Do I Want Poor People To Die?Chris | InformationLiberation
Jul. 24, 2012
1.Trump is Right: GOP Debate Audience is Packed Full of Republican Donors
2.New York & California Move to Ban The Sale of Current iPhones Because They Protect Your Data
3.Jeb Bush Wore High Heels To Look Taller Than Trump [Pic]
4.Trump Calls Out Bush WMD Lies: 'They Knew There Were None, They Lied'
5.Ted Nugent Replies 'Eat Me' to Critics of 'Anti-Semitic' Gun Control Post
6.Feds Push New Plan For Home Visits to Check On Parents
7.VIDEO: Workers Rage After Being Told They're Losing Their Jobs to Mexico
8.WSJ Covers Free State Project: 'Can New Hampshire Become a Libertarian Utopia?'
Some people are going insane because they think I said welfare should be banned because people may use the money to murder people. Let's look at what I actually said:
All over TV they're saying we need to ban guns as they enabled his attack, but where are the calls to ban welfare which enabled him to buy his guns?I was pointing out the hypocrisy of advocating guns be banned because they "enabled" his attack, while ignoring that fact taxpayer money forcibly redistributed to the shooter enabled him to buy the guns. I was not calling for welfare to be banned, I was pointing out hypocrisy. There is a difference.
That said, I am against "welfare" (which should more accurately be called "slave management to prevent revolt") because it's a criminal act to steal from someone and give it to someone else (after "administrative fees," of course), no matter how "just" your cause. I'm against welfare not because I want poor people to die, but because I think stealing is wrong, even if it's "voted" on by a democratic mob.
I believe the poor would be helped better through having freedom and free markets, rather than simply stealing everything the "rich" and middle class have as part of a "great leap forward." They tried that in communist China, it ended with 50,000,000 people dead. If you forcibly stole everything from everyone and redistributed it evenly to everyone, according to my own calculation, each person would only have some $8,000 total in assets. In such a situation, no one would have any wealth, and there would be nothing to buy, because no one would have the capital to mass produce goods at low cost, everyone would be forced to "fend for themselves" and live off scraps. Does that sound like utopia to you? It doesn't to me.
I want everyone to be rich, forced wealth redistribution could be described as a scam to ensure the rich don't have to face competition from the poor, poor people are bought off and given handouts so they'll become dependent slaves rather than self-empowered independent individuals who guide the course of their own lives (and challenge the status quo). I want people to be allowed to create their own world and not be robbed of everything they own by the state. Even poor people pay 40% on average in taxes. Why can't everyone be allowed to have more, rather than only some people get more by stealing it from someone who gets less? Enshrining crime into the law doesn't produce a "fair" society, it produces a society where some people are rulers and everyone else is slaves.
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.