@AnthonyFStevens
Please remember everyone, that #Liberalism is not #Libertarianism
@AnthonyFStevens@mastodon.onlineThe origins of #Libertarianism are in #Socialism. #Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian & anti-Capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance & workers' self-management.
The word has been coopted by the #FarRight in modern times to stand for small government, maximum personal freedoms, with minimal state intervention.
Libertarianism means different things to different people. 
I agree; it does mean different things to different people. But the key root is "liberty". Freedom. The absence or at least minimization of coercion. And, economically, that implies free market capitalism. A beautiful thing about capitalism is that people can effectively live as, say, socialists under capitalism; the reverse is not true. Free market capitalism allows for other models to exist, so long as those who participate in them choose to do so freely.
@AlexanderKingsbury @Gillinger
Agreed 100%. I see myself as a Social Democrat, a person happy to live in a #Capitalist market, but one which has #Socialist welfare safeguards.
I think this gives us the best of both worlds.
The thought of living in a purely Socialist or Capitalist society is chilling to me. I'm not in favour of extremes.
@AnthonyFStevens @Gillinger I don't see a free market capitalist system as being particularly chilling. There are a lot of mechanisms to help those in need; sadly, right now, the government is hindering a lot of those mechanisms in ways most libertarians object to. There are around 40 million people in the US in poverty; HHS alone had a 2019 budget of $1.2T. That's $40,000 for each person in poverty. I submit that they are clearly not getting much of that money. Our social programs are failing.
@AlexanderKingsbury @Gillinger
Agreed, but a purely #Capitalist, free market society with zero safeguards would leave those in destitution homeless & starving.
However, as you point out, the cost of administering Social Welfare aid has become an inefficient industry in its own right.
I believe Welfare would be better served being run along more efficient private lines, but for the benefit of those in need, to cut down on waste.
The more money better spent, the more those in poverty benefit.
I agree wholeheartedly. If we let people keep more of their own money, they'd have more to spend on charities. And since they can spend it far more efficiently, they can get more good done for less money, particularly if the government gets out of the way.
@AlexanderKingsbury @Gillinger
To be honest, I see charities as a failure of a welfare state.
I'd love to have a super efficient welfare system so charities aren't even needed.
Taxpayers can keep more of their earnings, & less taxation is needed, because those contributions are being spent more effectively & efficiently.
The issue I have with my own proposal is privatised #Capitalism is run for profit, not people, & Socialism is for the people but highly inefficient.
There's a better way.
I rather see it as the other way around; a welfare state, if it's actually necessary, implies a failure of charity. That we have to take money from people by force to care for the needy means we've failed as a society to produce enough people who are willing to care for the needy voluntarily. Of course, this assumes that the welfare state is actually necessary, and that charity is or would be insufficient.
@AlexanderKingsbury @Gillinger
I'd prefer a society with no need for a welfare state or charities.
However, as was once said: "Judge a Government by how it treats it's most needy, because that's how they'd treat the rest of us if they could get away with it."
I'd rather we agree safeguards as a society, rather than relying on the limited goodwill in human nature, where some will give what they can afford, & others won't, whether they can afford to or not.