Socialists often respond to libertarian objections to the encroachments upon individual freedom by saying “if you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
A classic example is in the comments section of a recent post by Robert Wenzel entitled The Economics of “Predatory Lending”.
I encourage you to read this excellent post now.
This article prompted the following comment by the Socialist posting as “Anonymous”:
All of this economic theorizing works just fine, until it runs into the reality of low IQ menial laborers, who, from time to time itch to go get properly drunk at a bar or the like.
I am somewhat baffled that someone can claim, apparently with a straight face, that people risk going hungry in a country of food stamps and food banks for all who qualify. Do you honestly believe this yourself, Mr. Wenzel?
To which I responded:
Please read “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.
Your logic is faulty when you cite the person of “low IQ” because they will pay the high rates regardless of whether or not there is a cap.
When you assume the fatal conceit of believing you know what is best for other people, you seal your own fate because you accept the belief that some men have the right to tell others how to live.
Please do your self (and the rest of us) a favor and read Mr. Hazlitt’s book – it’s available for free here:
Incidentally, food stamps/banks are typically funded by stolen (via taxation) money – in case you didn’t know…
The Socialist then responded:
Sorry a person who purports to value freedom,
YOUR logic is faulty, and horribly so.
First of all, as long as you VOLUNTARILY live in the United States, that is unless PHYSICALLY prevented from leaving the United States, you pay your takes of your own assent, and any talk of the taxes being “stolen” is utter nonsense.
Your second claim is also nonsense. I harbor no fatal conceit that “some have the right to tell others how to live;” what I believe, and what has been the case since our existence as cave men, is that when humans live together, they have agreed to the parameters of their co-existence or left their group.
Ever since 1776, real Americans have used the electoral process to determine who these rules were to be made (a few stolen elections notwithstanding.) I don’t believe they get everything right, but I believe that someone has to make the rules, and that if I don’t like the rules, I should either get involved inthe political system, or move somewhere else.
If you reject the Americna tradition, may I urge you to move to a more congenial political system?
As for paycheck loans, many of them are impulse decisions by low IQ people. Banning them won’t make the disappear, but will make them rarer, and harder to enforce.
The fact of the matter is that America has a fair number of functional illiterates on the bad side of the bell curve who can barely take care of themselves, even if one of them was recently president. The snotty bastards are not those who talk about this fact, but those who couldn’t care less.
To which I responded:
In response to Anonymous above:
“Your second claim is also nonsense. I harbor no fatal conceit that “some have the right to tell others how to live;” what I believe, and what has been the case since our existence as cave men, is that when humans live together, they have agreed to the parameters of their co-existence or left their group.”
To which I respond:
Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gang of the majority decide to take your life, liberty, or property then you have to move if you don’t agree with their vote.
You also wrote:
“If you reject the American tradition, may I urge you to move to a more congenial political system?”
To which I respond:
This is a continuation of your argument and it fails because you are essentially saying “It is okay to kill, enslave, and plunder and, if you don’t like it, you are welcomed to leave.”
Just because someone makes – in your opinion – a poor decision, you feel that you have the right to override their free will and make the decision for them. This is spoken like a true Socialist – one who has good intentions but whose actions result in evil perversions.
This is a common argument put forth by Statists and Socialists which can often leave you at a loss as to how to respond. This is also an argument these people put forth in order to justify to themselves their own violent actions. Be careful not to fall into this trap of lazy thinking! If you have not done so already, read Lysander Spooner’s No Treason VI: The Constitution of No Authority.