Originally Posted by basil
Charities are very good for some things. They have played a large role in our country. But, they don't replace government. Somethings the government has to do. We don't live in a simple world.
Charities don't build roads, don't play a significant role in public schools, don't regulate banking and wall street, don't build airports, don't ensure our food and drugs are safe, don't manage our resources, don't provide for a minimal existance of old people who don't belong to the right church. The list goes on.
Why don't we disband our military and replace it with a bunch of charity based militias? The militias will answer to the people, right?
Quite a few rich people are saying "Please tax me".
Well, I always end up at this point with intelligent debates. So good for you for atleast getting me here.
The only real difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street is where in the sand the line should be marked on the girth and reach of government. Libertarian ideas say, we want as government only to engage in mandatory activities. What defines "mandatory" remains to be seen. Liberals say we want government to fix whatever problems remain after the other options have failed. What defines "other options" also remains unknown. This is the nature of these discussions. Both are valid in almost every way. We tend to meet somewhere in the middle.
If your question is essentially, does a libertarian view allow for military, roads etc. Then you obviously haven't had any serious discussions with your opposition. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "I'm not libertarian because I like roads". Yeah, that's a real useful argument so long as you wish to show that you don't read much.
I think the best single argument for libertarian politics is that all else forces the minority opinion to bend to the will of the majority. That's what I've intended to present in my last post, and I don't see an answer here. So let's try a paraphrase:
I protest the use of my taxes in XXXX issue. It could be any of a variety of issues, for instance people who think abortion is murder are currently funding Planned Parenthood (I am pro-choice), people who thought the stimulus was crap because they aren't revisionist Keynesians were forced to pay for that too (I did protest the stimulus, despite my family being a direct beneficiary to the tune of the upper 6 digits - don't ask).
So, take an issue, have a vote, the minority lost. That'll happen, it's a democracy. Are you prepared to force them to participate anyway? Its wrong to do so. And that's that, you shouldn't be forcing my hand!
That's the best fundamental argument for small government, it doesn't force the dissenters to participate in programs they don't approve of against their will unless those programs are "mandatory".
The only counter arguments I've ever heard were not satisfactory. There is the "it takes a village". Sure to build a road, but not to pay for an abortion. There is the "social contract", but you can't really have a contract when it is isn't entered into, ended, written, or agreed upon by its parties. And then there is the likely strongest "you owe me!" That the rich simply owe the poor money, due to the nature of capitalism. Basil, enlighten me.