For Those Who Support Anarchy As A Form Of Government

[havok579257]

So my question is what happens to those who can not help themselves?  Such as elderly who have no family to take care of them or children who have no one to care for them or the paralyized person who has no one to care for them or the mentally disabled person who has no one to care for them?  In this form of government who takes care of these people?  Right now in America the government helps these people who can not get help anywhere else.  So in the form of anarchy, who helps these people?  Who is their safety net?  Who supplies them with the needed money to feed, cloth, shelter, medical care and have constant care and supervision? 

[Nihil Obstat]

"For those who support no government as a form of government..." Whoops.

[havok579257]

"For those who support no government as a form of government..." Whoops.

 

 

so you going to answer the question or not?

[Winchester]

so you going to answer the question or not?

Come on. That was funny.

[Winchester]

So my question is what happens to those who can not help themselves?  Such as elderly who have no family to take care of them or children who have no one to care for them or the paralyized person who has no one to care for them or the mentally disabled person who has no one to care for them?  In this form of government who takes care of these people?  Right now in America the government helps these people who can not get help anywhere else.  So in the form of anarchy, who helps these people?  Who is their safety net?  Who supplies them with the needed money to feed, cloth, shelter, medical care and have constant care and supervision? 

This is the same as asking Catholics: "Who will feed the unwanted babies that can't be aborted by parents who can't afford them?"

 

You're too far down the line, here. Libertarian anarchists reject that aggression is moral. It's not okay to take property from someone in order to help them.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs[/media]

[CrossCuT]

So my question is what happens to those who can not help themselves?  Such as elderly who have no family to take care of them or children who have no one to care for them or the paralyized person who has no one to care for them or the mentally disabled person who has no one to care for them?  In this form of government who takes care of these people?  Right now in America the government helps these people who can not get help anywhere else.  So in the form of anarchy, who helps these people?  Who is their safety net?  Who supplies them with the needed money to feed, cloth, shelter, medical care and have constant care and supervision? 

 

The people who will help the poor in the event of anarchy are the same people (minus the government cuz anarchy) who are helping them now...oh wait.....

All these same people are around with or without the government yet they havent gotten rid of poverty.

[CrossCuT]

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs[/media]

 

Lol video is so derp.

[Winchester]

The people who will help the poor in the event of anarchy are the same people (minus the government cuz anarchy) who are helping them now...oh wait.....

All these same people are around with or without the government yet they havent gotten rid of poverty.

Who said there would be no poverty?

 

And you might wish to educate yourself on the decline of poverty prior to the Great Society.

[havok579257]

This is the same as asking Catholics: "Who will feed the unwanted babies that can't be aborted by parents who can't afford them?"

 

You're too far down the line, here. Libertarian anarchists reject that aggression is moral. It's not okay to take property from someone in order to help them.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs[/media]

 

 

I am not asking what you reject. I am asking you who cares for these people.  Currently in America the government cares for a lot of these people.  So if America became an anarchy form of government, who supports these people who were supported for by the government?  Are they just left to die in the street corners?  I really don't care that you reject aggression  for taking property.  I don't care about that and it does not pertain to this question.  This question is, who helps those who can not help themselves in this form of government.

[CrossCuT]

Parasites 

 

Not in my back yard

[Winchester]

I am not asking what you reject. I am asking you who cares for these people.  Currently in America the government cares for a lot of these people.  So if America became an anarchy form of government, who supports these people who were supported for by the government?  Are they just left to die in the street corners?  I really don't care that you reject aggression  for taking property.  I don't care about that and it does not pertain to this question.  This question is, who helps those who can not help themselves in this form of government.

 

Those who do so by free choice. 

 

You should be able to extrapolate that. 

[havok579257]

Those who do so by free choice. 

 

You should be able to extrapolate that. 

 

 

so then if no one chooses to help them, they are left to die, correct?  so if there are not enough people willing to help all those who can't help themselves, then some will die, correct?  there is no safety net, correct? 

 

so how is this not survival of the fittest?

[Winchester]

so then if no one chooses to help them, they are left to die, correct?  so if there are not enough people willing to help all those who can't help themselves, then some will die, correct?  there is no safety net, correct? 

 

so how is this not survival of the fittest?

I'm not mandating that the weak starve. I'm merely saying that no one possesses the right to force people to help others. I don't advocate social darwinism, either.

 

This is why I answer your question with the reason. You're asking about a consequence of a principle. I tell you the principle so that you can then realize that if a society were built upon the rejection of aggression, then help would be purely voluntary. I cannot make you feed the poor. If I get a bunch of people together, I don't believe the right to make you feed the poor would manifest. Do you need a threat of force to make you feed the poor?

[PhuturePriest]

I'm not mandating that the weak starve. I'm merely saying that no one possesses the right to force people to help others. I don't advocate social darwinism, either.

 

This is why I answer your question with the reason. You're asking about a consequence of a principle. I tell you the principle so that you can then realize that if a society were built upon the rejection of aggression, then help would be purely voluntary. I cannot make you feed the poor. If I get a bunch of people together, I don't believe the right to make you feed the poor would manifest. Do you need a threat of force to make you feed the poor?

 

Slowly, because of you, I have become more and more anarchistic in thought. My mother is going to disown me and I'll die a shell of a man who never got a girl because he had mommy issues. Is that what you want?

Edited October 29, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[PhuturePriest]

so then if no one chooses to help them, they are left to die, correct?  so if there are not enough people willing to help all those who can't help themselves, then some will die, correct?  there is no safety net, correct? 

 

so how is this not survival of the fittest?

 

It's not survival of the fittest, because survival of the fittest means nobody helps anyone except themselves. In this anarchic society, people would help each other, thus not being Darwinian in thought. People who adhere to survival of the fittest keep to themselves, benefit themselves only, and ignore the plight of the weak for help.