|
|
|
|
|
by ohxten
6360 days ago
|
|
> For a similar reason to the amphetamine prohibition above, I think that welfare/health is essential & should be provided by the state. I think you will find that a libertarians actually don't mind it being provided by a /state/ government (myself included) The issue comes in when the /federal/ government provides it. This is not freedom, because unless you move from the USA you are forced to subsidize what is arguably an inefficient system caused by bad government policies. I'm a strong believer in the 10th Amendment. If it ain't in the Constitution, it's for the states to decide. If the people of a state want welfare, they'll vote someone in who will give it to them; whoever opposes can move to another state. 50 different implementation possibilities for everything. That's freedom. |
|
Some parts of it seem outdated. The US isn't an ungovernable collection of states that need Federation only for dealing with other countries anymore. There is also nothing wrong with Federation if it works. Even if you decide to work at county level, that's fine. But as with anything, you end up risking income discrepancies & the consequences of this (migration, resentment, estrangement, etc.)
But anyway, that's a completely administrative issue. How you should form a Government (states//Federation, Republic, Kingdom) is one thing. Deciding what this government should do is a seperate issue.
If you are not opposed to Government provision of health/welfare (or as I prefer Government guarantee of these, but the de facto difference is quite small), I think you are pushing the definition of libertarian.