jjd

Late 20s with a family.

Airports: definitely could be provided by private industry. Government control has, in the past, only served to make flying MORE expensive. Fire Departments: I can live with public funding of fire departments. But, private fire services are possible (fire protection was private through much of history). Education: Definitely get the government out. If I can't get government completely out of education, I would accept the Milton Friedman solution.

In some cases, government impedes charities (Katrina, for example). I believe that people would give much more to charity absent confiscatory taxes. Also, some people just believe that it IS the government's job to provide these services.

I am not an anarcho-libertatrian; I believe that it is the role of the government to protect the rights of citizens, which includes maintaining a defensive army. You're right, I hate the postal service and I think it should go away or survive as a private entity WITHOUT a government-enforced monopoly over mailboxes. I think "public health" has been extended far beyond its proper boundaries. Protecting people from communicable diseases like TB, yes. Banning trans fats, no. There are plenty of examples/reasons of privately sponsored roads and turnpikes. Water most certainly can be provided by private industry. Did I miss anything?

Charity is not perfect, but it is better than government. Charities are better able to tailor assistance in ways that government cannot. They can also be much more flexible and efficient than government. Charity has the further advantage of allowing people to "shop" for the best charities (i.e. those who do the best job of addressing that person's particular issue or issues). With governement, I am compelled to provide charity and support all sorts of things that I don't want to support (this is an almost endless list, but examples include: farm subsidies baa , Department of Education , Department of Homeland Security skull , Department of Energy , and the list goes on).

I disagree. First of all, charity need not cover "everything." Besides, the government does a terrible job of doing, well, just about everything.

I get accused of being "cold hearted" and "mean" (go figure?), so let me be clear: while I don't support coerced charity, I do support voluntary charity, which can be pretty effective at meeting such basic needs.

Go into the courtroom and say this: "I was minding my own business when this jack-booted fucking thug pig tries to run me off the road, then has the balls to claim that I was speeding. I was genuinely upset by Porky Pig's terrible driving, likely caused by his donut-stuffed, coffee stained gut bumping into the steering wheel, while he licked his fat-ass fingers in an attempt to get the last little crumbs from his 10th Tweenkie of the morning. So, when porker Pancho pulled me over, I called out his sorry tub-of-goo ass for being such a shitty driver. I'm not here for speeding, I'm here for speaking truth to (porker) power."

I'm not sure I can give you a precise definition. Different people need different levels of assistance. For example, many homeless people suffer from various mental illnesses and have almost no ability to provide for themselves. Contrast this to a "working poor" family who have some ability to provide for themselves, but need some help to afford health care or put food on the table. Bottom line: I can't give a precise definition.

These aren't necessarily "prestigious publications," but they do expound this idea quite vociferously: American Spectator Weekly Standard Mark Steyn Christopher Hitchens Plenty of others.

Yes to all of the above. Again, for families who can't afford immunizations and other health care, I would gladly contribute to charities that help them. The USDA and FDA would be at the top of my hit list.

The role of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, nothing more. People don't have a right to force others to provide them with health care any more than they have a right to walk into a grocery store, steal a loaf of bread and claim that you have some right to it. I do believe in voluntary charity and I have no problem with providing health care to the needy via a voluntary system.

None of which changes the fact that it's not the proper role of government to provide health care.

I'm not sure how else you could describe Hillary's plans for universal health care, "wealth transfers," etc other than as socialism. She invokes the same tired old Marxist rhetoric that the "rich" do so on the back of "the little guy." Blah Blah Blah. The vast majority of the "poor" in this country are poor because they: make bad decisions, don't care, don't work hard or don't take the risks necessary to become wealthy. In any case, it is NOT the role of the governemnt to compel charity for ANYONE.

I want to be the first to climb wearing sneakers and bouncing a basketball all the way to the summit. Any sponsors? While wearing a football helmet!

having a partner is better

"Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, has attracted notice for raising a pointed question: Do voters have any idea what they are doing?....Caplan argues that “voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational — and vote accordingly.” Caplan’s complaint is not that special-interest groups might subvert the will of the people, or that government might ignore the will of the people. He objects to the will of the people itself." Read this Discuss

Wow. A Democrat baa favors socialism; I'm SHOCKED! And another story that socialism baa doesn't work - even more SHOCKING!

I wouldn't include the FDIC as a proper role for government. I agree that the government doesn't have a duty to prevent any wrongdoing to anyone at any time. It does have the duty to prosecute and penalize people who violate others' rights.

They're working on it. Sadly, I think you're right.

If we're going to scrap the Second Amendment, why not scrap the First too? We don't really need the 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th, either. What the hell, let's just say fuck it and scrap the whole damn constitution? 8D

This issue is poorly understood. First of all, automatic weapons were outlawed under the 1939 National Firearms Act. AK-47s (which didn't exist at that time), Tommy Guns and all other automatic weapons have been outlawed since then. An automatic weapon, for those who don't know, is a firearm that will fire more than one round per trigger pull. A semi-automatic weapon fires once each time the trigger is pulled. When you talk about "assault weapons" then, what exactly are you talking about? The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" targeted (pun intended) firearms with certain cosmetic features, regardless of other factors. The ultimate "point" of the Second Amendment isn't to protect one's right to hunt or shoot targets (though it does that). The Second Amendment is intended to protect one's right to self-preservation (i.e. self defense). It is further intended to act as a check against government power when all else has failed. And before you claim that citizens armed with small arms couldn't possibly resist the U.S. Government, I suggest you take a look at what's happening in Iraq. Or look at countless "guerrilla campaigns"/insurgencies throughout history. The proper role of government is to protect indiviudal liberty, nothing else. Edited to clarify the definition of automatic weapon.