" As I said, the social contract depends on a balance. "

Exactly. I know it was Matus that specifically argued that skepticism leads to Libertarianism, but I was pointing out that this balance is not as easy to find as you both seem to think. Should we get rid of public schools? Does this upset the balance of the social contract? Only to a philosophically dogmatic Libertarian. How do I prove this philosophically dogmatic Libertarian is wrong? I can't. It's not a matter of correct or incorrect, it's a matter of values.

" So you agree with nearly all of my examples, but find the example that the govt. should regulate DUI and second-hand smoke, but not individuals right to drink or smoke, absurd?"

No. I agree with you that the government should not restrict our right to drink and smoke. I was not listing all your examples I agreed with, just some of them. I think we'd find a lot to agree on in matters of personal liberty. I just don't agree that our desire to be free of taxes should outweigh the benefits of government programs such as public schooling and roads and such.

" Horatio Alger myth of the self-made man? I’m also not sure how you’re getting so much that doesn’t seem to be there "

I think the Libertarian position, your position, is generally based on a denial of the role the rest of society plays in the economic success or failure of each individual within that society. The wealthy owe a great debt to the government that sets the rules of the system which allowed them to accumulate their wealth. They didn't do it on their own, nor would that even be possible. The point of society is supposed to be for people to come together for the mutual benefit of all. We don't all have to have equal access to all resources in order to say society has met that function, but if the government is responsible for some people being wealthy--and it is--there should be some balance
between equality of wealth and the oppurtunity to acquire individual wealth in a just society. Like the balance between freedom and safety, the level where these competing values is properly balanced is a subjective matter.

" If you are commenting on paternalistic vs. non-paternalistic government, you haven’t managed to do so "

I hope I've already cleared up the fact that I do not support government efforts to protect individuals from their own actions, such as using drugs, wearing seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, and other such paternalistic laws. I do, however, support government supported education, health care, unemployment insurance, and other programs others might consider overly-protective and paternalistic.

"A more valid pro-paternalism argument is usually the on TALARIA brought up with regard to who pays when the motorcycle rider cracks his head. "

I was a little shocked at the argument that humans are immature, therefore they need to be protected by humans. I'd never heard anyone defend paternalism before. It's generally used to describe whatever laws that particular person feels cross the line of being overly-protective. This oft-used argument, therefore, is a rationalization for why helmet laws are not paternalistic--we are protecting ourselves from stupid motorcycle riders, rather than we are protecting stupid motorcycle riders from themselves. My response is that the people who will, and should, pay for increased health care costs relating to non-fatal, helmetless motorcycle accidents are the same people who are going to save money from not having to pay social security, as well as any future health care costs and other expenses the government might pick up for everyone involved in a fatal, helmetless motorcycle accident.

FLOOR13

"Should we get rid of public schools? Does this upset the balance of the social contract? Only to a philosophically dogmatic Libertarian."

"I just don't agree that our desire to be free of taxes should outweigh the benefits of government programs such as public schooling and roads and such. "

As a skeptic, if someone proves to me that competing private schools do a better job of educating then government mandated and regulated public schooling, then yeah, get rid of public schools. Would you disagree with that? If someone proves to me that regulated public schooling is better at educating (per dollar spent of course) then competing private corporation run schools, then keep it. I must clarify that I am not a libertarian for philosophicall reasons, I do not profess that taxation is theft or that it is wrong for the goverment to use tax dollars to build roads. I am a libertarian because I am a skeptic and everything we know about science and economics tells us that everybody would be better off if competing private companies took care of public services. And not the government.

" The wealthy owe a great debt to the government that sets the rules of the system which allowed them to accumulate their wealth."

What, capitalism? Are you saying that in an unregulated free market economy one can not accumalte wealth?

" They didn't do it on their own, nor would that even be possible."

How do you figure, if anything, government regulations inhibit the accumulation of wealth and basically punish you more for being successfull.

"The point of society is supposed to be for people to come together for the mutual benefit of all."

While not violating the rights of any individual, right? Or can you leave that part out... To me thats called 'communism' and a few years back there was this big expirement on that in a labratory called 'russia' didnt work too well.

"We don't all have to have equal access to all resources in order to say society has met that function, but if the government is responsible for some people being wealthy--and it is--there should be some balance between equality of wealth and the oppurtunity to acquire individual wealth in a just society. Like the balance between freedom and safety, the level where these competing values is properly balanced is a subjective matter. "

I disagree, it is not a subjective matter. It is purely objective that capitalism induces innovation, that people have to be given a reward of some kind to put that hard work in. The more reward, the harder to work put into it. When everybody has equal access to everything else and everyons is equal, indivuality and innovation suffer immensily. The level where that balance between equality of wealth and the average benefit of the individual is at the free market economy. Everyone has the same oppertunity to acquire wealth and keep it. What is the problem with that? Who is better able to decide what is best for you then you? ALl of the variable you mention can be mathematically modeled, and indeed have been in evolutionary models. Its all competition for resources vs. self interested individuals. I would suggest studying some ESS and Game theory, very fascinating stuff. Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' goes deeply into ESS's and Ridleys 'Originis of virtue' is an incredibly that deals with both subjects as well.

"I do, however, support government supported education, health care, unemployment insurance, and other programs others might consider overly-protective and paternalistic. "

But if someone could prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that competing private insurance, education, and health care companies always work better for the individual then government mandated and regulated ones, which you change that notion?

I must emphasize that I am not a libertarian for philosophical reasons regarding economic freedom, I am a libertarian because everything we know about science, logic, and economics points to this as being best for all involved. I am, however, a libertarian for personnel freedoms for philosophical reasons, as 'rights' are something much more difficult to define objectively.

Matus