Deeper level kulaha. If anyone had ACTUAL compassion for the poor and the dispossessed, then you support the very same policies that brought about the Industrial Revolution you idiot.
You think libertarians are motivated because of their selfish desire to make money? As if politicians of all stripes don’t have that same motivation? If the government were smaller, inflation would cease and increased production would lead to lower real prices for goods and services. This would increase the standard of living of the poorest people, since they spend most of their money on consumer goods. Helping the poor is by promoting markets, but you and your Salon buddies can f*ck off with your specious arguments. You want me to throw a Hayek or Mises book at you?
This idiot keeps mentioning Fox News as some smug know-it-all.
Who gives a crap about Fox News. Go back to your Dad’s house and pick up a book of Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig Von Mises, and Hayek. Get your head out of the sand with your stupid Young Turks talking points. Your economic ignorance is painful
Libertarianism represents a wide array of movements or beliefs, but all are predicated on the core principle of liberty. What liberty means depends on each libertarian, but what traditional meant in the past was to abolish capitalism and private property, while contemporary libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights.
A fair summation of all libertarians is that they seek maximum freedom of the individual and minimal authority of government. As such, they intend to insist upon freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom of and from religion, freedom of the free press, freedom of ownership, freedom of the economy, and they almost always oppose the welfare state and taxation (which they see is a form of slavery).
People that support this fell out of the right vagina at the right time. They inherited biological and/or socioeconomic advantages that they did not earn, and thus, they do not "deserve" all of the fruits of their labor. They were dealt good cards.
When people contemplate and determine the structure of society, they do so selfishly, based on their personal circumstances, characteristics and preferences -- such as their mental and physical abilities, social status, ethnicity, gender, and most crucially, their conception of what's good.
Thus, it's no surprise that some people who can afford the bare basics (such as shelter and food) want a society in which they're not obliged (through tax) to pay towards other peoples bare basics.
Likewise, it's no surprise that some people who can afford to pay for their family's medical bills want a society in which they're not obliged (through tax) to pay towards strangers' medical bills. Just as it's no surprise that some people who can afford to send their children to school want a society in which they're not obliged (through tax) to pay for other people's children to go to school, and so on and so forth.
But the only reason they seek such a society is because of their lucky circumstances. They've been dealt good biological and socioeconomic cards, and as such they stand to lose a card or two should a society attempt to equalize the hands of those less fortunate.
The moral and political philosopher John Rawls proposed what he called the "original position", and argued that "A just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you'd be willing to enter it in a random place."
He reasoned that if people determined the basic structure of society behind a veil of ignorance, which would deprive them of information about their specific characteristics, such as the ethnicity, social status, and gender, they would create a welfare state.
They'd elect a society that maximizes the prospects of the worst off because they themselves might be the worst off. They'd create a society that would ensure that if they or their loved ones where born blind deaf or dumb, they'd nevertheless have a life worth living.
That is the reason libertarian is a failed political philosophy. Most of the good thing I have in my life is due to me being dealt with good biological cards. I didn't earn it. Thus, I'm convinced that some of the fruits of my labor should go to those less fortunate.
I stand side by side with a libertarian on few things, but I would never adopt the failed way of life they follow because it fundamentally hinders progress and the well-being of the majority because of the selfishness of some.
And the most important, I don't believe libertarians represent liberty. True liberty, in my opinion, requires equal opportunity, and libertarianism doesn't deliver this. In fact to the contrary, it protects those arbitrarily dealt with good cards and leaves those arbitrarily dealt bad cards to die. It addresses "freedom from" but it utterly fails to address "freedom to".
I felt I had to school you on your own views. I'm not ignorant like you. I try to understand things. What use is it to reading a bunch of books when they're outdated and created by people that you have a bias for?