Hello, DU. I am a libertarian.

[R.Quinn]

47. More responses comin' at ya

Glad to see we are both after fairness. Seems it's just a matter of how we should get there. You say that those with more wealth receive more government services than than do the poor, and I'd love to see some data on that, because I'm not so sure. Take fire and police services, for example. It would make more sense to me that these services would be used more often and more intensely in urban, densely-populated, lower-income areas; where there are more people around, there are typically more crimes and more fires, no? Joe Millionaire, living in his 6-bedroom palace in the 'burbs, probably never has to call the police or fire departments. The wealthy are also much more likely to be privately educated; they can likewise hire those with private educations, in which case they aren't utilizing public school services at all. If you have a problem with military protection of international trade, then fine; eliminate this service altogether and force the wealthy to hire their own private security; surely they can afford it. Furthermore, I would argue that the use of roads, sewers and other infrastructure for businesses is what business taxes are for, not income tax. So if you can prove to me empirically that the wealthy actually receive more of these services than the poor, maybe you can change my mind.

^^On a side note, you also mentioned "corporate welfare". If by this you are referring to things such as corporate subsidies and limited liability privilege, then yes, I agree with you that they are a problem. Let's eliminate them!

Speed limits are different from minimum wage. When you travel on a road paved by the State, it only makes sense that you would have to play by their rules. Private businesses, on the other hand, should have no such limitations. Not to be lazy, but " target="_blank">this guy essentially lays out my entire argument against minimum wage in terms of liberty and the free market.

Not all limits in our society are limits mandated by law. There is one major barrier to entry that has not yet been mentioned in regards to arms ownership, and that is COST. A single FIM-92 Stinger missile, for example, has a hefty price tag of $38,000. I'll go out on a limb and say most people don't desire to own such a weapon, and even those that do likely can't afford one. So who would realistically have private ownership of missiles? Hardly anyone. Same goes for fully automatic guns; if you're not willing to throw down at least $15,000, then good luck getting one. It's just not realistic to view these as a threat. So really, there are limits on these weapons, just not the kind of limits you were expecting.

If the police cannot obtain a search warrant, then they probably don't have reasonable cause to tail someone onto private property in the first place, be it residential or commercial, if the owner doesn't want them there. That's what I'm saying here. So, not being able to tail someone is a non-issue. With the way the police regularly abuse our rights (examples are all over this very site), I don't feel bad making their job a little more difficult. And you're right, the racists and the bigots will still be out there, but that's the the nature of liberty. It's dangerous, in that it can be used for both good and evil, but it's also precious because of the free choices it gives us. More laws will never eradicate these hateful views; only by changing hearts and minds can we achieve that. In the meantime, protect liberty!

I do have a strong anti-regulation disposition, I just haven't personally decided what that should look like on a practical level. The FDA, for example, I find to be extremely corrupt and manipulated by the very businesses it claims to regulate; it is no friend of the American people. I just haven't figured out how to replace it yet! I disagree that social issues are simply "window dressing"; those topics are extremely important to me and many other libertarians that I know. In fact, it's on these issues that you and I have the most common ground, so let's emphasize them instead!

Thanks, as always, for your time. It means a lot to me that you would provide your viewpoints and counterpoints in detail. I hope to find many more thinkers like you on the DU.