Libertarianism is a Flawed Philosophy

-------- Economic Darwinism is precisely what the economy needs. Why should the government take money from the citizens to keep businesses afloat? If the business is a stable and profitable one, it needs no government assistance. My Answer: How about unforeseen circumstances? How about shady business dealings? How about if the business is vital to the American interest. Like food. Also, would you refuse to give a hand to those people whose lives and businesses and homes were destroyed by hurricane Katrina? It sounds like you would, because if their business was stable and profitable, it would need no gov't assistance. As if it's their fault. -------- Another PRIME case in point - the current (almost) economic recession. Caused in part by sub-prime mortgages to people that simply can't pay their loans back. This is a huge problem - if one practiced some Economic Darwinism, then these people would never have been able to get approved for a loan in the first place. My Answer: And that's a bad thing? How about giving them some subsidies to help them pay off the bill? What's a couple thousand dollars to a Bill Gates-type, huh? Seriously, there comes a point when you can't buy any more things. -------- In a nation where a high school education is free, and a single person can live comfortably working 40 hours a week at a job that requires little or no training. My Answer: Ha-ha. Is this a joke? You try living on $7.25 a week. If you work 40 hours every single week in a year, that STILL comes down to $15,080 a year. Can you imagine paying your "FAIR TAX" living comfortably and then sending your kids to college? Can't be done. -------- It is obvious how entrepreneurs could earn a fortune by merit. My Answer: I'm not doubting that entrepreneurship is a great thing. Everyone should be able and willing to climb up the ladder of social mobility. But when you're standing there and that ladder is being held up too high for you to reach it, that's not fair. And that's not American. No one ought to have a better shot at succeeding than the next guy. Certain people are just inherently more privledged. They get a headstart because of mistakes everyone else's ancestors made, or just luck. -------- A single person with a high school education, working 40 hours a week can make a living and get approved for a loan to go to college. My Answer: But that's going to be very hard to pay back, as you stated before with the subprime mortgages. Without government finance, that is. -------- The free market has nothing to do with the fact that poor families can't afford to send their kids to college. Do you honestly believe that somehow, regulating the market will provide low-class families with an extra $20,000 a year to send a child to college. My Answer: Yes. -------- I don't know about you, but I'd like to be poor - sounds like we get free money from the rich... sounds like THE WELFARE SYSTEM. My Answer: You're right. Welfare needs to be limited. But not eliminated. I agree that hard work and self-sufficiency is a great value to have. That's how it ought to be. If capitalism was a fair game, I'd say let it be played. But there are always winners and losers and you cannot argue that the outcome is solely based on merit. Again, I refer to the businesses in New Orleans. -------- Social mobility is easy in the United States. My Answer: Your case in point is derived from an anecdote about your own family history. I would argue that your family history comes from a different time. Sure, my grandparents were immigrants as well. But they lived in a time where the chasm between rich and poor was not so huge. They lived in a time when wealth was not so unevenly distributed. -------- High taxes on the rich because they can afford it? And I suppose the poor get tax cuts because they can't afford it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the United States adopted a classically conservative policy that there was no rolling tax rate? That everyone paid taxes at the same percent? The problem with tax breaks for the poor in lieu of a fair tax system is that it's unnecessarily unfair to those who are paying more - in this case the rich. My Answer: I saved this argument for last because this is key. It comes down to a value judgement here. Do we participate in a game where the winners keep on winning and the losers keep on losing? Your idea of having everyone pay the same percentage of taxes is folly. Simply put, it's like punching two different people in the stomach - a bodybuilder and an old lady. Sure, you're giving them the same treatment, but the bodybuilder will be able to take it better than the old lady can. This is not to say that taxes are like punching someone. They provide necessary services that the free market simply cannot provide.