libcon:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

          We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” - Frederic Bastiat

Of course, by wanting to end the war on poverty, libertarians show their desire to continue to force others into poverty. In the same way, by wanting to end the war on terror, they show their desire to promote terrorism, and by wanting to end the war on drugs, they show their desire to harm themselves and others through drug abuse. Obviously.

The idea that removing something from government is not the same as removing it from society is counter-intuitive to many people and leads to a fear-based knee-jerk reaction of praising the accomplishments of the state and condemning the ‘free market’ (which is whom, exactly?) for its failures to solve what are ultimately problems caused by the government. In my personal observations, many people have an interesting mental barrier to any idea that something the government currently provides for can be provided for without the government (please excuse my shit grammar). All it takes to destroy their presupposed ideas is a simple question: If a group of people called a government can do something, why can’t a group of people not called a government do it? Unfortunately, while this question does tend to prompt a reexamination of previously held beliefs, it tends to lead to an emotional rejection of whatever point I’m trying to make. The individual I am debating begins spewing completely illogical counterpoints in order to maintain the facade they have grown up with. I don’t know of any better way to inform people without invoking this response, which is unfortunate.

On a side note, when claiming that libertarians don’t care about those in poverty, most people are confusing libertarianism with shithead neoconservatism based solely on the common factor of wanting to end welfare. Not to criticize all neocons, but those I have personally met genuinely subscribe to the idea that those in poverty are there because they choose to be there, or worse, because they deserve to be there. This argument is illogical, hateful, narrow-minded, and completely not representative of the libertarian ideology.

I think that excerpt is the most important thing Bastiat ever wrote.