posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:46 PM
I think this dichotemy of "statists" or "collectivists" vs "individualists" or "libertarians" has gone to stupid extremes.
huuman beings are social animals - you cannot possibly live in any kind of comfort without the aid of others, and if you are living with anyone else
then you automatically are governed by a set of agreed (or tolerated!) laws or mores.
ther is certainly room for discusion about how much joint activity/responsibility cis best - I like "as much as necessary but as little as possible"
- but that doesn't eally set a subjective line.
But in the USA I would havethought it is patently obvious that some social services are desireable - Americans should not be starving or dying of
easily preventable sickness because they are too poor to eat or have medical attention, regardless of employments status.
social welfare dose not have to be so generous as to be a "good" income choice, but it should also be enough to be a "safety net" to stop the
worst problems of poverty.
But of course people should also be allowed to carry on any way they like that does not actually impinge on the rights of others, and as much as
possible be allowed the free and unfettered use of their own property.
And if you want to be a super power and spend 40%+ of your federal budget on defence then pretty much by definition you do NOT get "small