I am drunk, but I just want to say that I hate libertarian arguments. They constantly blame the unfortunate for shirking responsibilities, but it is really the fortunate who would be shirking responsibilities in a libertarian system. They are too dense to see that it is to their benefit to have public education, public housing, public healthcare, etc. Whatever taxes they bear carry the benefit of their own safety. You cut entitlements, and crime, homelessness, and general misery increase exponentially. In a highly stratified nation, it's clear to see how these gaps cause social tension. You end up with South America, where kidnappings with high ransoms are a regular occurrence.
For several decades, the elites have pushed this American Dream bullshit, where anyone can do anything, and point to a handful of self-made individuals, who don't look so common compared to the few million that didn't do so well. Land of opportunity my ass. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who got a $150,000+ in college scholarships. You can work your ass off, get some scholarships, get into a good school, and some legacy asshole still has an exponentially better shot at a job than someone who had to work to get the chance.
I just don't know how we should deal with luck, in a philosophical sense. When someone wins the lottery, or a lot of money at a casino, we tax them heavily on it. When someone is lucky enough to have rich parents and win their inheritance, the amount the gov't takes is far less. I don't see a fundamental difference between the two things. Inheritance is lottery winnings. It is luck. The person who inherits money deserves it just as much as the one who wins the lottery. It doesn't make sense to treat them differently.
I guess if you have a fundamental disagreement with me over whether government's primary role is to primarily protect people's liberties or to provide its citizens with equal opportunites and hedge their bets, in a sense, then we'll disagree. I just think gov't is better served as an insurance policy. Isn't that what the police is? Isn't that what the fire dep't is for? Individually we have a low probability to need their services, but we're sympathetic enough to agree it's worth having for those who need it at the time. Otherwise let's let those who can afford the police or fire department privately lease these services, and everyone else be damned. Now, of course this is not acceptable to hardly anyone, but the difference between gov't provided fire and police and gov't provided healthcare and unemployment insurance seems entirely arbitrary. Libertarians are so fond of systems that benefit them personally, then as soon as it reaches out to someone else, it's not fair anymore. The difference between the aforementioned examples is that you may be able to afford the last two, and those who can't can fuck off.
This is an awful, drunken post.
