Have you anything other than strawmen? By "basics" Libertarians mean enforcement of laws (civil and criminal)
That is tautological. For example, the USSR had laws codifying the planned economy. I doubt that the libertarians consider the USSR anything close to libertarian.
Libertarians want to pick exactly _what_ laws the state should enforce. And by a strange coincidence these laws are the ones that libertarians themselves need to protect them.
Said the man after repeatedly demonstrating ignorance of those same principles! Yes, the US was founded on these principles — nothing else is entrusted to government in the Constitution.
Are you sure? Can you look at the Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution?
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
This doesn't sound anything like Madison. I checked the web, and lo and behomd - this quote is an outright fake. See here: http://www.democraticundergrou... So yes, libertardians are libertardians.
Nonsense. Henry Ford [wikipedia.org] was a son of immigrants, who died when he was a child. He supported himself and family by freaking farming before becoming an engineer. Wright brothers [wikipedia.org] were hardly from a rich family either. Thomas Edison [wikipedia.org] was the youngest of seven siblings.
And? They were only few people out of millions living in poverty.
So let me describe your perfect society, the wet dream of libertardians:
1) There are two classes of people: peons and lords.
2) Peons have nothing and earn starvation wages (no minimal wage).
3) The working conditions are appalling (no OSHA either). After all, it's worker's own problem if they can't negotiate good working conditions.
4) Children are, of course, forced to work from an early age. No child labor laws either. After all, if parents wish for a child to study real job skills from the age of 5, then why should the government interfere?
5) No free education. Peons might learn to read and sign their name so their employers might be able to give them orders. Their parents might also sponsor some additional education, but see above about jobs.
6) No Social Security and no retirement. You die after you stop working. You were not able to save enough from your starvation wages? Tough.
7) Ditto for healthcare.
8) Small businesses? No such thing - as middle class tends to get all uppity about their rights. Instead, small businesses are slowly driven out by mega-corporations.
9) Competition? LOL! Next you'd ask for anti-monopoly laws!
10) Voting laws are reverted back to the good old American tradition proclaimed by the Founding Fathers: "One Dollar - One Vote". This tradition was advocated by all the founding fathers - or so says Fox News.
Of course, tame 'intellectuals' will protect that status-quo by pointing out that lots of people each year become rich! Perhaps 10 or even 20, out of 400 millions or so. And its entirely peons' fault that they are poor.
So yes, that's your dream society.
We, Libertarians, would like the country to move in the opposite direction — away from the Socialism — and you are calling us names.
Yes, you think that you'll be slaveowners in the new capitalistic paradise, not slaves.
Something is seriously messed up in your head — you aren't self-consistent.
I'm a classic European liberal. So I stand for a _limited_ involvement of government - it should provide free education (possibly even higher education), universal healthcare, reasonable infrastructure and environment, and various means of support for those who need it. I don't want Soviet-style planned economy because it doesn't _work_ not because I'm a worshipper of the Invisible Fisting Of Market. And Soviet-style states also seems to be incompatible with social liberalism.
But this conversation is about ensuring good things are done to us — subject to the government's understanding of what "good" means. And that is a road to slavery — workers on plantations had free food, shelter, education, entertainment, and healthcare, you'll recall, in exchange for work. They weren't paid for their work (100% taxation), but they didn't need money either, because everything useful — in their betters' educated opinion — was provided to them. The slaves hated it, for some reason... Probably, because they wanted to be able to make their own choices. And so do I.
Nope. If you take it to its conclusion, socialism will make sure that no slaves or masters exist. Everyone will get an equal share of production output. So please, read your Marx first before spouting nonsense.
Of course, Marx's socialism doesn't work well in _practice_.
Are you seriously contending, that without taxes our air would've been like that of Bejing?
Yep. You can't have regulation without taxes.
Who the fart are you? And what else are going to claim credit for? Am I to thank you for not poisoning my water too? For not beating me up?
Also for not shooting you or using your house as a toxic dump.
Well, then you breath your small part, and I'll breath mine.
I'm paying for my part in taxes. Since you don't want to pay them, it's only fair that you reimburse me for that.
Why don't you move to North Korea or Cuba instead? Everything is free (or 90+ percent subsidized) there — in exchange for 90+ % effective taxes...
I prefer Sweden, actually.
Why don't I pay for what I actually use? And you pay for what you use?
For each meter of the road and cubic meter of fresh air?
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
