Libertarian's view of social services

I am new to the whole debate of "who or what should take care of the less fortunate". My relatively uninformed impression is that "libertarians" believe that the family or the "private sector" or the religious/spiritual community should take care of the less fortunate, the disabled, the poverty-stricken. In other words, a return to 1932 in America. Am I mistaken ? I know that all libertarians are not the same, but it seems as if the Repugs are trying to take a page out of the "less/no government" playbook.

That social uplift is best achieved through unregulated big business, not withstanding everything in our history showing this to be absolutely untrue.

Poverty:

We seek the elimination of occupational licensure, which prevents human beings from working in whatever trade they wish. We call for the abolition of all federal, state and local government agencies that restrict entry into any profession, such as education and law, or regulate its practice. We oppose all government welfare, relief projects and "aid to the poor" programs.

Health care:

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We advocate a complete separation of medicine from the State. We support an end to government-provided health insurance and health care. Both of these functions can be more effectively provided in the private sector.

Ever notice they often condemn the poor as being bums who deliberately make bad choices and don't put any effort into bettering themselves by delaying gratification, etc. My question of them is if that is the commonly held view of the poor, who, in their perfect universe, will be willing to be charitable and generous in spirit to the poor?
Truth is, they simply want someone else to deal with the realities of social responsibility in a decent and civilized world.

I relish the thought of getting medicine from an unlicensed pharmacist, or having surgery performed on me by an unlicensed physician.

these issues. From what I understand they don't want these things dictated at the federal level.

As you might guess from my screen name, we're polar opposites politically.

Some Libertarians believe it would be nice if the government took tax money and spent it for good, but it is inevitable they will spend more of our tax money on nastiness. Who are more selfish than the current leadership, Democrat or Republican, that the American people elect or Diebold selects? Unfortunately the Republicans say "less/no government" but enlarge the government and give tax money to their corporate buds. Personally I would rather have the right to doctor myself when possible. I also think I am capable of choosing caregivers by looking at their experience, education, and references.

I think the opinion differs among them, as they are a fickle group. I think, just like any other zealots, they let their overlying philosophy get in the way of their compassion and common sense. They are so determined about their belief the government should stay out of our lives they let it cloud their judgement. Just talk to them sensibly, they're easier to reach than repukes.

I respect that opinion. I wouldn't mind if the debate in this country were simply between "more government" and "less government." I would clearly be on the side of more government services, but I would completely respect those who disagreed with me on those issues. I would take that as a rational debate, and I'd be very civil about it.

However, the current Rapturist Republicans are not like that at all. They want a theocracy, which is more government, not less. They want the government to actively promote Christianity above other religions. And they don't care how much the government spends. They cut taxes, but they don't cut government, which of course leads to huge gudget deficits. Why should they care? They think the Rapture is coming soon, so who cares about the national debt? That's also why they don't care about environmental problems. We don't have to worry about having enough resources for the next generations or keeping the air and water clean if the world's about to end?

I'm sick of it.

Historically support republicans -- they are not overly bound to them.

From a Libertarian point of view, GWB has been a collosell waste, and the Republican congress that came in 1994 started well (eliminated farm subsidies, welfare reform, etc.), but has royally scr*wed the pooch since then, and espcially with Bush.

Libertarians are usually republicans on issues that involve money; however, they trend towards democrats on social issues (gay marrige, civil liberties, sep. of church & state, abortion). They will oppose any expansion of social programs.

A lot of libertarians voted for Kerry, and if the candidate is right, many will support a democrat over a republican -- especially if the repub. is theocrat.

But remember, libertarian used to be another way to say liberal. Most people nowadays realize that corporations are powerful organizations and have to be watched, just like government has to be watched. Thus, the urge to maximize freedom often comes out as an opposition to concentrations of power in general - in other words, economic populism. This is also known as 'left libertarian', and people are usually surprised to find out they are one.

There is a branch of the republican party that i don't know how to describe without using the word 'libertarian'. But they agree - like almost everybody in this country - that health care and education should be affordable, that the elderly and the truly needy should be cared for, etc. They consider people more important than money. They just want it done with minimal waste and with minimal intrusion. They are the 'live and let live' crowd, and they are diametrically opposed to the authoritarianism of the theocrats who have seized what was once their party. There's a lot of them, and they're being pushed away, and we need to pull them in, and we can do it with good ol' liberal values.

They're against the Patriot act and Guatanamo and torture and invasions of privacy and the squelching of dissent and wars of choice. They want more transparent, honest, accountable, and representative government. They want maximum personal freedom, minimum government power & cost while still doing what we set it up to do in the first place; that is, preserve our rights to life, liberties and pursuit of happiness.

Don't let the .5% of people in the Libertarian party blind you to the perhaps 30% of libertarian-minded folk amongst the republicans and independents and non-voters. (Another 30%, of course, is in the democratic party for the excellent reasons outlined above. There's not really that many authoritarians and corporatists as it often seems, they just tend to get into power more.)

Elsewhere, I brought up a similar point about what they believe in, and was promptly informed of something like 6 different "kinds" of libertarians.

Neo-paolithic-retrograde-aquarian-libertarians, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Something like different kinds of vegetarians for those who eat eggs, but no fish, etc.

It's a nice way for them never to have to take a stand on anything (except taxes and drugs) that would expose their beliefs as the fantasy as they are.

I could take all day typing this, but I want to make it as succinct as possible:

1. Libertarians are not heartless. I am a libertarian socialist, but I am also a middle-of-the-road libertarian that believes there is room in this society for the cooperative, commune, the union, the free market, the unregulated corporations, and yes, even the whacked-out and repressive tenets of right-wing authoritarian social institutions.

2. The Libertarian Party seems to be a blanket for many types of libertarians, but within the LP, MOST libertarians tend to be of the anarchocapitalist or freemarketers. The other next-most-largest contingent, however, are disaffected Republicans who are NOT Libertarians at all, but neo-liberal Republicans fiscally, and right-wing authoritarian Republicans, socially. This is not the fault of the rest of us libertarians that Rothbard, and especially Friedman and Block, have spent the greater part of the last century creating a right-wing libertarianism that is very, very confused. And then there's Ayn Rand, who is only really marginally associated with libertarianism, and only one type of libertarianism, who gets thrown around like she's the most important libertarian thinker. I would suggest that if you want to explore more responsible and neither "market worshipping" nor "totalitarian, state-less right-wing social fascism," that you read Hayek, Mises, Noam Chomsky and Proudhon. In the middle ground between these factions and liberal egalitarianism and conservative decentralization (federalism) lie both the solution to keeping the Dominionists, militarists and corpo-fascists out of power, as well as creating a society that works much better than our own.

3. The libertarians are your friends -- the real ones, anyway, and much of the LP. Or, at least they're the enemy of your enemy, to some extent. The Libertarians and the Democrats happen to share half a platform, remember? That civil rights thing. Also, I would say that the Democrats share 1/4 of the economic platform with the Libertarians. One of the NUMBER ONE things that comes with dismantling or de-centralizing the state is the dismantling of the corporation, severance of the corporation from the state and, most importantly, the military, and stripping the corporation of its human status in courts. Libertarians may like the free market, and not a lot of federal regulations, but they also don't like Bill Frist writing your healthcare laws, Washington Lobbyists, corporate military adventures, and Dick Cheney's closed-door energy policy.

4. It is also important to remember the differnce between the "tear-down-the-state" libertarians, and the "decentralize government" libertarians and libertarian federalists. Not all libertarians want no government whatsoever.

5. Aesthetically and psychologically, Libertarians and Democrats can get along much, much better than the new corpo-fascist Republicans and Democrats. Many of us (and even real Republicans) agree that the "small town storefront," is sorely missed. We cheered Vermont for saying "NO" to Wal-Mart. We, as liberals, generally long for places to buy locally, local character, handicrafts, places to buy things responsibly, etc. Pro-decentralization libertarianism fits into this narrative VERY WELL by virtue of its emphasis on downplaying the "national consciousness," and returning both government and so-called "sphere of existence" to the local level, where the individual actor cannot only have laws more suitable to their state or town, but have, in effect both increased CONSUMER and UNION and purchasing power control, closer to their sphere of existence.

6. I don't blame you for thinking that libertarians are bad. For the last several decades, the most mouthy of the libertarians have been confused Republicans who neither grasp the nuance, nor understand the potential of true libertarian and classical liberal thinking, simply because they are CONSERVATIVE and are attempting to uphold patriarchy, white culture, the power elite and Christianity. If you hear the words "the ancient ways," that's what this means.

7. About the healthcare and social services. Yes, libertarians often believe one of two things: that social services should be de-centralized, so communities have more control over both the dollar amount and application of those tax dollars. Many of us, of the non-Ayn Rand and non-Republican "strict father" stripe*, believe that charity is VERY important, and those of us who are more libertine libertarians suggest alterations in the filial arrangement, such as communal living, extended-family living, encouraging familes to pool resources to take care of their families, instead of leaving it up to the "state." Why? The STATE is wasteful, no matter how you want to slice it, no matter who runs it.

(*there is a faction of Darwinian, right-wing libertarianism that suggests no social services or charity would help "breed out" the weaker of the species. I call this racism and genocide -- but that's just me...).

8. And as for my own libertarianism, yes, there is a little mean-spirit behind it, but it is not directed at the poor, or one of the more commonly recognized victimized social classes, but at the largest and most underestemated class of victimizers: the middle class. And who do they victimize? THEMSELVES. The star worshippers, the mindless consumers, the bread-and-circus plebs, the fashionable, the wasteful, the very, oh so very, complacent, apathetic and oblivious. They are the largest in number, and they have the power, and they do nothing with it -- well, except bring us farther and farther into corpo-fascism, superstitious rule and empire building.

9. A lot of things that Democrats forget is that if you build a palace, your enemy probably dreams of knocking your palace down. Until, anyway, he defeats you on the battlefield, and decides that now that he's beaten you, rather than knock down your castle, he's going to live in it, and sleep with your wife, and put his feet up on YOUR footstool. He's going to take your money, your land and be a real fucking bastard with it. The main reason that I became a libertarian, after 30 years of being a democrat is because last April, I realized what only a few people are starting to, and even fewer are afraid to say, in public: Left-wing authoritarianism, and right-wing authoritarianism are two heads of the same monster.

Here are some good articles to read that have come out, recently:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2111942/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory54.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4245

Read these, and tell me that, in the face of right-wing authoritarian empire, the Libertarians are not your friends...