Poverty - relative vs. absolute

[Emsworth]

The government should not attempt to address either form of poverty.

[Emsworth]

I think you left a word out there, unless you're reconsidering libertarianism.

A Freudian slip, perhaps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not think that one is more important than the other: each individual should be left to decide for himself. I personally have no real preference between the two.

[Emsworth]

It already addresses both forms Emsworth - it created, perpetuates, and enforces poverty. 

Certainly, the government perpetuates poverty. By adopting a laissez-faire policy, however, the government can avoid this problem. If the government merely removes itself from the economic picture completely, then relative poverty might increase, but absolute poverty will be significantly reduced.

[Emsworth]

... that's just kind of apauling Emsworth. Most people, inlcuding me will see that as I don't care it's not my problem.

I never said that I don't care about poverty. I merely said that the government should not attempt to address the issue, because when the government gets involved, things normally get worse. The conclusion that I don't care about the poor is inaccurate; I believe that their long-term well-being (and the long-term well-being of society as a whole) can be improved if government is less involved.

[Emsworth]

You're all heart Emsworth ... Unfortunately, not all private citizens feel obliged to help the poor

While I donate to charity, I certainly do not believe that I am entitled to be generous with someone else's money. If someone else does not feel obliged to help the poor, should he be forced to do so against his will? In  my opinion, the answer is certainly no.

[Emsworth]

Yet, you feel perfectly entitled to be generous with someone else's money to pursue your goal of providing outside protection for the endangered from coercion.

As I have noted in other threads, I see the two issues completely differently. For me, the ultimate goal of a government should be to minimize coercion and maximize individual freedom. Security is (in my opinion) necessary to accomplish these goals; welfare is not. Indeed, the very purpose of welfare programs has nothing whatsoever to do with individual freedom.

You are entitled to believe that alleviating economic disparities is a legitimate function of the government: I would simply disagree with you.

[Emsworth]

I was merely pointing out that you do feel entitled to "be generous with someone else's money" (of course, 'generous' is always subjective) as long as the aim is to minimize coercion, and not minimize material want. Your position remains valid, but your quote was misleading and should have carried the necessary caveats.

"Generosity" is a term normally associated with charity; hence, I don't necessarily believe that the sentence was misleading.

[Emsworth]

Providing someone with protection from coercion can also be called generous, and charitable.

If you wish, you can call it generous, but clearly this was not the context in which I was speaking.