You make good points, and I apologize for being a dick. It offends me, though, when I see someone say, "I don't feel like it. Why don't YOU do all the work?"
I have never claimed, nor have I seen anyone in here claim, that libertarianism maximizes the good. Rather, I claim, and I believe the others do as well, that it minimizes the harm. A minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one.
I'll dispute that either later in this post, or in another post. I'll go line by line at the moment.
Here are some facts:
Taxation hurts the poor the most.
Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good?
Giving tax breaks to the poor and taxing the rich until they are poor just drives the rich out of your country.
Empirically denied(at least on the state level :
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/millionaire-tax-didnt-chase-the-rich-from-new-jersey-study-says/Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt.
Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged.
Private charity does a much better job of taking care of people.
Several points here:
1) The people who end up donating money to these charities do so out of the goodness of their heart. Under a libertarian system, there would be a fetishization of greed, and there would be no rational reason to donate to a charity.
2) Empirically denied-- most private charities have an agenda to pursue as well, and will execute social justice programs more effectively, but not evenly:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chibrknews-catholic-charities-suspends-foster-care-licensing-20110603,0,6555435.story3) Private charities are plagued by the same ineffectiveness and corruption that gov. is plagued by:
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBZQ4B0ABE.htmlWith less taxation, the economy does much better.
Undeniable, but a rising tide does
not raise all boats, economically speaking.
[quote
With a better economy, there are more jobs.[/quote]
Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society.
With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs.
I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more.
Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society.
Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces.
Honestly, I've had many debates with anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, and objectivists. The only way I've seen the 1st two defend themselves effectively is on a deontological platform-- rights have primacy, and they can't be violated.
As for the objectivists, well, their ontology/values are laughable. I haven't seen one defend their ideas effectively yet.