Libertarianism is a Flawed Philosophy

>> 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? Nobody argues that unforeseen circumstances are deserving of government assistance. Private businesses are NOT entitled to tax dollars during normal business times. And actually, no, in a well-organized system, the government shouldn't give a cent to private businesses destroyed by a hurricane - that's what their insurance is for. If business owners want to put their business in a location that is frequented by hurricanes, and they lose everything because their insurance didn't cover their property, that's poor planning. Now if the insurance company goes bankrupt, that's a completely different story. In cases like THAT, the government should offer some assistance. >> 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. An exceedingly poor argument. Lets suppose 0.001% of the US population receives $2000 from Bill Gates. That's SIX HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. I don't see how you can argue that as being simple pocket change. Also - who's going to force him to give anyone that money? It's HIS MONEY. If the government can take someone's property and give it to someone else, I will immediately draft a request that the government give me your house and assets, simply because apparently they can.... not... >> 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. The joke here is your math. An entry level manufacturing job will pay $10 an hour, and many places have regular overtime shifts, and definitely the possibility for overtime. So working 40 hours a week will yield a yearly income of $20,800 before taxes... supposing that taxes take 25% of that, you're still left with $15,000, which is $288.46 a week, not $7.25... >> 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. The only system where there are NOT winners and losers is pure communism. I suggest you revoke your US citizenship and move to... oops... there aren't any pure communist nations because it simply doesn't work. >> 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. Your profile claims you to be 17. I suppose then, that your grandparents must have lived in a completely different time from mine, while I am 19. >> 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. Your analogy is flawed. You suggest that the two demographics pay the same AMOUNT. I argue they pay the same PERCENT. A percentage tax as applied to your logic is akin to punching a body builder and poking the old lady. They both will probably bruise. Taxes do not provide services the free market is incapable of providing. Taxes provide funding for services we have delegated to the government. There is no reason the free market couldn't produce a proper highway system or a charity for the poor. It simply wouldn't do it until it was profitable. Inaction is not the same as inability. From your overall argument, you seem to be saying that the Libertarian philosophy creates an unequal system. That is utterly and completely wrong. The system is inherently unequal. Also, the admission of present examples into evidence against libertarianism is flawed and inadmissible - there has never been a case of Libertarianism setting national policy. In actuality, much of Libertarian philosophy will make the system MORE equitable. Take for example the tax system. Surely it is more equitable for everyone to pay a basic percentage-based tax on their assets and then to tax consumption than to tax different income levels at different rates? I'll give a perfect example of what happens when the government sticks its hands into the free market. The USSR told farmers when to plant their crops, when to harvest, and regulated the prices. The result? The USSR buys its wheat to make bread from the US until it falls. Russia STILL buys wheat from the US, albeit much less. I have yet to see a compelling argument for why libertarianism is flawed.