Libertarian Economics are Inherently Immoral

Libertarians believe that "all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor" and income tax should, therefore, be abolished. Of course, this will leave an enormous black hole in the public finances but the Libertarians have a solution for this: slash public spending. In essence, Libertarians believe that individuals should pay only for the services they actually use, not for services that they don't, and that public services and utilities such as health, education, highways, transportation, pension funds and social housing should all be in private hands and service-users (or their insurers) should pay the suppliers directly according to their particular requirements. http://www.lp.org... That sounds quite fair, doesn't it? From a personal point of view, since I am currently taxed at a rate of 50%, I would, in effect, get paid twice as much as I do now because all my money would be mine to keep and none of it would be taken off me and used to house, clothe and feed economically inactive people and their dependants. Under a Libertarian regime, no longer would I be obliged to pay for other people's kids to be educated or to take financial responsibility for complete strangers' expensive medical treatment. Never again would I have to subsidise country landowners' comfortable lifestyles through government and EU farming subsidies and neither would I have old people sitting at home supping tea and sucking cakes at my expense. Yes, if the Libertarians came to power, I'd be rolling in it. I don't have any children and I already have private health and pension provisions, so I would have so much money at the end of the month I wouldn't know what to do with it all – I'd probably end up giving it to charity. Or would I though? I suppose I could actually do with a bigger, faster boat and what about that two-seater roadster I've been dreaming of owning since I was a kid? And it would be nice to go to some of those places in Asia and South America that look so appealing in the travel supplements but I've never had the time or money to visit…in fact, thinking about it, there are quite a lot of things I'd do with any extra cash before I thought about giving it away to the needy. "But what about noblesse oblige?" you might exclaim; "if financially disadvantaged members of society such as elderly people on state pensions and unwaged disabled people are deprived of the vital public services they depend upon, they will have to turn to the voluntary sector for hand-outs. That means people like you will have to dole out large sums of money to charity each month to cover the massive increase in demand that these voluntary organisations would be faced with – and, of course, it would be very helpful if you donated some of your own time to help out as well." And do you know what I would say to that? Well, I'll tell you, I'd say: "screw the poor and screw you too – I'm off to quaff champagne and gorge myself on gourmet canapï¿½s on the aft deck of my new Princess 42 in the company of two blonde stunners." And I bet most people would say something similar if they were asked to donate a large percentage of their time and income to charity. So what would happen to the financially dispossessed? What about a single mother living in social housing caring for her disabled child, for example? "Good evening, Madam. I'm from the local housing authority and I'm here to inform you that the state is no longer willing to pay your rent. From now on, you either pay the market rent yourself or I'm afraid I will have to ask you to vacate the premises immediately." "But please sir, my husband died in childbirth (he tripped over the umbilical cord and fell into a big tub of placentas and drowned) and now the Libertarians are in power, I no longer receive welfare payments so I've got no source of income - I have to beg for scraps of food from kind-hearted hobos - I haven't even got any money to pay for my poor handicapped child's medication, never mind rent." "So what you are saying is the world owes you a living, is that it? Well let me tell you it doesn't, you grasping little bitch, and thanks to the Libertarians, hard-working taxpayers are no longer under any obligation to underwrite your accommodation and living expenses – now cough up the cash or get out, you indolent, work-shy scrounger." So, we can see that although relatively prosperous people could be much better off under a Libertarian regime, many people who, through no fault of their own, are either unable to work or would be earning a pittance once the Libertarians abolished the minimum wage, would suffer enormously – and they would receive no health treatment and their children would go uneducated. Can an economy which allows financially privileged people to become vastly more wealthy at the expense of the most vulnerable in society really be called a moral economy? I don't think so, and I don't think you do either, and that's why I reassert that Libertarian economics are inherently immoral and urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.