h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I see a lot to agree with in Libertarianism, at least as it's described here, but I see problems-a-plenty with it. The 'everyone for themselves' attitude does reek of selfishness to me - if you can't find a job, succumb to drug addiction etc, then there's no welfare state to help you. 'Provide for yourself or perish' is a way backwards, in my opinion, and not a way to progress.

That's where I have somewhat of disagreement with it, too. Then again, I consider myself to be a moderate libertarian. I agree that there should be safety nets, but I don't think they should be permanent. That just encourages abuse of the system, at the expense of those who are willing and able to provide for themselves. All too often, those programs are used by those who will not help themselves. They are designed for those who cannot.

Libertarians are not averse to charity, though. We just feel that the government doesn't do a very good job of it, so we prefer to leave it to the private organizations.

I don't think charity is a bad thing, either, but I think that there is enough wealth in the world not too need them. I don't know if there is anything similar across the atlantic, but we have a major charity drive in the UK called Comic Relief. 'It's all in a good cause', as they say, and celebrities, comedians, and tv personalities beg us to call them and give money. This is the ugly face of charity, in my opinion. It's not a redistribution of wealth, because those that give, are those that can least afford to. Those in dire need *do* get the help they desperately need, granted, but at the expense of those not far above them on the economic/class scale.

That's why I'm all in favour of a strong welfare state - one that does not impinge on civil liberties, but one that can curtail the immoral activities of the greedy. I'm in favour of a maximum wage, National health care, and public housing. I fear that that a libertarian government would not free people, but would free corporations and the upper classes to exert their will on the working class. Not being averse to charity is all very well - but a fiver every other week to 'Guide Dogs for the Blind' won't solve much.

Good to hear others views, though

I've ended up reckoning that the govt should do some serious amount of wealth redistribution, and practically nothing else (save law, defence, etc). It's just too incompetent to be trusted to get healthcare right...

"It's just too incompetent to be trusted to get healthcare right..."

Then what makes you think it would get wealth redistribution right?

Because that's easy to do - it just involves moving money from one place to another. The government clearly succeeds in taxing people, and the redistribution can be as simple as giving a flat benefit of $X/week to every man, woman, and child. To be fair, you'd probably want to include ways of docking the benefit in some circumstances - in the same way that JobSeeker's benefit can be docked, but even that is something the government does reasonably well...

The government operates with a budget in trillions of dollars, and is still heavily in debt. I don't trust it.

Besides, what's the point in redistributing wealth? Some of those rich people got rich on their own merit. Are we to penalize people for living the American dream? Might as well go completely communist. Nobody can read and write in this country anyway.

"I don't trust it" - with my money.

"All governments are a parliament of whores. But in a democracy, the whores are us."

Well, the point of redistributing wealth is variously:

* In a civilised society, you shouldn't have people starving on the street. Period.

* In the american dream, the poor can go up fast, and the rich can go down fast - given that, shouldn't everyone be seeking to make the life of the poor tolerable, given that the worst could easily happen to them next?

* If you provide a little wealth to those in poverty, you will be repaid handsomely. Reduction in petty crime, more preventative healthcare, and people who get a job and pay their taxes.

Such a scheme wouldn't penalise the rich - they'd still be better off than the poor, and in the end that seems to be what is most cared about. Above what you need to live, it's not how many millions you own, it's how many *more* millions you earn than the guy you walk past in the gutter...

But why reward indigence? It only encourages indolence. I don't think you'll have the radical upswing in opportunities that you expect. The very poor are poor for a very good reason. I know, I started my life as one. They won't get jobs, they'll get high. Then they'll wonder why you haven't sent them more money.

Also, how many poor are there, compared to the number of rich? You may not be able to improve the lives of the poor significantly enough with the funds available, once it has been spread around.

Colonel - you have things the wrong way round. The reason the poor and homeless 'get high', or are 'indolent', is down to the very few opportunities available to them. The attitude of'The very poor are poor for a very good reason' doesn't help anyone - all it does is make you feel less guilty for the status you've acheived.

Imagine yourself living on the streets, with no prospects. It's called 'the poverty trap' for a very good reason, it's almost impossible to get out of - and confronted with the stark reality of your own poverty, who wouldn't get high? Given the choice of your unbelievably harsh life, or an easy one in the 'alternate reality' on drugs, it's easy to see why so many of the people who can least afford it end up hooked.

You say you started life as very poor - in that case I find your opinions astonishing. I assume that you now earn enough to fund a computer and a net connection, so I also assume that you are not as poor as you once were. You must have had some kind of opportunity to better yourself, and I won't believe you if you claim that you did it all on your own, with absolutely no external help. Think how much better the world could be if we helped provide a means for people to get out of poverty.

You also forget the 80/20 divide. There may be a lot more poor than rich, but a little bit of sharing would help more than you assume. You also say 'Some of those rich people got rich on their own merit' - well, to a certain extent that's true, but what is 'merit'? Why should an investment banker earn more than a doctor? Why should a businessman earn more than a teacher, or a social worker, or a fireman, or a policeman, or even the guy who sweeps your street? You can't possibly claim that 'merit' is the reason for these inequalities.

You don't have be a communist to want the world to be just a little bit more fairer. It's saddening to see the attitudes of Senator McCarthy alive and well.

The main problem with ignoring the "underclass" is that they don't go away, they come back and bite you on the ass. Look at any city where social darwinism is in practice (ie any major city in the world). The well-off don't ignore the poor and desperate, they're scared of them!

So, if we get rid of poverty, there's something in it for everybody.

`The very poor are poor for a very good reason.' That's correct, but the reason is probably not the one you think; it's that they were born into the lower class and a largish portion of society refuses to actively help them.
If the very poor are poor "for a very good reason", what is a person supposed to do to leave poverty? When someone's parents aren't available when they're young, they are forced to drop out of school to get a job. Without a high school education, rarely do these jobs pay enough to live on. For such a person, how is there any opportunity for economic growth when you need things as basic as food, water, and a place to sleep--and you need them today?
The poor need help from society. And they need more than food or money, they need opportunity.

Agreed. However, poverty often doesn't affect those who create it, or could help alleviate it and choose to ignore it. Take the recent unrest in Glasgow over asylum seekers - not caused by the influx of refugees so much as crushin poverty. Two groups squabble of the fact that one gets more pennies than the other, while in certain parts of the city, the upper classes live in comfort, untainted. The same goes for Bradford - a similar situation. Meanwhile, the BNP and national front gain political ground. Poverty breeds political extremism, and to stamp out one is to crush the other.

You could also say that poverty is at least part of the problem in Afghanistan - it also produces religious fundamentalism. People in dire need will look for a 'strong leader' - more often than not one at the fringes of conventional thought. Take World War I - Germany destroyed - no help given to rebuild - enter Hitler. (Simplified I know, but I think my point stands). After World War II, there was at least an attempt to heal the wounds - and look at Germany now. Granted, it hasn't had a perfect history since the war - far from it - but it hasn't produced another Hitler, or at least, granted power to one. Afghanistan was left to lie after being reduced to rubble during the cold war - and look at the problems created.

The desperate circle of poverty is an interesting fictional setting, and it sells a lot of movies and books. It's also a good marketing tool for charitable organizations and socialist doctrines.

It also has very little resemblance to reality.

There is a thing called a public education. It is free. It is also of a high quality, but you only get out of it what you put into it. In other words, if you don't care, neither will the administrators. But if you do care, you'll come away fully equipped for the professional world.

But are your aspirations higher? Then apply to college. State colleges are very affordable, but, once again, you have to put into it in order to get anything out of it. I know people who have put themselves through. For me, things weren't working out in that area, for a variety of reasons, and so I took a different route to higher education: military service.

Once again, military service is something from which one can benefit greatly, but only if one is willing to expend the requisite effort. One would be surprised to learn that, at times, that effort is almost laughable.

Poverty is not a trap. Poverty is a convenient excuse. Poverty is an affliction that attacks the lazy, the irresponsible, and the unwise. And I can say this not because of any silly ideologies that I read under comfortable lighting, or saw in the theater with a $5 soda in my hand. I can say this because I saw it with my own eyes. Poor people are not there because they had no opportunities... they're there because they squandered the opportunities that are available to everyone.

err, are you taking the p**s, Colonel?

Sorry, CS, but I think your thinking here is pretty lazy and I think you're confusing realism with cynicism

I am more than happy to admit that a great deal of the working/lower classes or whatever the term is people are a**holes and lazy. I know that, as do many people

Thing is, I also know that many people from privileged backgrounds are exactly the same, and they don't end up on the streets. They end up with nice house and nice car and stupid girlfriend to s**g and beat-up. Not supplied on merit - supplied on privilege

There are also a great deal of bright people from poor households and they get nowhere - not because they didn't try but because the "open doors" available to the (stupid) people mentioned above are not available. That's no fault of their own. History shows that groups stick together and look after their own and keep the others out. That's as true of race as it is of class.

Well, I'm sick of it. I am a passionate believer in individual freedom and I know that it is worthless without opportunity and support from, yes, society. Without that you have social darwinism and the law of the jungle and that just leads to the tyranny of the strong and I think the last 100 years has seen enough of that

If the poor are there only because they squandered opportunities, then why are is the proportion of poor American-born racial minorities much, much greater than that of American-born whites? Is it because racial minorities are more likely to squander opportunities? Just curious how this fits into your views.

I feel hesitant to jump in here because I don't think CS will be persuaded by abstract argument (probably rightly if his personal experience is, as it seems, the opposite of mine) and it seems like there are already enough people arguing against him.

However, in current society, even if there were complete equality of opportunity, there would still be the poor and the rich. Our economic system is geared to work this way, there is much menial, unskilled labour that needs to be done. If it is inescapable that there have to be a certain number of poor people doing unskilled labour (for example), then it hardly matters if everyone had an equal (and presumably small if it really were equal) opportunity to do better, since only a certain number of people could possibly take that opportunity.

It is quite clear to me as a student at an "elite" university that decidedly unintelligent people with a middle class or better background find it very easy to gain places at top rank universities which guarantee getting a good, well payed job afterwards, whereas poorer students find it very difficult to do so. This is built in to the system in various ways; private education and tutoring, available to wealthy parents only, help children to get into better universities; fees and the necessity to take out loans present an entry barrier to poorer students but not to the children of wealthy parents; etc.

Someone from a poor background could not achieve the same status as someone from a wealthy background assuming they were equally talented and expended an equal amount of energy.

Ok, someone needs to jump in on the Colonel's side. (or at least somewhere near his side )

Sir Doug wrote: "If the poor are there only because they squandered opportunities, then why are is the proportion of poor American-born racial minorities much, much greater than that of American-born whites? Is it because racial minorities are more likely to squander opportunities? Just curious how this fits into your views."

Well, I can't speak for Colonel Sellers' views, but I can tell you my own. I'd say, yes, ethnic minorities are more likely to sqander opportunities. Now don't jump down my throat and call me racist or something before I explain.

The causes of the Poverty Cycle (and it's not a fiction, though it's not unbreakable either) are several. One is what you could call Social Inertia. Children are more likely to live lives similar to their parents' lives, because most powerful teacher is Example. It is an exceptional person who will diverge greatly from the path with which he is familiar. Consequence: if one generation of ethnic minorities live in poverty, then so will the next generation, though not without exceptions. These exceptions can be encouraged through good role models, and through education, which brings to mind a second cause.

This second cause is a very subtle yet powerful factor in education. Educators have certain expectations of children. They communicate these expectations through every interaction: how they speak, how they mark a child's papers, whether they call on them in class, and for what questions. The fact is - and don't tell me it isn't, because I've seen it - that most edcators communicate to minority students that they are not smart, and that they will not succeed academically. The kids believe this, unless they are very exceptional kids, which are a minority, by definition.

How is this problem overcome? Very slowly. One solution is to educate educators about this effect and teach them how to avoid it. Another is to stop giving minorities such bad PR. Here's an example: A study was done (and if anyone is interested, I could hunt it down) about how the news media reports stories involving juvenile crime. This was in, like, New Jersey or something. Anyway, when crimes were committed by white kids, the picture of the kid in the paper would usually be their high-school yearbook shot, or a family portrait. When black kids committed a crime, the newspaper would print their mugshot, or a picture of them handcuffed in a courtroom. These images help perpetuate the idea, among whites *and* blacks, that black people are criminals by nature, and that white people are basically wealthy and sucessful, and that it's a fluke if they do something wrong.

The fact that the mass media is (mostly unwittingly) in on it (also through creation and promotion of role models) indicates that these expectations are not limited to educators, but are held by society in general. People everywhere give white kids the benefit of the doubt, and the kids often rise to the occasion. People everywhere treat minority kids as if they're criminals, and the path of least resistance for the kids is to comply with the expectations.

Anyone who has worked in sales should know about the "power of assumption". People, for the most part, do what you assume they'll do.



Redistribution of wealth would do very little toward solving these problems, and it would create huge amounts of resentment. It would do virtually nothing towards changing the underlying attitudes which are the true causes of racial inequality. A handout will never convince it's recipient that he is as good and as worthy as those who didn't need the handout; rather, it will send the message, "You are inferior and can't succeed without welfare."

Attitudes change slowly, and they cannot be bought and sold.

Nations where social democracy has worked very well are also rather ethnically homogeneous.



I used to teach at a Community College in New Mexico, one of the poorest US states. I saw many people in the Community College system who belonged to historically poor minority groups, and who were working to break out of the cycle. Many worked parttime or fulltime while taking night classes. The classes were affordable to anyone with even a minimum wage job. They could earn High School equivalencey diplomas (GEDs), if they hadn't finished High School, and they could even get an Associate Degree, or earn credits towards a Bachelor's Degree. Many won scholarships, and didn't have to pay for their schooling. The point is that they were willing to work and to take advantage of opportunities that were not "free lunches," but ways to prove themselves through their own hard work.

I also used to work at a County Jail in the same city. The people serving time there weren't any different, except for their self-image. There were GED classes offered in the jail, but hardly anybody took them. Why should someone who only thinks of himself as a coke dealer get a diploma? If you gave him money, he would see it as a way to buy and sell (and snort) even MORE coke. (The penal system isn't helpful of course, set up as it is to constantly send the message to the inmates that they are uneducable animals with no human dignity.)



In summary, redistribution of wealth is not the answer. On the other hand, the answer is more complicated than merely asserting that there isn't a problem. It begins with raising awareness about the causes of persistent inequality, and it will take many generations to solve.