Back at A4E again, libertarianism

The rights to or of property and the rights of the person are not only unconnected but opposed to each other.

The rights of property are conditional and solely made possible by the consent of society. The rights of the person are absolute and objective. People always own themselves, while real and moveable property are late novelties of civilisation.

The Scandinavians have got the right idea in that they allow people to take wild plants even from private land. One of the pioneering effects of the Magna Carta, underpublicised beside the introduction of the rule of law and so on, was to allow people certain rights over what effectively became common property. This was omitted from later versions of the Magna Carta and published in the form of a seperate charter, the so-called Forest Charter. This cave common men the right to take vild foods, fire wood, the right of free warren and so forth. The right to subsist therefore came ahead of the right to ownership of property.

The libertarians on the other hand have the wrong idea. They want to keep their property unmolested but they don't want to pay for it. Property is easily taken when there's no bullying government to protect it. "We're the real anarchists", as I believe a fascist once said. And that's true. Fascists and bullies are the anarchists. They want rid of social conventions so they can do what they want with the rest of society. The libertarians are the turkeys voting for christmas.

"We fascists are the only true anarchists." -- The Duke, "Salo"

Anarchy is to remove the restraining forces of society. But those forces are there for good reason. The inevitable result of anarchy is fascism, rule by the strong over the weak. Rule by the unscrupulous over the unprotected.

Not to decide is to decide, as the say. You know what the result will be if you don't make a decision, so by declining to make a decision you know what the result will be as if you made the decision and enforced it yourself. Libertarianism is therefore persecution of the poor. To not help the poor, knowing the result will be greater impoverishment, is to cause that impoverishment. To do so in the name of preserving your property, which is reliant on the consent of those poor and the rest of society, is unjust.

Charity doesn't come into it. Don't engage in charity. Charity is a tax scam, the rich give money because it reduces their tax bill. They give money to save money and for other reasons too.

They give money being able to dictate how it is spent. They give it conditionally for gratitude and obedience and control. They dictate how it's spent, they demand adulation in return, they demand submission and money in return.

If the rich feel so charitably inclined there's an obvious course of action: pay your taxes and allow them to be spent in the democratically willed way, as is your civic duty. Don't play the "tax efficiency" game.