[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I do agree that tax cuts for the middle class are warranted, but I'm the type of guy who sees any tax cut as a victory. It's just pissing me off that Bush seems to be more interested in creating new government programs rather than cutting them...

And this in itself is the key flaw in radical, Libertarian economics. Again, back to Grover Norquist. Let's get the baby (govt.) small enough to drown it in the bat tub (paraphrase). Why? Is government inherently evil? Most free market liberal thinkers, even Adam Smith, believed even in progressive taxation. Things take money to function. It seems to me that Libertarians would rather have a society with no police, no reliable mail, no libraries, no security services, or ANYTHING governmental in application, JUST as long as they can keep all of their money. This attitude, to me, seems contrary to the very notion of citizenship.

1. Destroying SS is the ultimate goal, but as an interum it would be replaced by a market-based system. One would have control over where that money goes so that if it fails it won't be gubbermints fault (of course, most would probably put money into relatively steady businesses).

Steady businesses such as ENRON or MCI perhaps...? What happens when you put people's trust in the hands of people who have only private motivations driving them....?

2. I don't think that is what one could call a top priority, but I would challenge your comment that privatized shipping companies are unreliable.

A buddy of mine recently payed extra for one (can't recall company, whoever cingular wireless deals through) to send him his new cell phone over night. He payed the extra price, and got it in two weeks. :/

Granted, maybe this is an exception. But have you ever heard the old saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it....? This again brings the psyche of a Libertarian into question. Why shut down a system everyone knows and trusts...?

3. Quite the unfair comment. What would be the point of preserving land that we don't need? Think: this is a libertarian article. Keeping land "just in case" is like having a surplus - it's just means more tempation to expand government. No libertarian wants to see that, so obviously a balanced budget is better from the writer's PoV.

Because "rainy days" do happen, in both real life, and government. That isn't being a spend thrift, that's being prudent.

Even if it is undemocratic, I'd at least like to see it tried in some shape or form. It could be done democratically, but I don't think it would happen for a while...

Uh huh.....so, uh, democracy goes out the window in a Libertarian utopia...?

There are always wealthy people to tax.

Good, we need to start taxing them.

I, personally, prefer the pre-1913 economy. Taxes were low for everyone, and the economy prospered. Government involvement was relatively little.

The "economy" prospered...? What about real, living, WORKING people....?

What exactly do you mean by economic stability? That the earning gap between classes was smaller? That's hardly a way to gauge the economy.

The gap was smaller, homelessness was down, national production was high, and there was a general sense of well being, at least financially speaking. One spouse could go to work and provide for their entire family, while not exceeding 40 hours a week. This meant they could be home with their families, raising their children, going to ball games on the weekends. This means a hell of a lot more to me than your supposed pre-WW 1 "economic prosperity." Just who exactly prospered then...?

It's time we cut government spending enough that tax's could be relatively low for everyone.

Relative to what? We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. Alabama has the lowest taxes in the world, and have kept them so low to the point that the state is devoid of basic infrastructure, and in an economic mess. Is Alabama your national model....?

I think that this amendment is not even worth debating over, since it will never happen. At least, it would not happen in our lifetime. However, I will throw out my opinion on the matter.

In my ideal libertarian budget, I do think that some unspecified money for futher allocations would exist, just in it's own catagory. This could be applied anywhere it would needed. Futhermore, emergency money would exist which could only be tapped into when certain situations arose e.x. war, etc. (NOT economic crisis, btw).

We have bloc grants, funded and unfunded mandates, etc. These things exist already, although I don't know that we have an existing "war reserve," I mean, that seems kind of bleak, don't it?

Since this budget is inherently flexible, a balanced-budget amendment that forced all off-budget items to be on the budget and did not permit taxes to be raised for the purpose of balancing the budget could work. At least, I think it could.

Re-read what you typed here. It's a contradiction.

Point being...?

Point being that humans are humans. It isn't the big, evil government alone that wants to ruin your life. That's a bogey man Libertarians have created for themselves. Look at the history of this nation, the consistency of government, and compare it to the history of unmitigated capitalism. Which one do you prefer???

The problem is that it's being payed for with deficit spending. Can't you see? It's only going to get more and more expensive over time! The deficit will get bigger and bigger as each generation has to pay more and more interest!

progressive taxation.

All this, for something that you admitted doesn't even do much good.

Right, so then are we in agreement that it needs to be more expansive???

His solution would be to cut government programs. I don't think he would even recognize America today.

Yeah, Tommy cut programs alright in 1807-1809. He assisted in stripping down our navy, leaving us vulnerable to piracy and war in 1812. Is that Libertarianism?

Why should SS even exist? Is it really the responsibility of the people - even the rich people - to pay for the mistakes of others? I say no, and I say that doing so will only hurt the public in the long run.

You're right, if people need to work in unsafe factories or coal mines to pay for food and to educate their children, why should I be bothered with their poor mistakes...? I mean, OSHA has aided in decreasing such conditions, but oops, you hate government, you hate the New Deal, and FDR was a Socialist. So in your ideal Libertarian society, there'd be no OSHA, right? It only drives up costs for employers, right?

I agree, nothing but my own ass is my responsibility. Fuck everybody.

There are reasons charities exist; they are more efficient than government (something you cannot dispute), and they do not force everyone into helping others.

If I can't dispute it, I'm asking you then to defend it. Quantify it. Back it up.

I'm currently a national AmeriCorps member. I tutor Kindergarteners in Austin, because illiteracy is rampant. This is just ONE function that this national service project provides. Why are they there? Are they there just for the heck of it? NO. There was a void there, and charities can only do so much, and the private market will do little, if anything. Charities are NOT more efficient than the government, that's why charities apply to the government for grant funding.....!!!!!!!

Individualism and equal freedom are what libertarians stand for; apparently you do not. There is nothing else to be discussed here.

Boo hoo. Apparently Libertarians also hate democracy, despise anyone but themselves, and feel there shouldn't be a viable government. Go join an Anarchist colective or something.....

Look up the facts if you want to. Even on independant polls, libertarians are consistently outnumbering other third party members - including the greens. On some recent polls, they are even scoring in the double-digits.

Yeah, we need a refresher. I provided the facts last time, FROM the LP website. Go to politics1.com, they have the list there, too. You can read down it, read the titles. "Water Commisioner" is often an appointed position. Small town and hamlet races are often non-partisan, meaning, people don't run on party tickets. How many of those positions are from small communities...?