but ignoring the plight of the children of the lazy douchebags i do not
or a willingness to disregard any other element of our society which needs help thru no fault of their own
I can understand it to a point with the general libertarian philosophy, and it is the difference between a more emotional focused ideology compared to one that is more about reason.
While you're shouting "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" someone actually is, and more than just that single child. They're thinking about the children that have since grown up, they're thinking about the children that will come in the future, they are thinking the children that even with all our help are still going to be needy.
The theory is that the more you subsidize bad behavior, the more you make bad behavior able to be sustained to an adequette level ,then the more bad behavior you will get.
To take such a macro idea more to a micro representation shrink it down into a few. You have one person that's completely lazy but popping out kids. Why "punish" the kids (such wonderful use of emotional laced words) for the parents irresponsability. Lets let the Parent keep the kid, but subsidize them with money and health care (of course hoping the money actually all goes to helping the kid).
But once you do that you then have two people who have a penhanct for laziness, but previously had drive to work despite it to support their kids. They now see they can be lazy AND support their kids, so consiously or subconsiously allow themselves to fall into that. Naturally we must THINK OF THE CHILDREN! so government takes more money from everyone else to take care of those two peoples kids, along with the first persons.
And this continues, onward and onward. More money must be taken from more people to be given to more and more people who are doing nothing to deserve that money under the guise of "helping the children" even though there's no garauntee all that money is even going TO the children's well being. All while breading a notion that if you can't or don't want to succeed the government can and will pick you up and make life livable, and with that understanding pushing what the definition of "livable" is wider and wider with each passing initiative.
Yes, Libertarian ideals would cause some problem "For the children!!!!" if enact right off. In part though that is only because of the rampant growth of the problem due to non-libertarian policies essentially rewarding irresponsability over the years.
The theory is that while the children in the immediete present would suffer, over time the amount of children in such a situation as to require such help would be severely reduced while also providing less reason for the government to be taking more money and freedom from those children and their childrens children as they grow older.
Conversely you can continue to reward negative behavior and continue to increase the amount of kids in a bad situation while also sucking the lifeblood from every actual working person in the country.
From the libertarian way of thinking, that seems to be the option. Understand the inevitable unfortunante short term negatives in exchange for addressing the root problem thus having less problematic situations in the future and more freedom for the rest of the population, or, continue to deal with the symptoms rather than the sickness which continues its growing and spreading nature on the backs of the rest of society.
Essentially, the Libertarian view is looking at this from a multiple generation stand point and what will help "the chlidren" of now, tomorrow, and tomorrow's tomorrow both as children and as adults where as the other view point is simply looking at the here and now and to hell with the future.
