I don't have high expectations of Twitter users; personal insults, particularly against GOP politicians and/or their voters; I've heard historian Brion McClanahan and others refer to Twitter as a toxic leftist dumpster fire. If you tweet anything outside the groupthink of progressivism, you may often find yourself flamed by some indignant troll, even a celebrity on one occasion (Patricia Arquette). Of course, not everyone on Twitter is a progressive. I've sometimes found myself targeted by Trumpkins, even in one case a white supremacist. Of course, Twitter allows you to restrict who can reply to your tweets. However, I don't usually got many engagements on my tweets, maybe at the most a few dozen like's or retweets and any occasional, typically not reported reply. I see popular tweets on Twitter with several hundred replies. So I don't know how Twitter identifies the replies that I do get notifications for. I probably get a notification every 3 weeks or so.
Now not all replies are critical, but to be honest, I sometimes will poke a bear (leftist troll) with a stick. These aren't really personal insult tweets, but I don't suffer fools gladly. It's clear that my issue is with the content of the tweet and/or its tone. It isn't unusual for multiple rounds of reply tweets. Oh, let me be clear: I don't have any expectation that the motivated troll is going to have a "come to Jesus" moment, see the light, and thank me for bringing it to them. I do think they're in their own little echo chamber, they aren't familiar with the contrary opinions, and will respond in an insulting way.
I quite often understand where they are coming from. When I was young, the gimmicky names assigned to bills, say, the Fair Treatment for Women Act, were internalized: what kind of immoral monster could be against the fair treatment of women? But (1) is government necessary to resolve an apparent issue? And (2) how does government intend to achieve those results, and how do you measure success or failure of its objectives?
So, for the sake or this essay, I'm going to analyze one sample exchange, to explain my motivation, etc. Here's the original:
The Republican mantra has always been “poor people are poor and homeless because they’re lazy and my tax dollars shouldn’t be used to help them. Suddenly they’re all like, “Maxine Waters doesn’t care about the homeless.” The hypocrisy is truly remarkable, yet unsurprising.
First of all, I'm not Republican, but the salient issue is welfare. Do they relieve "poor people are poor and homeless because they’re lazy and my tax dollars shouldn’t be used to help them". Not really. Poverty is a complex problem. It can result from catastrophic problems often beyond one's control--say, a serious illness affecting one's livelihood, a natural disaster, prolonged unemployment on limited savings, economic downturns with limited job prospects, etc. I can't speak on behalf of all Republicans; I know many Republicans support at least some support of the welfare net. I think the main difference with moderate Republicans and Democrats is that Democrat spending, say on unemployment, is that extended or overly generous benefits are fiscally irresponsible and make it harder for small businesses to staff operations.
More conservative Republicans (and I share their thoughts) go beyond these concerns and worry about moral hazard, about undue reliance on a permanent government entitlement, an underclass in crime-ridden neighborhoods with single parent households, failing schools, and limited, lower-wage occupations, with no real incentive to actively participate in the economy and transition to an improved standard of living. They worry about an entrenched government bureaucracy vested in the status quo.
Do they think people "are lazy"? Not necessarily. They do make decisions based on bad government incentives. [I do have a nephew-in-law (with dependents) who figured out for a while he could clear more in expanded benefits versus taking hourly work.] Do they oppose social welfare in principle and the use of their tax dollars? Some will, but it's more complex. For example, I believe in the principle of subsidiarity and think any public programs should be implemented on the state/local area. I prefer to see voluntary programs in the private sector vs perpetual government programs and employees with their own bureaucratic incentives.
As for the Maxine Waters reference, it probably refers to a recent public appearance where the congresswomen insensitively told homeless people (gathered for an oversubscribed subsidized rent program) "to go home". I'm sure the conservative media is giddy over a self-inflicted wound of a liberal politician. The troll is probably referring to conservatives opposing Section 8 housing exploiting the kerfuffle.
There are other salient topics like how bad local zoning policies, among other things, contribute to the scarcity of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area. But there's only so much you can discuss in a tweet:
Nope. Pro-liberty folks do not oppose voluntary aid from the private market (charity). The issue is morally hazardous government policy, using money from government theft of other Americans to enable persistent undue dependence on government handouts
The troll mocked my response, and I returned fire.
Voluntary aid? You just proved my point, thank you
You're welcome. Robbing someone at gunpoint, like the government does, is grossly immoral. Thanks for proving my point.
Of course, this was one of those trolls who insists on having the last word; the gist of it was that my parents failed in their job of raising me. I have zero tolerance for incivility. I have pointed out I initially intended to pursue the life of a Roman Catholic priest, in service to others.
The broader point is to expose this myth that libertarians are self-absorbed and uncaring, morally inferior to those who wear their hearts on the sleeve and prove their goodness by forcing others to fund their political objectives. On the contrary, I find the free market, not government, serves the masses to fulfill their wants and needs more effectively, efficiently, and quickly, provides the most employment opportunities, etc. through voluntary transactions. It has lowered poverty to the lowest level in the history of mankind. There is an opportunity cost to government siphoning off economic resources.
