Libertarianism vs. collectivism?

Question

why should you promote one ideology over another on a federal level? should private life not be up to the individual, and furthermore, when should collectivist measures take place for the good of the whole?

For further information on my views, go to my blog on this very subject:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-FzAFw4klYqVmCQxYBg.vwNY-;_ylt=AtOrFTy9kxdvWBYGsGp_09.kAOJ3?cq=1

Answer 1

Don't No

Answer 2

libertarians firmly believe that personal freedom is first and foremost our most important right. collectivism or socialism seeks to take away our personal freedoms and properties. it is up to government to protect our freedoms by defeating those that wish us harm. it is not the governments responsibility or right to confiscate property or monies from one person to improve the financial situations of the less wealthy or poor. in some instances, ie catastrophe, war, etc., the government may ASK for assistance, or "collect" tax money for the common good. but this should be limited to dire circumstances. remember, socialism tends not to empower the people, but empowers the government through control and dependence

Answer 3

I always side with individual liberty over the good of the whole. I think policies created for "the good of the whole" lead to some of the biggest messes.  Ex: War on Drugs, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind

  In my opinion, what is good for the individual is good for the whole.  I read your blog, and I was with you on deregulating prostitution, drugs, speech and gambling.  However, I don't understand why that is where your trust in the free market ends.  I don't quite agree with the distinction you made between the liberty of the individual and forward-thinking collectivist measures.

   I strongly disagree with your collectivist views that the govt. should have a role in eugenics, population control or meritocracy.  I'm a little more iffy on the environment but I think that problem is better solved by stricter enforcement and respect of property rights. I think dependency on oil is a problem, but the only way out of that is an alternative fuel.  I don't see any problem with the United States being 60% hispanic.  Immigration is not the problem; it's the welfare state that provides the incentive for people not willing to work for a living to come to this country as free riders.  Without that safety net, people will only be immigrating to the U.S. for the opportunity and not the free ride.

   For the most part, I think your forward-thinking measures have good intentions, but I don't think it's the role of the govt. to make such decisions.  I think you get the best result when you leave it to the free market to decide.