There is a tendency, strongly associated with libertarianism, that I think it would be good to identify and disavow.
It occurs like this: A terrible thing happens, with suffering, loss of wealth, loss of life, or loss of dignity. And then a "libertarian" arrives.
He looks around; all he can see is the glorious system of incentives, righteously spanking a wrongdoer. And the suffering should continue, he thinks, until this wrongdoer is bleeding, and crying, and dead. Or, who knows, maybe they'll learn. Sure, that's sad. But incentives matter!
Now, incentives really do matter. But can we all agree that something has gone terribly wrong when a child lies dead, and a former U.S. Representative says, in effect, "Let it be a lesson! Don't come here, because sadly the people on my team might take your kids, neglect them, and allow them to die"?
I see stuff like this and all I can think of is Nelson, the bully from the Simpsons. His only contribution in a time of need is a cheap, two-note laugh.
It is a crime against humanity when a child is so deprived of essentials by people that it dies. Children are incapable of maintaining their lives, and parents are responsible to do so for them. When parents are unavailable to children, most kids have someone step in and assume responsibility for doing what is necessary to sustain their lives.
Who had that responsibility is accountable for the death of this child.
In the event that it is impossible for the responsible party, including parents, to sustain the life of the child, then there is no criminal liability. If it is not natural circumstances that render responsible parties unable to fulfill their responsibility, then the parties that create the conditions that prevent that sustenance from reaching the child are liable for that murder.
This is also the fact in Yemen, where 85,000 children under five are estimated to have starved to death since KSA began destroying fishing boats, warehouses, hospitals, and other essential services that the parents of those dead babies needed to provide for those children.
I am sad this child died. I am outraged that defense contractors provide psychopaths the weapons, supplies, and intelligence necessary to murder tens of thousands of babies in Yemen for profit, and that the USG facilitates this enduring crime against humanity and genocide.
In that criminal endeavor, every person that pays US taxes bears some responsibility for murdering innocent children.
We need to act to fulfill our responsibilities we undertake, and not undertake responsibilities we cannot effect. If one argues that they have no authority to effect the care to children at the border, or in Yemen, that their taxes are spent on, then they are claiming that they do not have a choice in how their money is spent.
That is claiming that the money is taken from them by force, that they have been robbed. If they pay that money voluntarily, it is not stolen, but spent on purpose, and they are responsible. If they act to prevent that money from being taken, then they have basis to claim it was stolen by force if their acts to prevent it were all they could do.
Those people make the claim they are slaves.
Very few people can make the latter claim, because a great deal of action could be taken by them to prevent their treasure from being stolen that they do not undertake, for the sake of their convenience.
Those that truly care whether they contribute to the murder of innocent children will act nominally to prevent it. Those that complain, yet do not act, are no less responsible for the crimes, but further seek to commit fraud by fooling lawful authorities so that they are not held accountable.
I am confident that you can count on one hand the innocent contributors to this story. The rest bear responsibility for these crimes, and compound that guilt with attempted fraud.
Thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit