The idea that people who make dents are the only ones that work hard, and people who don't make dents don't want to work/don't work hard is part of the worldview of libertarians.
No libertarian is going to suggest that the guy out laying asphalt isn't working hard.
You seem to have confused libertarians with some sort of ultra-elitists, whom I don't think exist in any significant number.
Only a very small fraction of mankind is actually making a dent in the world. Are you saying that libertarians believe that only 0.01% of people are actually working hard?
You are correct, no libertarian will say that as a direct comment. However, it is implicit in the way many of them present their points - if you're not getting ahead in the world (usually this means accruing enough wealth to live comfortably), that's due to 'not working hard/smart enough'.
Most of the libertarians I have talked with on the web are skilled white males, largely unaware/unaccepting of the advantages they've had in being able to gain the skills they do, and basically assume that if you don't have marketable skills, it's solely due to your own effort. Big subscribers to the Just World Fallacy. They offer no mechanism for either levelling the playing field nor systematic assistance for those whom catastrophe strikes. There's very much a subtext of "you only deserve to be comfortable if you're like me" in libertarianism.
Only a very small fraction of mankind is actually making a dent in the world. Are you saying that libertarians believe that only 0.01% of people are actually working hard?
I think we have very different ideas of what 'making a dent in the world' means.
I must note, however, that it's interesting you use 'mankind' - another trademark I find libertarians use frequently, hence why I specify "skilled white male" above.
Group A--believes the best way to help the poor is by allowing the free market to lift everyone, and allowing private charities to fill the void.
Group B--believes the best way to help the poor is by taking a small percentage from everyone who can afford it to guarantee basic human necessities for everyone who can't.
You can debate the effectiveness of the methods of Groups A and B all you want. And that's what you started to do, but then you went directly to questioning the motives of Group A.
Since they don't agree with your methods, you've decided that libertarians believe that the poor get what they deserve and have no interest in helping them. You've moved them from the "wrong" category to the "just plain evil" category.
If libertarians really believed that the poor get what they deserve, why would they donate to charity? If your model were correct, one would expect self-professing libertarians to donate considerably less money to charity than other idealogical groups. I can't find any statistics to back this up.
>'mankind'
You have enough sample data to associate the word "mankind" with libertarians? Or are you more likely to take notice of the word's use when engaging with libertarians?
Of course they do. Libertarians in general believe that private charity should replace the government safety nets. Private charity is the first response most libertarians will give to the question of what do we do with the indigent.
You're confusing libertarians with Ebenezer Scrooge.
The ones I have come across have generally stated that they will engage in private charity if the government stops taxing them. It holds all the value of an election promise. But if you're not on the poverty line and you're not already giving to charity, you won't magically become charitable with the application of more money. It's just not how people work.
And certainly, if you're not giving to charity now out of some sense of 'cave deservedness' like clarky07 above, then nothing will make you give continuously to people in lifelong need of financial support.
Yes, they do. For libertarians the big sticking point isn't this or that thing should be done. It's whether or not people have the social obligation to help the poor or the legal obligation.
"Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more"
>Since they don't agree with your methods, you've decided that libertarians believe that the poor get what they deserve and have no interest in helping them.
Most folks I've debated who claimed to be libertarians have pretty much stated just that, and handwaved away the problem of those in need as 'supportable by private charity' (as you have suggested in A). Like I said, libertarianism provides no mechanism for levelling the playing field - those born into poverty are frequently not even aware that they can better themselves, let alone how. Libertarianism does not address this issue, instead promoting a system that sounds nice on paper, but significantly benefits those born into privilege.
The slogans of libertarianism are nice and catchy, but the devil is in the detail. If you're not skilled, white, male, and healthy, there's a good chance of falling through the cracks.
>If libertarians really believed that the poor get what they deserve, why would they donate to charity?
The one and only libertarian I've debated that did mention that they personally gave to charity did so as a boast ("I supplied two trucks full of stuff to Katrina victims", within the context of 'this is more than you gave'). No other libertarian I've talked to has mentioned giving themselves, it's always a shout-out to faceless 'private charity'. I'm not saying that libertarians don't give, but they don't seem to be great at giving positive examples of libertarian charity.
>I can't find any statistics to back this up.
Can you find any statistics to refute it? If not, you're only making half an argument. I can't find any references saying that astronauts didn't land on the sun, does that mean they did?
>You have enough sample data to associate the word "mankind" with libertarians? Or are you more likely to take notice of the word's use when engaging with libertarians?
I was raised by a feminist and have been noticing the word 'mankind' stick out like a sore thumb for over 20 years. I've only known about libertarianism as a philosophy for about 10, so it's fair to say that no, I don't just notice it more with libertarians. Libertarian dialogue is frequently sexist ('mankind' and 'rights of man' are common) and commonly makes no acknowledgement of issues that affect women (like what happens to mothers, who bear the vast brunt of the parenting load and have less opportunity to skill up).
The thing is, libertarianism promotes itself as being fair and egalitarian - if it were really about this, libertarians would self-police their own dialogue about this overtly sexist crap. They don't, and when called on it, they get defensive (as you have) and explain it away, rather than say 'my bad' and admit that they weren't being egalitarian. I personally find that this is just more support to the idea that libertarianism is really - perhaps subconsciously - about preserving existing privilege.
I don't know if you're a libertarian or not, but you are making some of the logical errors that libertarians do.
Even as I share your distaste for (parts of) the libertarian ethos, I think you're largly blind to your own ideological faults. To wit, poor people are not stupid, and using "man-kind" in a sentence is not an attack on woman-kind.
I don't buy this idea that we have to educate the poor about their options like they are primitive tribes (note the code appearing here). "They" are perfectly intelligent and aware of their options in aggregate... just give them more options and more of a safety net. Or better yet, ask them what they need...
Likewise, I doubly don't buy the idea that every use of a word containing "man" is a form of patriarchal oppression. The same as I dont view sports analogies as oppressing those who dont play, dont watch and dont like sports.
