[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Bottom line, if a libertarian opposes using state coercion to (attempt to ) solve poverty, it doesn't mean they don't want to solve poverty. Do you understand?



[/ QUOTE ]

I understand, however I disagree with that point of view.
I know what you mean, an unregulated free-market its better because more wealth will be created and eventually the poor will improved their quality of life, etc,etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one argument against the necessity for state coercion, but my main point is just that being opposed to state coercion doesn't mean you oppose all efforts to solve the problem, or that you are indifferent to the problem, but I got the impression that was your main point at first.

I myself don't support using state coercion because I believe there are many other ways to solve the problem of people being born into poor circumstances, while at the same time there is no (reasonable) way to solve the problem of bad parenting.

natedogg