Reply #26: Ah! Poesy.

[DaedelusNemo]

So, where do you set your dividing line? What's the most socialist thing you support? How do you decide?

Most people agree that the 'truly needy' should be helped; there the argument is about who qualifies as truly needy. Then again, there is spending intended to increase opportunity, such as loans for small businesses and so forth. The argument there is whether the boost given to the economy is worth the tax cost (or possibly whether, even if so, if it should be done.) I'm drawing a blank right now on other categories other than 'waste'.

In general, i'm in sympathy with the notions not only that the truly needy shouldn't be abandoned, but that the 'American Dream' of opportunity should be made real; that is, that people ought to be able to get ahead by working hard. Does our disagreement involve these ends, do you think, or rather the specific means to attain them?

I think of myself as pretty libertarian - i tend to score as heavily left-libertarian on those online quizzes. Still, i'm certainly not as libertarian as many who call themselves that (and strike me as economic anarchists.) It seems to me that there are some things - a few - that gov't is in a better position to do than anyone else; that is, large-scale problems for which profitable solutions cannot be found, or large-scale investments for which the original investor would get too small a part of the overall return to turn a profit. The question then, to me, is how much of a problem is enough of one to call in gov't, and which investments are wanted. I'd like to hear ya'll's thoughts on any of this.