|
I think you've identified the main sticking point with libertarianism - it's not about allowing everyone an equal chance in life and rewarding those who make the most of their abilities. Instead, it really is 'dog-eat-dog' in the most literal sense.
Those who squander their wealth and talent should in theory sink to the bottom, but there is no provision to help those who start at the bottom. It seems...wasteful. Also I'm not convinced it's possible to be as upwardly-mobile as the LP would claim. Once you have money it's easy to get richer - for a given economy you would therefore expect to see more and more people at the bottom scrabbling for fewer and fewer scraps as time went on. Just take a glance at the wealth gap between rich and poor over time...
As for whether they'll be a political force in America's future - I would imagine we'll see a continual increase for the next few years as Timber's paleo-cons become increasingly dissolusioned with both the Bush administration and the lingering effects of its policies, economic and political. After that, I would imagine their membership will stagnate.
I wouldn't mind hearing people's opinions on whether it's possible to reconcile libertarian views with a belief in human dignity and a social conscience.
Edits for additions.
[ 11-23-2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]
|