Ep. 2353 Let the Poor Starve? A Libertarian Answer

Gerard Casey, professor emeritus at University College, Dublin, answers this common criticism of libertarianism.

Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:

Other Important Links

Audio Production by:
Podsworth Media

[johnwilhelm]

The Ron Paul approach is excellent! Military Industrial Complex and low hanging fruit. people are almost universally unhappy with public education. We had a candidate running on an independent ticket for Governor in Connecticut, Oz Greebald, who wanted to selectively evaluate government functions and turn them over to the private sector where feasible. He was a very intelligent guy, a former Republican, sadly no longer with us today.

[unclestinky]

Libertarians should be at the forefront advocating for charitable causes. There should be two or three free promotions for charity for every commercial advert.

[lightcaesar]

Without the state, who will "feed the poor?"
The whiners who claim to care will. If they don't, they are hypocrites and are confirming the poor aren't worth helping.
End of discussion.

[samyguerroury]

Always a pleasure to hear mister Casey.
Thanks for the video

[johnwilhelm]

That was good...my Tom Woods fix for the day, next Mises, then Dave Smith. Cheers!

[ferdgerbeler]

Take care of your own kind, preferably at the cost of hostile out-groups inhabiting your lands as to strengthen the position of your people against the out-groups trying to take what is yours... If you can claim everything, and defend it, then the hostile outgroups either leave or starve, either way, you win.

[johnwilhelm]

How do you reverse the process...you have large entrenched bureaucratic departments at state and federal levels that employ many people, which is where much of the money goes anyway. In my New England state, I think 40% of the workforce is employed by the government. That's an enormous obstacle.

[ClarkCan]

Tom, for the love of God, and I say it as someone who likes you and wants to keep listening to the show:
Get to the heart of the the subject matter right away!

I've found myself skipping entire episodes lately because the amount of things that have no connection to topic at hand:
- disclaimers
- origin stories
- personal anecdotes
- "how me met"
- introductions

It often takes 3-6 minutes before the episode proper starts. I don't care about the deep Gene Epstein lore, or when you first talked to your guests, or when they started writing their books. I want to hear people talk about IDEAS!

You can spruce in some details while the topic is being discussed, no problem. Scott Horton does that, and despite the efficiency of his episodes, the personalities still shine through, and I managed to take interest in several of his guests.

[ExtremelyRightWing]

I aint ate since friday. Nobody owes me a meal.

[abramgaller]

In debate the libertarian position doesn't have all the glib answers . A lot of poverty would be eliminated by the ceasing of government activities which mitigate against production and employment . The problem for volunteerism and family charity would be substantially less than a pure mathematical estimate would suggest.

[Rasenganplanet]

Tom, do an episode about your opinion on steaks.

[johnwilhelm]

How do you get there though.... what is the political process. Churches have done a good deal for the poor, and my understanding is that they still do a fair amount. But they are closing their doors permanently in significant numbers. To introduce these ideas into the political process, you have to have specific policies to propose to get any consideration from the public.... understandably so.

[NicholasWongCQ]

How about abolish everything that's unconstitutional?

[oddsman]

No, Tom, dont be silly. They’ll eat ze bugs and be happy not owning anything (likely thanks to pharmaceuticals but Klaus was vague).

[tallesttreeintheforest]

they are already starving.. living on processed food not fit for any living entity.

[LPNBKeith]

A temporary negative income tax would be a better to address these policies politically speaking I think.

[robinsss]

is the concept of welfare inherently unconstitutional?

[albionicamerican]

The gold standard favored by libertarians is compatible with mass poverty and starvation. That's how our ancestors lived for thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution. The money back then was as hard, sound or real as you pleased, but most people didn't have any, and they often went hungry.

[vexy]

Libertarian opposition to taxes and welfare is why they will never gain any political relevance ever. The reality is that taxes are NOT theft and welfare is good for society.

[atheplummer]

Grow your gold? Really? Let me guess? You have to trust some stranger with your asset, in hopes of getting more assests? In the crypto industry we all that 'third party risk'... NOT GOOD... Not your vault, not your gold. It should be clearly obvious now, due to recent third party banks that have gone belly up... that trusting someone promising that if you give them your gold, you'll get more gold later? I smell a ponzi.

Tom, I thought you were better than that.