What's your political orientation?

Wow........so, Libertarians are untolerant of other perspectives? Kind of like your sweeping generalization? Using your drug-addict example, I see that the liberal war on drugs, poverty, etc. has been a resounding success.

Those are diametrically opposing goals if you are talking about true market capitalism.

 

nowhere in his post did he say any thing even near that


and LOL at the liberal war on drugs
most liberals I know want to legalize drugs

 

Hence the question mark..........

Many Libertarians I know want to legalize drugs as well, so maybe it was bad example on my part. How about we use the war on poverty then? Homelessness? The sub-standard education system in this country? How about the one on hunger?

 

I guess that I'm especially sensitive to the plight of the homeless during the Christmas season although the problem exists all year-round but I think that an activist government policy to try to help this group is the best chance to alleviate unnecessary suffering.

The conservative approach is generally to implement get tough types of programs which place time limits and restrictions on benefits, coupled with training programs designed to help those enrolled reenter the workforce and provide for themselves. This is typical of the carrot and stick approach which provides a strong incentive to participate and is effective for those who are able to complete it. They will use the program to gain skills that will translate into jobs and self-sufficiency. The remainder get the stick, figuratively, right in the eye. They run out of benefits and end up in sub-standard housing living at subsistence level. Since a high percentage of these people have serious substance abuse problems and/or mental health issues, left without the proper support system in place, they end up homeless.

 

CONTINUED

The liberal approach is to provide generous benefits as well as training programs. The training programs are largely the same but without the threat of termination of benefits at the end of it. The long-term support system absent in the conservative approach remains in place which helps people on the margins from falling into the homeless category. The key philosophical difference is that the liberal approach is willing to accept that a large percentage of this group will never be in the workforce and will always remain dependent on government programs and assistance. The biggest problems with this approach is that a government funded infrastructure seemingly becomes permanent and there isn't a strong incentive for people in the program to ever reenter the workforce.

Overall both strategies have been largely ineffective but IMO it is better than doing nothing. All proposals I have seen to address this problem have been somewhere along the continuum between the conservative model on one end and the liberal model on the other.

If there were a government with a Libertarian philosophy in power, I genuinely have no idea how they would propose to deal with such a problem. How would libertarians address this issue? I know that they would see it not as a federal issue but instead as a state issue. Fine, then how would a state or municipal government with a Libertarian philosophy seek to address this?

 

Whatever few reductions in the scope of federal government that have taken place have been offset by an increase in state, county and local government activity. It has basically been a shell game because the reality is that a large majority want most of the government services in existence today, they just don't want to pay for it themselves.

 

Quite true. In my line of work, I often see down on their luck staunch "lift yourself up by your bootstraps conservatives" cry and demand more public assistance programs when they hit rock bottom. It is ok to say family should help you, the church should help you, blah, blah, blah, blah. The fact is some people have no family, and the churches/non profits simply cannot handle assistance to all those in need. Private industry does not exactly inspire confidence do the recent fiascos we have all seen unfold. The government may have it flaws, but I would rather have government in charge rather than private industry. What would have happened by know if Social Security was administered by private investment groups?

As an American, I have no problem paying taxes to keep this a great country. I do think millionaires/Billionaires should have less loop holes. Many of the Billionaires agree.

Just my opinion,

Abner

 

I believe you are missing the point with the definition of "conservative". Conservatives believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, they just believe it is not the job of the FEDERAL GOV. to do so, that is the function of the states. If a state wants to provide a service in accordance to the wishes of its citizenry, they can in any structure they want to. Article 10 of the Constitution delegates those powere not specifically defined as responsibilites of the federal gov. to the states. If the citizens of a particular state believe that sevice XYZ needs to be provided to the citizens, it is within their ability to do so. For example, take the U.S. Dept. of Education. Not one dollar in their federal allocation goes to the delivery of education - no books, teachers, reduction of class size, etc. If I had the option, I would rather allocate my portion that goes to the US DOE to my local school district instead. The local school district is way more capable of deciding where tax dollars can have the bigger impact. Seriously, why should my federal tax dollars go towards fixing roads in Michigan when I live in Washington?