Don't you know what libertarianism is, NJ?
Yes.
quote:
The first known use in a political sense of the term translated into English as libertarian was by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque who in 1857 employed the coinage libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[7] The English term is thus derived from a word which in French is synonymous with anarchist.
Rhavin, Dejacque was merely the first person to use the wording, "libertarian." There is no correlation today with modern, American libertarianism. And although libertarianism is very nuanced, so much so that two libertarians can have very different views, the basis for such beliefs come from straight from the Framers of the Constitution.
Furthermore, what you know today to be a "Democrat" is vastly different than what a Democrat was in the 17 and 1800. Modern-day Republicans were the Democrats in fact, until a shift began happening. And this really isn't so unbelievable. Many 60's conservatives have long said that todays Republican party hardly resembles a thing like what Barry Goldwater, a.k.a Mr. Conservative, once stood for. Hence the name neo-con, as in, "new conservative." The exact same thing can be said of French libertarianism versus the contemporary party.
quote:
Less (or no) taxes, minimal (or none!) government or public oversight, private services instead of public?
Well, yes, libertarians at heart want what modern-day Republicans want, lower taxes, and what former Republicans wanted, smaller government and less intrusion.
[quote]Extreme libertarians are anarchists. "Moderate" libertarians simply ignore the fact that, from the moment you're delivered in a hospital, you are being lifted up by the rest of society and owe society an unpayable debt. They want lower taxes and believe social services like welfare are unfairly taking their "hard-earned money," ignoring the fact that taking away these programs would condemn many people to homelessness and death. They think that private services like the private healthcare industry are "better" than government-run social services due to competition and that this is self-evident, yet ignore the example of history[/qs]
Yes, they believe private is generally better, as did the Framers of the Constitution. If you believe the government is supposed to wipe your ass from cradle to grave then don't be a Libertarian. If you think living in a welfare state is better, let alone feasible, then by all means be a socialist.
Private medicine with government restrictions is the safest route for all involved.
Water, food, medicine, housing, electricity, police, fire, all are provided by society as a whole, and we all have the responsibility to contribute back to society in the form of taxes at the very least.
Well, for starters, yes, of course we should pay taxes. But we need to pay taxes on what the government established that we pay them for -- things like defense, postal services, and not a whole lot else. I should add that food is not bought by taxes, nor is housing, unless you live in Section 8 housing or a derivative thereof. Neither is electricity or water. You pay a bill for both of those on top of being taxed for other things. Police and fire are the only things up on your list paid for by taxes, and I am perfectly happy to pay them for such things.
I don't have a problem at all with higher taxes for additional welfare and unemployment funding, public healthcare, or other social services, becasue I owe society for the standard of living I have, and I don't believe people deserve to be homeless when some tax dollars from all of us can afford to give them housing and food.
Sounds like maybe we should all be homeless then. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
Anyhow, I can't tackle the rest right now, I've gotta get going. But feel free to respond to my points and perhaps we can pick it back up later.
“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
™ Version 4.2