Stefan Molyneux Quotes

What...can the government do to help the poor? The only answer is the libertarian answer: Get out of the way.

The Chodorov Principle: For every social problem A caused by government program X, problem A can be solved by abolishing program X.

If we don't want intrusive government, then we need to care for the least among us so that they are not exploited as a reason by the government for bigger government.

The welfare state is institutionalized crime - 'organized plunder,' as the French economist Frederic Bastiat called it. It systematizes what is intrinsically wrong: forcing some people to support others. The Democrats favor the indefinite expansion of the welfare state, perpetually increasing the ratio of force to freedom in society.

I'm a part of the GOP and let me tell you what my stance is. My stance is that, we the people have the responsibility to take care of the indigent in our society. It's not the government's job. You can read the Constitution all you want, it never says that it is the government's job and I think where we've gotten confused.

To continue on the road we Americans have traveled for the past century is ultimately to deliver ourselves completely into the hands of an unlimited government. We can have a free society or a welfare state. We cannot have both.

Freedom works, and government, when it grows beyond the barest minimum, keeps people poor.

What Clinton severed with his welfare reform was the obligation of the federal government to step in when the states failed and to monitor these programs.

My parents both defected from communist Hungary and were what most people would today call libertarian. I grew up with a general distaste for taxation and any policy that intruded on our lives.

The government has no business telling an individual what kind of light bulb to buy.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

In my youth, I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Living most of my life in New York, I witnessed plenty of nanny state laws. Later, I lived in D.C. for a bit and saw even more. I assumed when I got to Colorado, the Wild West, there would be a rejection of such intrusive legislation. I was wrong.

Today it is not big business that we have to fear. It is big government.

Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history. For some reason that simple truth has evaded everybody.

Attention shouldn't be on finding ways to build a better government; we should be looking at how to get government out of our lives.

We can restore liberty by taking government out of our bedrooms, our bloodstreams, our bladders, our brains, our businesses and our back-pockets.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities....In all that the people can individually do for themselves, government ought not interfere.

But those who believe that what our people desire is big government are living in a state of delusion.

Fox News Latino will show people how opportunities exist, that whenever we are overregulated, or there is too much government, we lose freedom. We lose power. That is, historically, one hundred percent true.

I am a strong believer in small government that doesn't interfere in people's lives.

Republicans are listening and offering better solutions that get Washington out of your way, out of your pocket, and back on your side.

The war on poverty programs help address the pain of poverty.

If you're talking about the narrow issue of public assistance, I would like to see us move to a more healthy system. But until we come up with certain guarantees - for example, guaranteed jobs where mothers move off welfare - I support welfare very strongly. The worst thing we could do is impose time limits and then expect people to sink or swim once they move off welfare.

We shouldn't turn the safety net into a hammock. It should actually be a safety net.