Comments to a Libertarian

I'm Facebook friends with someone I went to college with. I was oblivious to politics then (oh, the good old days!), otherwise we would likely not have been friends then. Still, he was and is a good person, even if terribly misguided (lol?). 

We battle a bit about politics. Sometimes I am able to just heave a sigh and move on. Other times I get WAYYYY too "into" it and spend days fuming at the general hard-heartedness of some people, go too deep in my own head and it's not a good thing.

Today he posted a Breitbart (!) article basically slamming Canada's Prime Minister (whom I enjoy very much, not least because he is not difficult on the eyes, but mostly because he's generally awesome) regarding the recent influx of immigrants. I had what I considered to be an interesting exchange, which started with a sassy comment on my part (I know, shocking), but ended with something I'm likely to think about a good deal and want to remember.  

So I actually remembered I had a blog, and figured here is a good place to put it, and maybe someone else will read it and comment, or maybe I'll just find it some time from now and remember what I was thinking about today.  It's by no means the most profound exchange I've ever had, but since I've forgotten most of those, all I can do is go from here. Here we go:

***************

mk: Compassion is such a horrible thing. Screw humanity, every man for himself!

A: Ok, I dont want to work anymore, I am tired my back and neck are killing me and I am often frustrated with high stress. I deserve a roof over my head and 3 meals a day. Don't forget the cell phone for emergencies and access to the internet. In compassion someone should help me. Are you going to pay for it? Do you have a moral obligation to take care of me as a fellow person?

mk: Big difference between "want" and "able". Talk to me when you've got a legit disability and everywhere you turn you hear that you should have worked harder to be able-bodied.

A: Again you take the point to personal. But for those who can work or people here illegally that are on the government subsidizes, with compassion aren't you obligated to pay for them as I used my self as an obscure example, but as usual nice pivot from who should pay for compassion.

mk: No, -my- point is that you are conflating people who choose not to do something versus people who are unable to do something. And yes, I believe that there is a societal obligation to help people who -cannot- do for themselves. I'm full-on okay with my taxes being used for programs to that effect.

I also believe that you -vastly- overestimate the amount of federal funds that directly benefit illegal immigrants. Unauthorized/undocumented immigrants don't qualify for the majority of government assistance programs. Their children, many of whom are legal citizens, might. Most funds and programs that undocumented immigrants are able to utilize are provided at the state and local levels.

A: By many medical standards I could qualify for disability. So there are many, not all, that are able but choose not too. Everyone underestimates personal responsibility, and family responsibility, and local community, local government state government. Rather than assume personal responsibility the world looks for the largest form of government as the first option. While I believe in compassion and I believe in helping out. I also believe Neither are the place for federal government involvement. Government is the rule of law applied equally and blindly. The war on poverty other than spending 10s of trillions of $, only success was making it more comfortable to accept poverty and dependence on Government. It is providing minimal fish at high cost, rather than teaching one to fish and be responsible. Yes there are people who need help but as a society we have taken an upside down view. Heck there used to be a stigma if you took any medicine, and we over compensated that it is abnormal not to have any prescription medication. I am not on board with the left side of politics and their social experimentation. Yes I am combining things and on a rant, but it all ties together by going to the opposite extremes of societal norms and if you don't go along with the social agenda you're the problem. Example now big government is good, personal responsibility is bad for the collective. The exact opposite of how the country was found, I was brought up, and many beliefs of mine and others.

mk: Change is inevitable. Nothing stays as it starts out. Continuing to rail that things aren't the same as they were when they started, is futile. Society, and government, will not move backwards. no matter how much you want it to.

I disagree with your assessment that personal responsibility is considered bad. I think you expect the umbrella of "personal responsibility" to cover everything that you don't want to be "burdened" with. That's not the way the world works. Quick example: farming communities, who work together to bring in the harvest, regardless of who owns the land. They recognize that pooling resources and effort benefits the entirety of the community. When the harvest is over, they go back to their own pursuits. Scream "socialism" if you want, but there are no absolutes on this. There are -parts- of socialism that work, just as there are -parts- of liberalism that work.

The United States of America is, and has been since its creation, a social experiment. It was a new form of government: of, by, and for the people. It is a "living" thing, changing and adapting for its survival. You don't have to like it (and obviously you don't), but you can't stop it.

***************

That's it. Like I said, not the most profound exchange ever, but it's a snapshot of my mind today.

~mk