to enrich the ultra-elite while everyone else is truly equal...at the bottom.

0
0

[–] sorceressofmaths 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I think there are good libertarian reasons to support a basic income. Hell, even if one is an complete anarchist and does not believe in a basic income distributed by the state, there are prototypes of decentralized, stateless systems that aim to achieve one.