Sorry, didn't word that too well. Point #1 covered entitlement programs. The other point covered all non-entitlement, government funded programs - such as NASA, OSHA, the EPA, etc....

Can you expand on your first question?
What needs to be protected i think is obvious, unless i am missing something. How much, that of course is not as obvious and who, that would have to be the politicians or an institution of some kind.
That could be done voluntarily.
But then we get to the point that the government restricts other from entering that field which is what i would like to discuss.

How does it work with private companies who acts as courts.
How do these companies decide what the law is going to be?
How do they decide the penalty?
How would the system work with different laws and different penalties?

However small they need to be to not have to act with aggression towards citizens or non citizens. Perhaps they could work off of donations like a non-for profit.

Man, that gets funnier every hundredth time I see it.

For the thousandth time, a hangover is not caused by not drinking.

Only a statist could see a society plunged into ruin and chaos by government and claim that this is evidence that a lack of government will lead to ruin and chaos.

Yes.

Hmmm, I figured that the we were not talking about the OBVIOUS ones. Just the ones that there could possibly be debate about.

I am guessing you are relatively new to political discussion.

Less Government means to me?

Less of this =

This is a fair point, i guess when talking pure ideology, these things come up. The government obviously needs funding, we could talk about what a 'fair' means of obtaining these funds would be, but that is a different discussion.

"Individualists believe that the legitimate power of government includes the protection of life, liberty, and property. They have no problem with legalized coercion when restricted to these areas. However, there are basically three types of legalized coercion: an oligarchy (rule by an elite minority), a democracy (majority rule), and a republic (LIMITED majority rule).

In a republic, the primary purpose of limitations is to protect the life, liberty, and property of individuals and minorities against the passion, greed, and ignorance of the majority. Traditionally, these limitations are written into what is called a constitution (similar to the bylaws of a corporation), and it is agreed that everyone must follow them, including agents of government itself.

As long as citizens have respect for the wisdom and necessity of those limitations and as long as they keep a watchful eye on their own government to insure obedience, republics are the embodiment of individualism and produce the best social order humanly possible.

The government of the United States was a republic up until about 1900. After that, the old generation passed away and was replaced by a new wave that had no understanding of the need for limitations on government. Instead of distrusting government officials, they began to look up to them as gods and saviors. They embraced the principle of democracy, and it has been a downhill road to serfdom ever since."

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

You are seriously claiming that we are no longer a republic, and that we have no more respect for individual rights outside of majority rule?

Perhaps I am finally beginning to understand the radical right.

Also, why 1900? That seems like an odd date. 1865 or 1932 would seem a lot more plausible for some sort of dividing line.

imo North Korea is a perfect example of statism.

This doesn't answer any of my questions.

I like how you throw in the word 'radical' to demonize your opponent instead of attacking their points

I agree with him
we are no longer a republic with constitutionally limited rights for the minority

we're at some conglomeration of democracy and special interests rule

look at the Patriot Act, drug war, TARP--do you really think the Constitution matters anymore?
I served prison time, because I was a minority opinion individual who believed my body was my own to do with it what I want as long as I did not infringe upon anyone else.
In the words of Rage, "The land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy."

1900 is ok when just throwing around a rough estimate
There is no single date when it all went down
1932 seems clear to some, but FDR was just an evolution of Hoover
The beginning of Teddy Roosevelt is a decent spot as well, however the foundation of 'constructive intervention' by the government began long before that.
I would argue that it was the explosion in science that brought the faith some experts could sit at 30,000 feet and pull the levers to fix all problems is really the fundamental flaw. Also, a lot of late 19th century immigration from 'them' brought about silly interference laws to preserve 'us,' such as the beginning of the national education system.

I didn't say anarchism caused Somalia's troubles, but it sure seems like an easier place to start an AC society than the US of A. Land is cheap and any private security force worth its salt could protect you from the warlords. Mogadishu even had a private police force for a time.

This looks familiar. Plagarism, imo

Sorry for your loss. But, to be clear....

First, your Mom may benefit more from the Social Security system down the road when she reaches retirement age but that will depend upon her circumstances at that time.

Second, the SS system as originally set up and envisioned was essentially an "insurance" to be paid out upon reaching "retirement." It should be viewed as insurance, in the same sense that catastrophic medical insurance exists and that you should hope to hell that you never need it. SS is not an annuity with a death benefit. Your dad could have invested in that type product if he chose to.

SS and medicare, for that matter, are a safety net. It is for the benefit of society and the greater good that those who are so unfortunate as to become disabled, become incurably ill, etc. have de minimus provisions for existing when they are unable to care for themselves. This is a cornerstone of a rational, sympathetic society. It is easily arguable that a safety net is in the best interests of the most Ayn Randian of us, for if the poor and indigent get so poor and indigent that their existence is bereft of any "goodness" or "positiveness" then those people are quite likely to feel that they have nothing to lose. People who have nothing to lose are significant threats to those of us who may have something to lose. Therefore, it is easily arguable that it is in the best interest of the "haves" to provide something for the "have-nots" lest the latter try and separate the former from that which makes them the "haves."

Now, one could logically argue that the safety net is wasteful and the money would be better served in the hands of the earner rather than the government but that arguer must, in the end, agree to and affirm that he is willing to let the indigent, etc. rot in the street rather than provide them with "social benefits" such as basic medical and food. It is a position that is untenable. So, if you not going to allow people to rot in the street, you logically must have programs (translate... MONEY) to get the people out of the street.

To anyone who chose to read this far, I will not continue the logical argument. It should become self-evident why there is a need for a social safety net.

To the quoted poster, I offer my condolences to you and your family.

Even if we agree on this (some people may, shockingly, have a different opinion), it is NOT self-evident that such a safety net must be provided via compulsory payments to a monopoly net-provider.

I will be glad to continue the discussion. I just wasn't sure anyone would care to read on. Not to be nitty, but your use of the word "shockingly" leads me to believe that, after reading my post, I have somehow come off as elitist or otherwise condescending. If so, that was not my intent.

So... If I read you correctly, you seem to be agreeable to some sort of safety net but not "via compulsory payments to a monopoly net-provider." OK. I'll bite. What other methodology could you envision for providing for same?

Hmm, charity?

Snarky: Won't anyone think of the rotting near-corpses?

Srsly: Ever heard of voluntary charity?

Arguing against ss & medicare as the safety net in favor of "charity" as the safety net argues that it should be voluntary to provide for a safety net. Ok, fine. But you still must affirm that you, if an advocate of charity providing the safety net, are, indeed, willing to let people fall through he cracks and, if you will, rot in the street. To the extent that you make that affirmation, then you can advocate charity as an answer. I can agree or disagree at that point.

This is completely ridiculous. You are claiming that people would definitely fall through the cracks of charity and implying that a magical government solution exists in which this would never occur. Are you willing to let people rot in the street who forget to sign up for SS or who get denied benefits by some bureaucrat?

EDIT to add: I can turn the tables on you, as well, since you must "agree to and affirm" that you are willing to take my money against my will to give to others to fund your government scheme. Are you willing to steal to support the poor, Robin Hood?

I am not making myself clear. My bad.

My argument against charity is that it relies on someone else to "take responsibility" for providing for the social safety net.

By arguing for the social safety net as a function of government where citizens are mandated to contribute (ss & med) I am arguing that all must contribute to the benefit of the indigent.

Additionally, this argument/discussion was never designed to guarantee that people would not fall through the cracks. The discussion or so I thought was more of an ethical argument on the efficacy of maintaining a social safety net at all versus having everyone fend for themselves.

What do you base this argument on? You can't simply state that everyone must contribute. If that is your opinion then you are certainly free to look down on me if I choose not to contribute but you are not free to force me to contribute. Are you willing to steal to support the poor?

If we weren't supposed to be talking about people falling through the cracks, why throw out the appeal to emotion that people will fall through the cracks if the government doesn't step in?

Social security doesn't change that. You're still relying on other people.

But again, even if we accept that all must contribute, you haven't shown that all must contribute to this particular scheme. Everyone must eat, therefore we must have nationalized food provisioning?

So you're complaining about your own hijacking of the discussion?

False dichotomy.