[The One and Only...]

The "economy" prospered...? What about real, living, WORKING people....?

They prospered because the economy prospered. One leads to other.

You see, when technologies advance, everyone advances. Eventually those technologies become so commonplace that even the lower working classes benefit. These technologies typical arise at a faster rate in a capitalist society; I'm sure you know that.

In short, I believe that not only is economic equality inevitable, but also desirable.

The gap was smaller, homelessness was down, national production was high, and there was a general sense of well being, at least financially speaking. One spouse could go to work and provide for their entire family, while not exceeding 40 hours a week. This meant they could be home with their families, raising their children, going to ball games on the weekends. This means a hell of a lot more to me than your supposed pre-WW 1 "economic prosperity." Just who exactly prospered then...?

I already addressed the strength of the pre-WW 1 economy, but even so: you do realize that the 1950s had a comparatively low tax burden on everyone in those days, don't you? It's not as if the wealthy payed out half of their income so that the middle class could scrape by on 2-3%.

Relative to what? We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. Alabama has the lowest taxes in the world, and have kept them so low to the point that the state is devoid of basic infrastructure, and in an economic mess. Is Alabama your national model....?

Relative to the taxes we currently pay.

We have bloc grants, funded and unfunded mandates, etc. These things exist already, although I don't know that we have an existing "war reserve," I mean, that seems kind of bleak, don't it?

The problem is that these bloc grants can be used whenever and wherever quite easily. A special emergency reserve would require a strict set of regulations so that it could only be used when truly warranted.

Re-read what you typed here. It's a contradiction.

Okay, I'll clarify. Assuming that these emergency funds were established, a constitutional amendment that requires all currently off-budget items to be on the budget and that the budget must be balanced could work.

Point being that humans are humans. It isn't the big, evil government alone that wants to ruin your life. That's a bogey man Libertarians have created for themselves. Look at the history of this nation, the consistency of government, and compare it to the history of unmitigated capitalism. Which one do you prefer???

I don't know about you, but the history of unmitigated capitalism doesn't even appear to exist. The times we have been closer to it, however, do appear to have been happier.

progressive taxation.

Pot-shots at economic expansion.

Right, so then are we in agreement that it needs to be more expansive???

Nope. Consider how much it would take for it to have a strong effect. Does that really seem like a better alternative to, you know, not having it?

Yeah, Tommy cut programs alright in 1807-1809. He assisted in stripping down our navy, leaving us vulnerable to piracy and war in 1812. Is that Libertarianism?

Yes, because we all know that Tommy never did anything right as president. Plus, every libertarian thinks that we should cut military defence as soon as possible.

You're right, if people need to work in unsafe factories or coal mines to pay for food and to educate their children, why should I be bothered with their poor mistakes...? I mean, OSHA has aided in decreasing such conditions, but oops, you hate government, you hate the New Deal, and FDR was a Socialist. So in your ideal Libertarian society, there'd be no OSHA, right? It only drives up costs for employers, right?

Yeah, because everyone would work in those unsafe factories were OSHA gotten rid off. I mean, the labor unions would be all over that. Plus, it's not as if some other company with safe utilities and better wages would come along to compete for labor resources.

Aside from all that, you need to get rid of this mentality that every libertarian wants to destroy the government and every law ever formed.

I agree, nothing but my own ass is my responsibility. Fuck everybody.

Yeah, no libertarian cares about other people. It's impossible to believe that if people are forced to care for themselves, they will.

If I can't dispute it, I'm asking you then to defend it. Quantify it. Back it up.

I'm currently a national AmeriCorps member. I tutor Kindergarteners in Austin, because illiteracy is rampant. This is just ONE function that this national service project provides. Why are they there? Are they there just for the heck of it? NO. There was a void there, and charities can only do so much, and the private market will do little, if anything. Charities are NOT more efficient than the government, that's why charities apply to the government for grant funding.....!!!!!!!

I think you proved earlier that charities are more efficient than government. You admitted that government is wasteful (not sure if it was this thread...?). I don't see charities throwing out perfectly good computers just to get the newest model, etc.

Charities apply to the government for grants because they can use the money. That doesn't prove that they are less efficient: after all, very few organizations would pass up on the opportunity for some free funding.

Boo hoo. Apparently Libertarians also hate democracy, despise anyone but themselves, and feel there shouldn't be a viable government. Go join an Anarchist colective or something.....

A nice non-point.

Yeah, we need a refresher. I provided the facts last time, FROM the LP website. Go to politics1.com, they have the list there, too. You can read down it, read the titles. "Water Commisioner" is often an appointed position. Small town and hamlet races are often non-partisan, meaning, people don't run on party tickets. How many of those positions are from small communities...?

I'm not talking about the number in office; I'm talking about the number of supporters in polls now...