Why do young people tend to be socialists?

[Eriny]

Libertarians view each indivdual as equal from birth, unlike socialism which will make assumptions about people's lives given their background. Socialists make the arrogant assumption here that these people will never be able to help themselves and will move to make them equal to a child perceived to more fortunate.

I think that's why I'm not a socialist. Even though I believe in things like universal health and social welfare, in the end, we're all ultimately responsible for what we do in life. The difference is that I want to give people a lift, making sure they get only what they need to survive and do their best, actually doing their best is up to them... I think fufilling all needs is the basis of equality, not either extreme of giving nothing or giving everything. (I don't think I've been very clear about this...)

[costargh]

Maybe its just a general view of libertarians as arrogant by young people who do not yet see the benefits of liberalism because they are too young to acknowledge that life isn't perfect and their socialist ideas aren't reality.

[BA22]

most young people i know don't even know what libertarians believe, or are even aware of their existence. That view, in the remote chance that it is a popular one is founded on ignorance, as you allude to

[costargh]

Well even though some young people may not know the differences between socialism and liberalism the idea is that their views would be more in line with those of socialists, correct?

[BA22]

Far too a generalistic a comment to make i believe

[brendan]

Liberalism is essentially youthful. Young people tend to want greater freedom, more independence, to live their own life, pursue their own goals, chase their own rainbows. Liberalism recognizes this yearning for independence and says to government that they need to get off the backs of the people. Young people tend to be attracted to the social side of liberalism because says that the government has no role in your bedroom. What two consenting individuals do is their own business and not of governments. Take this quote:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1782)

That is the essence of liberalism, that the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But this principle is derived from a higher principle I cited earlier that of individual sovereignty and self-ownership. That your body and the fruits of your labour are yours, and that no body else can own you, nor can you own them.

The belief in freedom is also a commitment to humility; for those who believe in individual freedom must believe also in the freedom of people to make their own mistakes. If a man knowingly prefers to live for today, to use his resources for current enjoyment, deliberately choosing an impoverished old age, by what right do we prevent him from doing so? We may argue with him, seek to persuade him that he is wrong, but are we entitled to use coercion to prevent him from doing what he chooses to do? In a free society, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade him that his tastes are bad and that he should change his views and his behaviour - not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others. In the end, is there not always the chance that he is right and we are wrong? Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom; arrogance, of the paternalist.