Some believe that libertarians want no government. That is not actually a completely correct statement. Anarchists are the people who want no government. Libertarians want a government whose primary responsibility is to insure the liberties of its citizens; A military is required to do that; Police are required; Clearly a judicial system is required. Roads are in the public interest, as are schools, and other important infrastructure; Ideally those should be paid for by those who need it but in many cases that is not entirely possible.
Roads can be paid by tolls or by gasoline tax, in addition markets benefits so a retail business tax should be collected and go into the transportation system. Issues like education (which is an investment in the future of the community) and emergency health care (in cases that the person does not have the resources to pay) the community or should I say group of communities which make up our society have decided with good reason that their burden should be shared by the community.
The concept of distributing of a burden comes from common law. If a person buys a defective product (not knowing it was defective) they have the legal right to return it. This means that whoever the product ultimately gets returned to losses even though that person or company did nothing intentionally wrong; the argument for doing this is the person who makes the product can distribute the cost of defective products to all consumers so this is essentially distributing the burden across the community.
Insurance is nothing more than a system to distribute the burden of loss with all those who get insurance.
Leaning Libertarian is not in disagreement with either having a government, or the distribution of a burden. In fact most Libertarians consider insurance as a perfect model. Libertarians would not argue that defective products should not go back to the company who made them.
The major points of disagreement Libertarians have with mainstream political parties is that they wish to impose on personal freedoms and use tax money to do so. This is a two fold assault! first is the restriction of liberty and second is where the money that the government spends is coming from.
Both parties are equal in their restrictions of freedom, Democrats in California has imposed a moral standard on children in public schools which requires them to accept publicly life styles which they may have a real, honest and god fearing belief are not acceptable. I am not suggesting that little Tommy should not show tolerance to another pupil who has the family structure of a mommy and two monkeys. But to insist that little Tommy must not say “I would hate that” or “I do not want to hear about that it makes me feel gross” and must lie “It makes no difference how many parents you have.” and their is the Republicans who want to say there is never a reason to not carry a child full term, there is never a reason to pull the plug on a terminally dieing person, there must be a national ID, …
I believe in basic human rights, the right to pursue liberty and happiness (that includes a right to work, the right to private property, the right to associate with whom you please, the right to travel, … and yes the right to drive (assuming you own the car) . But, at the same time I am pragmatic, we have a problem in this country with undocumented people; under our current system it is a privilege to drive; so should undocumented people have a right that the rest of us do not have? No of course not.
Popularity: 9% [?]
