Re: mikkj/Spall/This one should...
As much as I wish I could agree with you on your general points, I can't. I really do believe in separation of society from state. I am not a cruel person, but I see no reason to force Bill Gates, no matter how rich, to pay for a starving person's charity. I believe that society in general should take care of these problems, without the use of force. Some may look at this view as overly idealistic and utopian. Well, too bad. I just do not see any justification for the initiation of force. Force should only be used to defend one's life, liberty, and property.
Maybe this will lead to anarchy, but I'd still like to give it a whirl. We tried Communism and that didn't work. I look at the history of the modern world and I see government oppression. I don't see corporate oppression and I don't see a lack of rules and regulations. I figure that there is a certain amount of power out there that needs to be wielded for the sole purpose of keeping society in order. I believe that power is less dangerous when distributed in numerous small places, rather than few large places. Will some of the sources of power abuse their power for their own purposes at the expense of hurting others? Most definitely. I am not that idealistic to believe that all people will be responsible with their power or that they will do the right thing. When the powers that be abuse and hurt, I want the effects to be as small as possible. Like a virus cut off early, this decentralization prevents corruption from spreading.
Also, I am not that idealistic to be calling for full implementation of any new political system. A basic understanding of our Constitution will reveal this system that libertarians strive for. I think we can all agree that what we have now is not what the founders intended. I like to stick with issues that should be obvious to most: the failed war on drugs and Social Security. Both of these two issues have no rational justification for supporting. I'm sorry, but as much as some would like to believe it, there is absolutely no defense for a government retirement program. Maybe someone can justify forcing people to save their own money, but they cannot justify placing it in the hands of the trustworthy government.
And I do not support national parks, or monuments, or museums. Unless it is in the Constitution, it is not a role for the federal government. But that is a different discussion.
I hope that we can both have future discussions without either of us turning it into an attack. We are debating ideas, not each other.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
