Saturday, February 14, 2009


A lot of times I read that libertarians are "not fair". Usually this comes from people who don't want anyone to suffer the consequences of their own actions or don't like the fact that some people are living in poverty.

These people are still only seeing half of the picture. They see the "victims" of their own choices or of economic realities, but ignore the people who they would punish for not making bad personal or financial decisions. How is that "fair"? You can't only look at it from the perspective of "the less fortunate" after all. Not if you are really wanting to be "fair". No, you have to look at everyone's situation. I think these "compassionate" people are unduly attracted and sympathetic to the underdog. That is fine, as long as you don't blame the rest of the world for your poor "victim's" plight.

Sure, I would love to be wealthy. But not enough to do what would be necessary to achieve it. That is no one's fault but my own; I weighed my choices. I am not a "victim" of poverty. I have also suffered consequences for personal decisions I have made. I don't ask anyone to rescue me from them. Life may not be fair, but it still follows basic physical and economic laws.

So, what do these people think is "fair"? "Redistribution"? That's just a fancy word for theft. "Liberals" may see themselves as "Robin Hood"; taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but they are actually on the opposite side of the moral fence. Robin Hood was not stealing from the innocent rich, but from the thieves who enriched themselves through taxes and fees, and giving the money back to the theft victims. He was not being generous; he was being "just". You can not be generous with other peoples' money. You can ask them to give, or you can steal from them. One is charity; one is theft. There is no middle ground.

I don't have much respect or pity for those who say libertarians are "unfair". And the more I read their drivel, the faster that little remaining respect fades away.