To: Steve Lokness who wrote (228470 ) 7/28/2013 10:10:19 AM From: epicure Read Replies (1) | Respond to The problem with libertarianism is that we've always been social animals. Ancient societies were even more intrusive than ours, because survival was more likely to be at stake. We've only been able to loosen the bonds of personal freedom because food is plentiful. What libertarians don't seem to get is that society is a cooperative adventure, and some people aren't cooperative. For those people you need government, and in a complex world like ours, where one sticky cog can screw up a lot, you need a lot of government. Libertarians often seem to yearn for some sort of wild west- but what they don't own up to, is that they want all the freedom of that west, with none of the consequences. In their dream world people assume the risk, or pay individually, for crucial services we now enjoy. With the societal spreading of the payments we enjoy a much better average lifestyle than we could if individuals were trying to shoulder these costs. Are there inefficiencies? Sure. But if you look at lifestyle, comfort, and societal harmony, those societies with more socialism have greater peace and quality of life. It is anti-social to want to destroy that. Obviously there will always be some portion of the population that is anti-social, but I'm not sure why anyone, other than the anti-social, would glorify that. Ayn Rand was the epitome of an anti-social individual. She had no children, and no stake in society to speak of. She thought none of societies rules really ought to apply to her. She took advantage of all the benefits a social society had to offer her, while hypocritically advocating positions that would have destroyed the very society she enjoyed.
