Why do libertarians seem to like the rich yet dislike the poor?

As a preface, I do think that most long-term poor people, based on my experience, are a combination of lowly-driven and not very intelligent (not dumb, but not too smart), and also, very impulsive and immediate-pleasure-seeking, without considering the long term or future very well. So don't think that this is a "oh these poor poor people" thread.

However..I will firstly post my reasoning as to why it doesn't make sense that a libertarian would have this personal partiality towards "rich" people that most of them seem to have (based on many posts I've seen across multiple forums through the years)..as well as a disgust/personal distaste for "poor" people that these same self-labeled "libertarians" consistently express (even if they say it implicitly; it wouldn't be good for their reputation to outright say "I hate poor people"). (No really, I'm not pulling that out of thin air. It really is a consistent observation of mine that they seem to dislike poor people and like rich people; it oozes from consistently from their remarks. Really.)

1. no one that has an intellect above the level of an ant doesn't realize that the reality is, money/wealth, in a society driven by money/wealth, equates to POWER. With money/wealth, you can bribe people, give incentives to people for things (whether criminal or not), and basically run your local part of society in the way you choose. In fact, if there were no restrictions on weapons ownership, it would also be true that the more money/wealth you have, the more dangerous weapons you could buy; I can only buy a small pistol, but a rich person could buy a tank, or even a nuclear weapon, theoretically; this would allow them to yield DIRECT power, in proportion to their money/wealth.

Obviously, a true libertarian would be opposed to any one person or group of individuals having a level of power which far exceeded most other people. Yet, with more money/wealth, you can, essentially, BUY power (especially in a free market with no regulations on what you can buy).

2. The second reason why it makes no sense that a libertarian would love rich people and dislike poor people is because (and this is really part of the first point, but I wanted to emphasize it separately) is because of the answer to these two questions:

How is it that politicians get their power and make this country into the corporate entity it is today? And what reason did they have for doing so? The answer to both questions is the same.

MONEY!!! That's why; it is rich people who essentially buy politicians. They fund their campaigns privately and try to make sure that the people who get in office will SECURE this corporatism that we live under today in this country!! See, libertarians should, ideally, dislike this and be against rich people doing this, but they're not; instead, most self-proclaimed libertarians tend to bash poor old people for receiving medicare and the like, and sympathize with the rich whom others want to tax heavily, yet completely overlook the people who CAUSED this corporate government - RICH PEOPLE!!!!


I mean, this is INCREDIBLY (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. I mean, (*)(*)(*)(*) YOU PEOPLE who think that government is evil and at the same time DON'T think that runaway wealth should not be regulated to some extent. (*)(*)(*)(*) YOU.

(*)(*)(*)(*).

YOU.

The absolute SINGLE pair of possible reasons I can think of, that would explain why most self-proclaimed libertarians that I've personally come across seem to have this anti-poor, pro-rich mentality, in SPITE of the fact that rich people are really, in this world the main OPPRESSORS of liberty and PROLIFERATORS of government, is either one of two reasons (or both):

1. they are simply ignorant of how the real world works (that is, money/wealth buys power and those with the most money/wealth have the most power and thus the most oppressive capacity), OR (and this will make a lot of you self-proclaimed "libertarians" who are obsessed with runaway capitalism become defensive, since you'll know I'm speaking the gospel truth here and hitting the nail RIGHT on the head):

2. they are being driven totally by pure selfishness, and are basically operating on "I want to be able to be greedy and purely selfish even if it ultimately is at the expense of others, and I don't want anyone to stop me or regulate me in doing this and just get out of my way". Which would not be "liberty seeking" at all; it'd be GREED seeking. It's nothing but PURE RUNAWAY SELFISHNESS that essentially results in a growing cancerous tumor in society that must be regulated, or else have said society face the dire consequences of this ever-growing tumor, in the same way that government must be regulated and limited..this government which, AGAIN, as I've mentioned is really truly being CAUSED BY rich people!!

I mean, does anyone see the points I'm trying to make? It's the pot calling the kettle black..or more accurately, it's just pure hypocrisy.

 

The majority of consolidated wealth is created via corporate welfare, something any true libertarian would staunchly oppose. Your premise is wrong, the argument is invalid.

 

Okay, then why do most self-proclaimed libertarians seem to hate taxing these same rich people who, according to your unsourced unreliable claim here, got it by unjust means? Are they simply ignorant of this supposed fact that you say here, which is that they get it by corporate welfare?

Or do they simply have a distaste for poor people and a love for rich people, fed largely by an "I want to be as purely selfish and greedy as possible without anyone getting in my way, and I don't care who gets hurt directly or indirectly as a result, and I want everyone to accept that" attitude?

If the latter is true, it would be a perfect explanation as to why most self-proclaimed libertarians also seem to hate the idea of peaceful unions and employee's rights, and be in love with dominating employers.

It would just make perfect sense. hmmmmm.

 

I think many libertarians approve of taxes used for purposes they believe promote liberty - a justice system to enforce contracts, national defense, etc. I haven't found that libertarians are more or less greedy than anyone else - they'd just prefer to be free to donate their hard-earned money to the causes they support rather than handing them over to the government and allowing bureaucrats to spend the money on their behalf. I'm sure some are greedy, but to generalize and include all libertarians in that category is dishonest.

 

You seem to be confusing libertarian with neo-conservative. You claim that the rick manage to buy politicians, which is true. However taxation is not going to address this problem, politicians can still be bought regardless of the taxation. The libertarian argument is to remove the powers whose usage is being bought. This is the exact position of the libertarian. What you putting forward is not he belief of libertarians. As for taxes that is regarding effective allocation of resources, efficiency, real prices, and then in a more structural sense a more abstract argument of property rights.

It has nothing to do with selfishness or greediness. The same rational process that motivates charitable giving also motivate business transactions. You know this sort of sounds like an impressionable person took one political science class from a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty professor who thought they understood economic action but all they really understood was superficial garbage. Now from what I can tell from reading your past comments, that is not the case with you. Normally you seem to put forward an alright arguement, but what is quoted above, no offense, if garbage and nothing more.

 

When someone becomes rich enough, they have the ability to BUY power. Why do libertarians want rich people to have a lot of power?

Doesn't power seem to ring along the same tune as..oppression?

See my point?

Lastly, if we followed the policies that most libertarians seem to want, wealth disparity would increase.

 

I knew a libertarian who was a Jewish atheist from a rich family and he probably liked rich people because he himself was rich. But he was very generous with his money. We College Republicans went to a Las Vegas comedy show and he bribed the usher $20 so all of us could have a good table near the front.

I knew a very rich man in the pro-life movement. His function in our little group was to pay for everything, including meals at expensive restaurants. He told us that he never, ever paid income taxes. I believe this foolish man will eventually get caught by the IRS since he brags to everyone he meets that he doesn't pay income taxes.

My childhood friend worked very hard and became rich. I don't know how rich he really was, because he lied so much about everything. But he quite often paid for everyone at the restaurant and paid for everyone's movie tickets.

I work for two women who are very rich. Every year around Christmas, they throw a party at a very expensive restaurant here in Las Vegas. I enjoy wine and a meal I could never afford for myself. My bosses pick up the entire tab.

I'm not a libertarian, but I guess the reason I like rich people is that when I'm around them, they pick up the check for everything, and I get free meals and entertainment.

Poor people, on the other hand, have never given me anything. When I'm around poor people (teenagers without jobs), I pay for everything. So instead of me paying for one meal for myself, I pay to feed an entire army of my children and all their friends. Once in a while, one of the kids will show up with food to contribute, but usually not.

 

Libertarians are against the government playing favorites. Libertarians are against government control.

Libertarians don't hate poor people, they hate government handouts - for rich or for poor people. Libertarians hate policies that favor one group over another, as so many of our laws do. Libertarians don't like laws that protect the stupid from themselves because those laws infringe on the freedoms of everyone else.

Libertarians don't love the rich, they love the self-sufficient. They love people who don't rely on the government. They love people who love real freedom and independence.

Libertarians don't like the rich who get that way through corporate welfare and government favoritism. They hate CEOs of AIG, GM, Chrysler and all of the other bailed-out companies as much as they hate all of the people who load their food-stamp steaks and shrimp in the back of their Escalades.

In the end, libertarians hate intrusive government. The more people rely on the government, the more Libertarian policies seem to be hatred toward those people. In reality, they don't hate those people, they hate the policies and programs those people rely on.

 

This is a pretty good point. But still, money doesn't have to buy power in the form of politics. A rich person could, under a purely free market, buy a tank, bazookas and some employees who could essentially act as their personal soldiers. There wouldn't be any restrictions on that in a free market, would there?

Let me clarify; maybe I'm jaded because of the things a few self-proclaimed libertarians have said, but they seem to be against not only public unions, but seem to have a dislike towards private, peaceful ones too. They seem to say a lot of things that show a subjective, personal partiality towards big employers and with Squidward's comment of "I hope the poor have to eat their babies" among other things, it seems that this partiality I speak of is true..for some of them.

Now if you personally are a libertarian and don't have these views, then good, but a lot of them seem to. Again, perhaps I'm just jaded because of the comments of a few.

 

Rich people probably also have outsourced a TON of jobs that could be held by you, but instead are being held by desperate foreigners. Do you like that?

 

everyone wants to be rich, no sane person wants to be poor.

 

There are a lot of psuedolibertarians who never put their money where their mouth is, I have no problem conceding that.

 

Then how do you explain "I hope the poor have to eat their babies" and "I'd rather be ruled by the rich than be ruled by any government", both of which are exact quotes that I recall, off the top of my head, from two different self-proclaimed libertarians on two different forums?

Maybe these are just comments from the minority, who knows.

 

And you, sir, have now proved to be insane for making this reductionist absolutist sweeping generalization. Great job

 

And that power is what libertarians want to limit and prevent. The only purpose of government is to protect one individual from another, from the kind of power you describe.

As for the power that the rich buy, with a tightly limited government authority, that power wouldn't even exist. Most of the power that the rich buy comes from purchasing government power. Take that power away from the government and you take that power away from the rich.

 

Maybe we'll just have to test whether this is true or not by electing Ron Paul..not that he has a huge chance.

 

You are very correct, bradm98.

Especially when you say, "The libertarians just prefer to be free to donate their hard-earned money to the causes they support rather than handing them over to the government and allowing bureaucrats to spend the money on their behalf."

Also, no one I know 'hates" the poor. Many of us however, are fearful of the poor and here is why!

This mess was created by a very permissive society and an overly liberal "nanny" state in which these young people all feel "entitled" to take whatever they want!



Here is an angry face and destructive behavior only a mother can love! Mayor Michael A. Nutter, telling marauding black youths in Philadelphia, “you have damaged your own race,” imposed a tougher curfew Monday in response to the latest “flash mob” — spontaneous groups of teens who attack people at random on the streets of the city’s tourist and fashionable shopping districts.

“Take those God-darn hoodies down, especially in the summer,” Mr. Nutter, the city’s third black mayor, said in an angry lecture aimed at black teens. “Pull your pants up and buy a belt ‘cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.”

 

The issue is NOT raising taxes on the rich. The issue is finding answers. And raising taxes on the rich holds NO answer to our national financial plight. We need more volume in our economy. That is were the revenue must come from. More people working and paying taxes, NOT a few paying higher taxes.

There are 14 million rich people. The tax increase of 4.9% on them, AND THAT IS ALL THE DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS IN POWER ARE TALKING ABOUT, only raises $70 billion.

We have over 20 million unemployed. Put only 14 million of them back to work paying only the 10% their bracket calls for and there is more money. Better yet revamp the tax code and do away with tax breaks, lower the rates for all but have ALL pay something. That would help more. And we do that AFTER we have cut $3 trillion out of Government spending, then we don't need so much revenue to pay our national bills.

Answers, not scapegoat target groups.

 

thanks, it's what i do.

hey? has anyone seen my dog?

 

Okay..well...

What part of "employers are exploiting desperate people in China and India and southeast asia as well as illegals from Mexico, which is why people from here have so much less jobs than before this exploitation occurred" do you NOT understand?

 

Why does an american deserve a job more than an Indian or Chinese person?

 

My job is not outsourced and never could be. A foreigner could never do my job.

 

Because libertarians would rather solve the problem than put a band-aid on it. Instead of retrieving the stolen wealth through taxation and enriching the state, we demand they never steal the wealth in the first place! Fancy that!

The state is the number one reason why poor people stay poor. As soon as you realize this, the better you'll understand where libertarians are coming from...

 

the need for a work visa is the only thing stopping a Canadian or Mexican from taking the seat right out of my truck...that and a requirement to be proficient enough in English to communicate with first responders...that's what's really holding back the Canucks.

 

They don't. Your hatred of what you call the rich might make it seem that way.