First, I apologize for the uneducated comment and for personal attacks.
Now, to respond. First, the primacy of the individual, carried to its
utmost conclusion, is Anarchy. Libertarians carry it only so far as it
is beneficial; and I believe that they are more interested in
maintaining the status quo (at least as far as their positions in life
go) than in abstract notions of individual liberty. The governments
role is to provide protection (police force and Army) so that the
have-nots cannot, as an exercise of their "individual" free will, come
and take away the haves' stuff. Already a convenient limitation on
total "liberty." And there's more. Most libertarians I have spoken
with ignore the benefits that they, as "individuals," receive from
living in a "society." Government is integral in both ensuring, and
yes, limiting the benefits individuals receive from living in a
society. Libertarians seem to want to retain the material wealth that
government enabled them to obtain, while eliminating any government
limits on there benefits.
As for your economic argument, it contains more propaganda than
fact, the perfect free market is a myth, and the history of
privatization belies your claims of invariable improvement (especially
for the poor).
As for your concluding arguments, I agree equality cannot be
achieved, but that does not mean it is not to be sought. Your belief
that the poor have more rights is baseless, although I can see where you
might get that belief, what with the efforts of the GOP to make the
American public believe that it's true. This country was founded on an
ideal of equality of opportunity, and until that exists, efforts aimed
at achieving equality are not violating the "rights" of those who are,
by benefit of inheritance, skin color, geographic location, or whatever
else, starting from a superior position. Finally, I'm not a politician,
and I agree that politicians enjoy power and don't strive for equality,
but that answer failed to address my question.
