A question to libertarians/Ron Paul supporters.
First of all, I would like to state that I'm not trying to be arrogant or a smart ass, I just want have a better understanding of U.S. politics. My question is aimed at the moral fundamentals of libertarianism, not the efficiency or practicality of policies
My question is if a person can afford to hire bodyguards to protect his property or can protect his property and himself on his own, why should said person pay for policemen for society. is it morally wrong to force said person to pay for something he has no use for, but others will use using his money.
Posted May 23, 2012, 1:27 AM UTC
38
Libertarianism includes many schools of thought with many different underlying philosophies. A few lean heavily on private property and voluntary interaction, declaring all taxation to be theft. Many accept that real property isn't entirely private, that some things necessary for a good society are hard to do well without some government and that policing and a criminal justice system are among them.
In the case of the Federal government, the vast majority of the budget is split between wealth redistribution (welfare), insurance (social security, medicare, medicaid) and warfare. I think most libertarians would like to start by scaling back some of these expenses. For example, the US is, of course number one in the world in military spending. We spend as much as 2-15 combined.
It's also important to note that there's an element of Federalism in Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism; it includes the ideas that many functions of government, including most policing should be done at the state or local level. Even so, most of us recognize some need for Federal law enforcement. We would eliminate the TSA and DEA, scale back the FBI and take a hard look at the behavior of CBP. we would not eliminate it all.