Libertarian question.

This isn't Boolean. Boolean is "and" "or" & "not". What you are describing is if-than, or conditional, logic

 

Statistism does not exist in reality any more than does libertarianism.

 

Companies can't sell stuff if people can't afford the stuff. Prices and wages will reach a functioning equilibrium

 

Some of A is B utilizes the "and" operator.
All of B is C utilizes the "or" operator.

 

I think I put it too harshly. I did not see it as 'interference' at all just not specific enough . It was a broad statement on philosophy but I see this narrow issue as offering more of a challenge than most poverty issues, because of the unique character of this situation where government works as an adversary rather than an advocate. I was just trying to redirect your thoughts back to the specifics in the OP - which I still want.

 

It came off more curt than I intended. Read post 105. I did specifically ask for libertarian answers. And I actually appreciate getting them. I just wanted more which I could directly apply....

 

Well something about libertarianism it isn't just another view on the right left spectrum.

I believe you hold a more liberal or left leaning position so you may see libertarians as just another word for conservatives likewise conservatives call me far left.

It is a philosophy about power, and who should weild it. So sometimes the basic structure that you take for granted is against the philosophy. When you focus on issues such as government spending I could go into a diatribe about how I don't view the money the government collects as theirs to spend how they wish but when I say that sort of thing people get into streets and public works that I don't think the government should be in charge of.

So such discussions often go nowhere and I just appear to be another statist conservative.

I don't think it's the government's job or place to care for people. The government's involvement in medicine is why it's cost have run away, more involvement will make it cost more.

 

People can't afford them now. Walmart pays their workers so little that 90% of them can't afford to shop there without welfare,

 

My view is that federal government works as an adversary in nearly everything it does. I have always viewed federal government as an adversary. That view fuels my desire for less government.

Federal government has no business dealing with poverty, or other social issues, in any way. It only makes things worse. I suggest we move the social programs we think we need to state and local government or the private sector. Federal government is the worst place to put them.

 

Get skills.
I can afford to shop there

 

This is bullshit but even if true, so what? There's no requirement that workers be able to shop at their place of employment.

 

It's not. My wife worked there for 18 years and we could afford to shop there.

 

If you're asking this question in the context of our current legal system there is no meaningful answer. In the context of a private law society there are several ways the indigent accused might be provided counsel. A private law society would have arbitration services associated with different types of insurance or protective services so that an offense committed on private property would be dealt with by the firms of the individuals involved or the land owner. It seems likely that in such a society, the companies offering arbitration services might have a pooled fund to provide defense services for the indigent accused. Certainly a company that found a person guilty without providing them some means of arguing their side of the case would be pilloried in the court of public opinion, which would be bad for business. Most people would likely have a subscription to some level of protective services, either explicitly paid or as part of other contracts they've entered into, such as apartment rental, HOA or employment contracts so the case of a person being without any recourse would likely be rare. In those cases it would be in the interest of the protective services industry to insure that those cases were seen as being fairly resolved.

You're describing the situation that exists today for most people, whether they're indigent or not. Few people can afford to mount a defense that is in any way comparable to the State's relatively unlimited resources. In a private law society there would be no governmental power with unlimited resources working overtime to put anyone behind bars. Private individuals or corporations would be bringing suit based on wrongs they think were committed against them. The objective of virtually all such cases would likely be to restore to the victim what they lost or to compensate them for the loss. People and companies have a bottom line and won't commit endless resources to punishing a 'criminal', beyond the desire to recoup what was lost.

In a private law society, there is no government entity that would target individuals or companies for prosecution if there wasn't a wrong committed against them so there would be far fewer cases. Most cases would be limited to the parties involved and an arbitrator. In complex cases the person's protective services or insurance would provide additional resources to resolve the case but it would be in the interest of all parties to make the case as inexpensive and brief as possible because none of the interested parties would have the unlimited budget of a taxing entity.

 

The libertarian - one that has a clue what the founding principles are - and many don't - knows that the legitimate authority of Gov't is protection from harm. While this is for direct harm - on person on another (murder, rape, theft and so on) - this also extends to harm done to individuals by the State. In fact the purpose of putting individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't is to protect the individual from harm from the Gov't.

One of the founding principles with respect to Law (and part of the Rule of Law if not mistaken) is that the law is to be written in such a way as to be understood by the common man. Given we have failed miserably in this respect - it would be a violation of liberty not to provide council.

I answered this previously but- you are correct that the safeguards that protect the individual from State abuse of power have largely been removed.

What you cite is the tip of the iceberg - The actions of various Gov't agencies such as the FBI and other intelligence agencies are far more nefarious than the above.

 

I am definitely beginning to learn how libertarians see this issue and through this discussion seeing broader patterns of ideas. But frankly, I have put in my notice at my job, and am being 'punished' with truly extraordinary working hours. My brain is going to be tapioca pudding for the next week. Whatever responses I give on this forum, will be more about pattern recognition and rote, than real critical thinking. Please continue to add to this discussion, but don't expect much intelligence from btthegreat. It ain't happening!

 

Sorry to hear it. Chances are good that whatever you do next will provide more satisfaction.

 

Good luck with whatever comes next.

 

s.

Let me guess, nobody does except for people who share your exact belief system. Which obviously derives from pure logic, not from the society around you where people commonly have the same belief system.

 

Thank you, Capn Awesome, for proving my point, for I certainly to not believe as you suggest.

It is called critically thinking, and I recommend it to you.

 

If you can't afford Walmart...you can't afford much of anything

 

Again, the claim was patently false. And again your employer doesn't need to make any guarantees other than to pay the worker the agreed upon wage.

 

Do you accept the Preamble to the Constitution as having any meaning at all?

 

this seems like a loaded question you're going to have to explain to me why you're asking it if you want an answer

 

Some people want to take the preamble as the important bit of the Constitution, empowering the federal government to do anything and everything, and ignoring the specific limited powers delegated in the body of the document. I think the Constitution is irrelevant as virtually everything in it has been lawyered and Orwelled to the extent that as Jefferson warned, it has been made blank paper by construction.

 

Another crap abuse of Orwell