Libertarians are often disdainful of the Welfare recipient. Not the system, which I agree to be a social evil, but of the recipients themselves. Single parent homes and other situations involving childcare contribute to the bulk of Welfare recipients and libertarians often view these people who were imprudent in their lives and are paying the price now. Some contribute this to libertarian demographics, claiming that libertarianism is "the rich man's anarchy" or "liberalism for old white men".
Is this true? Are libertarians demographically more likely to be rich than their liberal counterparts? The answer is no if you go by a study done by the PEW research center in 2006. In fact libertarians were shown to be slightly poorer, on average, than their liberal counterparts.
What then am I missing? Am I wrong about most libertarians? Are very few actually disdainful of those who live off the State at the bottom of the pyramid? Certainly the State is a broken system but it sits upon the backs of the poor and always has. Since the days of Aryan invasions and classes based on ethnicity, the State has existed to serve and preserve an upper class. Why shouldn't the poor and powerless take back what they can get?
As a character in Mario Puzo's "The Fortunate Pilgrim" says,
"Take whatever you can get because the accursed State will steal it back from you five times over!"
The fact that these people even need help is a symptom of the disease which includes government as one of its many causes. Perhaps we should focus our attention on the elite and ally ourselves with those who are being oppressed. That is the only way these social evils will ever be truly cured.
No comments:
Post a Comment