>>7370Going off of a bit of what you said, I'd like to rant a little bit (not that you're talking this position, but I see this position advocated a lot online):
I hear talk from a lot of ultra-libertarians in terms of ending the drug war. That it also means ending the welfare state. I can't see it.
I just want to debunk that view right now... the Ayn Rand fantasy of a minimalist state in which 25% of the population lies dying in the gutter due entirely because of their bad luck of being born to the wrong parents while right next door another 25% of the population live in marble column covered mansions with gold plated toilets, the middle 50% being in Brazilian-style favelas or such merely eking out a living and scrimping to survive... it just can't work. Putting morality aside, it's simply impractical. Civilization doesn't achieve stability that way.
A world without charity, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, et cetera would be a world in which different social groups are so alienated from each other that the culture achieves total dehumanization. Eventually, the 75% majority would up and murder the ruling class. They'd have zero reason not to. They're on the edge. Nothing to lose.
Honestly, the fact that "voluntary slavery" is considered a legitimate topic in such ultra-libertarian circles is a nice sign that they're full of a lot of hardcore nonsense. For real.
You're your brother's keeper. You can't fuck up your life entirely without it getting un-fucked. You're a part of organized civilization, and you matter.
To the central point, well, people should ideally just not be left behind. They'd be able to fuck up again and again. And they'd be picked up each time. "We hang together, or we hang separately" as the saying goes.
