The following is just way too long. Oh, well.
> 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.... 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."
Your statements are true, but indicate a misconception. To clarify the
individual rights issue: Every individual should have the right to live every
aspect of their life as they choose, unless their doing so infringes on the
rights of another person. In other words, no matter what I do, there should
not be any institution that can stop me, so long as I am not harming any
other person or his property. If I carry a gun, for instance, I am infringing
on the rights of no one, but if I shoot someone, I must be held accountable.
That's individual rights. (By the way, I don't mean to start some kind of gun
control debate, it's just a good example.)
> 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.
The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the
individual. Government does not enable individuals to obtain the benefits of
society except by limiting its control over the private sector. Therefore, it
is a lack of government that enables individuals, not the government itself.
The libertarian argument is that government should not be allowed the
authority to control individuals or the free market in the first place.
> 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).
It's basic, fundamental economic law. There is no history of privatization in
America, only a history of socialism and the government theft of private
property. Education, like every other major industry, should be subjected to
the free market, where if a business does not improve it fails. Not only
would quality go up, the poor would actually be able to afford a good
education, because they actually get to keep their money! Under the current
system, the poor are forced to send their children to astoundingly bad
inner-city public schools because their income is being stolen to support
them, and they can afford to pay for the public schools as well as a private
school. Only under the current system do the rich have an advantage.
Besides this argument against public education, there is the fact that public
education is a violation of two of our most important rights-- freedom of
religion and freedom of speech. You see, it is absolutely impossible to
educate at any level without presenting a social, political, and religious
viewpoint. Neutrality is absolutely impossible. Bias is inherant. Our current
public schools present Marxist social, political, and religious viewpoints.
They teach that humanity should be divided into groups of people with one
group deserving protection at the expense of the rights of others, which is a
cornerstone of Marx's political and social beliefs, and they teach an atheist
or secular humanist religious viewpoint, another of Marx's beliefs. The
absence of religion, whether that religion be Christianity or Judaism or
Islam, is a religious viewpoint... a secular one. Then, every American,
whether they agree with the viewpoint or not, is forced to fund it. They do
not have the option to say "I disagree what is being taught at public
schools, so I choose not to fund it." This is a violation of free speech and
religious right. In a private system, you would have the option of funding
opinions you agree with and not funding those you disagree with. A Muslim
man, for instance, would not be forced to fun the propagation of Christian
doctrines.
> As for your concluding arguments, I agree equality cannot be
> achieved, but that does not mean it is not to be sought.
It must be sought. The only way to seek it is by making sure that every
single individual is equal protected, and no individual recieves more
protection by government that another, which is a defining feature of
socialism.
> 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.
I do not believe that the poor have more rights. I believe that every person,
whether poor or rich, should have the exact same rights. Welfare systems, for
instance rob from the rich and give to the poor. No matter how much sugar you
coat that with, it's still robbery. It infringes on the rights of the rich to
do with their property what they see fit. ALL socialist programs do this.
> 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.
The point is that socialism will invariably create a new class. In addition
to lower class, middle class, and upper class, you have the political class.
This is because the government grants itself the power to control the
individual. The libertarian argument is that government should not be
permitted that power to begin with. Once you eliminate the vast, far-reaching
powers of government, the job becomes less attractive to the power hungry.
The proponants of socialism in American government are just as rich as any
libertarian. The only difference is that a libertarian wants to reduce his
own power, while a socialist only want his to expand.
Ernie Fata
