logicallypositive: I also hope people understand and realize there’s a difference between critcizing government programs, specifically welfare, and criticizing people who are dependent upon them and who utilize them. At least personally speaking I criticize government programs not because… Is it wrong to win in a terrible system?I don’t blame people (including myself, I guess) for using/gaming a broken system. The system exists because of money I’m being taxed anyway, so I’m sure as hell taking the Pell grants I’m offered. I don’t blame investment bankers for profiting off of government corruption, either; the problem is the existence of that corruption/the loopholes, not people smart enough to make it work for them.Oops, I think my ENTP is showing.

Libertarians and Stoya!: logicallypositive: I also hope people understand and realize there’s a…

Regardless of your personal politics, do not ever claim that Ron Paul is racist. You may disagree with the man, perhaps you just don’t like him, but to make blatantly nonsensical personal accusations at any individual is to commit intellectual fraud and it does, in fact, call into question your integrity.

hipsterlibertarian: From the article: Women tend to vote for Democrats and non-libertarian Republicans over candidates who more consistently advocate limited government. On an anecdotal level, it’s not uncommon in the youth liberty movement where I work to joke about how an upcoming event will be awesome because there will be “at least one girl for every 30 guys!” (We do actually have a much better ratio than that, I promise.) Some of this discrepancy is perhaps due to a problem of messaging to which libertarians are especially prone: In focusing on the rights and value inherent to the individual, it’s easy for us to forget that the average citizen thinks of herself (and is thought of by those around her) as a member of a number of social categories: female, Muslim, middle class, Hispanic. And, for better or worse, these perceptions influence both the way a person thinks she “should” think about politics and the way others expect her to think about politics. So whether we like it or not, if the liberty movement seeks to continue to grow in popularity, libertarians must learn to speak to the many distinct audiences who may not yet support our message. With women, many say, this messaging problem is particularly tricky because apparently “women are natural socialists”: We want everyone to share and everyone to get along. We are nurturers, and we expect the “haves” to take care of the “have-nots,” the strong to take care of the weak, and the brave to protect the others. … We want everyone to like us and we want everyone to like each other. Men, to put it simply, are more independent in thought and action. Now, this “women are natural socialists” line is one I’ve heard a lot — and one which I don’t find particularly helpful in this or any political debate. After all, if the gentler sex just can’t help loving big government, why bother their pretty little heads arguing with them about it? No use fighting nature, and anyway, dinner will boil over while she tries to think! But the modern liberty movement was actually founded by three (or four?) women, so theoretically libertarianism shouldn’t be too much of a stretch for women today. What’s good for the gander should be good for the goose, and a visit to any Ron Paul rally will make clear that the ideas of liberty appeal to a very wide range of people from all walks of life — all social categories, if you will. Read the whole thing here. Lovely, as always, Bonnie! c:

Apropos to today apparently being International Women’s Day, I’ve got a new piece up at the Daily Caller about why women should be libertarians.

How Government Hurts The Poor

laliberty:

Just a few quick examples, as to elaborate on this question:

1. Minimum wage laws ostensibly exist to offer poorer workers better pay, but tend to leave the lower-skilled workers unemployed instead. ¹
2. Tariffs and tough anti-immigration laws purportedly protect American citizens – poor, lower-skilled individuals in particular – from the “unfair” competition of cheap foreigners. Instead, it drives businesses to other countries or raises prices on products, burdens which weigh much more heavily on the poor. ^{2, 3}
3. Drug prohibition is intended to help rid the streets of dangers, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods; instead, outrageous numbers of poor people are incarcerated (or worse) for non-violent activity. ^{4, 5}
4. The Welfare State, which supposedly functions as a “safety net” for individuals in unfortunate circumstances by providing them assistance (mostly financial), is not only wasteful and corrupt when run through the bureaucratic, palm-greasing sausage-factory that is the state – it also has been shown to function as an impediment in allowing the downtrodden to escape from the cycle of poverty and dependence. ^{6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12}  
5. And then there is war itself, that definitionally destructive and deadly effort, which recruits heavily in poorer communities (the military billboards and recruiting offices in the neighborhoods near me are innumerable) as a way to give poor kids an alternative to gangs and a means to pay for higher education. Yet, in too many cases, it simply offers them death. There are conflicting reports as to whether the composition of military personnel is dominated by recruits from lower-income homes, but it seems at least anecdotally evident that there is a concerted effort to “help” the poor by offering them this “opportunity.” ^{13, 14}

Put frankly: government is no friend of the poor.

Lovely and concise!