| mrstickball said: And Sqrl is correct. My problem is that government is too large, and far-encompasing, and it causes problems in relation to the tax dollars spent on various services. For example, education. Currently, 90% of youths are educated via public schooling means. Costs are up, well over inflation, while results are stagnant, or declining. We've also dropped in relative scores against other countries. An anarcho-capitalist would argue that everyone should be for themselves. I would argue that the system needs vouchers which allow youths to get free education at the school of their choice - public or private. Thats what I want, the liberty to choose. You can argue that countries cannot exist without large, pervasive governments, but I think Hong Kong and South Korea disagree with you. Both are growing despite an absence of massive government involvement in their economies. Libertarianism is not perfect. It does require responsibility from the populace, but I believe that if incorporated, would be far better than what we have now. For example, removal of medicare and social security costs and benefits for those 10 years away from retirement. The amount of monies saved for the public by cancelling those 2 systems would be immense...I could invest 5% of my earnings into an IRA to yield the same results as 8.5% via social security. That 3.5% saved could allow me to invest in buying things (helping the economy) or I could give it to people and help reduce depedency on welfare. |
In regards to giving people money now to help them reduce their dependence on welfare, how much do you actually give at this time? If you aren't doing it now, what makes you think you would give it to others when you have more of it?
