Disposition of the pillage, 2007...

What's the Libertarian solution?

Generally, the Libertarian solution involves smaller, less expensive and less intrusive government by returning both the federal and state governments to their constitutionally mandated limits.

Specifically, in this case we would allow the free market to determine how much and what type of crops should be grown, and allow private charity to take a larger role in caring for the needy. Americans donated $300 billion to charity last year, over and above what the government forcibly took and re-distributed. I believe lightening the tax load would allow them to give more.

As noted, this is a very short answer, and a solution to our fiscal and social problems is much more complicated than a couple of sentences can address. Starting in October, my Libertarian Perspective column will discuss libertarian principles and how they can apply to federal, state and local government.

Thanks for the input, and for MFP.

Bob Hertzog

As usual, Rex, it is difficult to argue with your logic but as usual I will try. I certainly don't argue with the fact that there are a great many generous Americans who donate a great deal to private charaties. Nevetheless, we still have people who are homeless, hungry, and without adequate medical care. In an affluent land like ours, I find that to be simply unacceptable, and I believe we should do what we can to relieve these problems.

You argued very sensibly that the tax load should be lightened in order to allow people to donate more to the charaties of their choice. As we agree, many will do that. However, some will not. I believe that people who can afford to do so, should help the less fortunate, even it they would elect not to help. "To whom more is given, more is required."

Cultures work like this: Some people, because of the circumstances of their birth, their intelligence, their hard work, or just plain luck are treated better by the society then others. These people grow wealthy and work into positions to influence the rules by which society functions. The upshot is that they make rules whereby they, and people like them, gain more and more wealth. Eventually, a class of wealthy and a class of poor reaults. It seems to me, that there is little wrong with the government helping to level out that field a little.

How this leveling is to be done, of course, is very difficult to work out. We will agree, I think, that when the government does try, it often does it with a sledge hammer when a jeweler's mallet is needed. However, I don't think we should (if you will pardon the cliche) throw our the whole baby with the bath water. I would prefer that we throw out the dirty water and do our best to save the baby.

Well Bob, I'm fairly sure we will never agree 100% on what government should be allowed to do, but that doesn't mean we can't work towards the things we do agree on.

I agree that the people in power make rules and laws that benefit themselves and their supporters. No group should be given special treatment at the expense of another group. I think limiting the power of government would serve to limit abuse of power.

I also agree that government is inefficient in many of it's programs, and if we can work together on making them more efficient, then I'll go on and try to get rid of them on my own. Deal?

"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."  - Thomas Jefferson

Bob Hertzog

I do agree with you and Jefferson.