I have a friend who fell for this libertarian bullcaca. This is why I want to attack libertarianism here:
“If there was no welfare state, rich people would donate enough money to private charity organizations who would then take care of the needy. Human beings are good by nature. Therefore the welfare state is not necessary. Nowadays the welfare state takes care of them and rich people assume that further donations are not necessary. Thus the welfare state discourages voluntary charity.”
Why not the other way round? Instead of dismantling the welfare state before rich people render it unnecessary by their voluntary donations, let’s dismantle it after they rendered it unnecessary. It’s not as if today rich people didn’t exist or didn’t have enough money. You claim, the reason why rich people don’t donate enough, is, because the welfare state takes care of the needy already. You could argue the other way round just as well: The reason why the welfare state exists, is because rich people don’t donate enough. Which is actually even true.
The argument that people are good by nature is also used by communists to argue why communism would work. You know how stupid this argument is when it comes from communists, but when it comes from libertarians, it’s just as stupid. On other occasions libertarians assume people to be selfish, mostly when discussing economic policies. Make up your mind!
“A welfare state easily leads to Fascism and Hitler”
Prove this. Prove, that a welfare state leads to Fascism and Hitler any more likely than a minarchist or any other kind of state. You can’t.
“People die of hunger. That’s life”
You have the choice between two governmental policies. The welfare state, in which everybody’s needs are met. And the libertarian one, in which some people die of hunger. You choose the latter and even claim that it’s the more moral one. So, according to your morality, it’s better if people die of hunger than if they don’t. There is something seriously wrong with this morality.
“The welfare state attracts masses of muslims, freeloaders and other parasitic people as immigrants. With Libertarianism only the good people would come, who are able to make a living on their own.”
It’s the other way round: Libertarian ideology explicitly forbids the government to restrict immigration in any way. If you want a different policy in this matter, it’s not a libertarian one. Without such an ideology you can restrict immigration as you like. Which is another argument for common-sense instead of ideology.
Libertarians uphold the right of individuals and companies to forbid any intrusion on their real estate property. Curiously, if it’s not a company but a state who wants to restrict immigration, it is deemed immoral all of a sudden.
Libertarianism, just like Multiculturalism, doesn’t recognize that states are not institutions which govern over masses of unrelated people who don’t have anything in common with each other, but that they are the very association or “incorporation” of people who do have something in common and who are related. Just like in business. And they have a common business to attend, which is, to live their lives as they see fit. To make this possible is the very purpose of the state.
“The welfare state makes productive people pay for the dependent, thus hampering the procreation of the former, while fostering the procreation of the latter. This causes demographics to shift in favor of the dependent, causing Islamization.”
In fact, Libertarianism forbids any kind of procreational policy of the state. The state is not permitted to foster or to contain procreation of different population groups. Once again, a welfare state, ruled by common sense rather than by ideology, has more liberty about its policies and can therefore implement any kind of policy about procreation that is seen fit.
In Europe, many of the rich, productive people, who attack the welfare state, have no children. How exactly is Islamization prevented by taxing childless wealthy yuppies less and allow them to spend more money on sports cars?
