re: #181 elbruce

How limited? If you can answer that question and not shift the goalpost later on, then you’re not a libertarian any more.

I disagree. If you argue that everything must be set in stone, you risk having reality pass you by. You can’t argue that a definition of limited government today would apply to 50 years ago. I don’t consider that moving the goal posts, no more than I would consider the goals of civil rights today compared to 50 years ago to be moving the goal posts. (*1)

Look at it this way, If you viewed Libertarianism as a concept, that in general, government should be the role of last resort in society, then things become a bit easier. It’s not moving the goal posts to say that health care is a mess and individuals and corporations have had plenty of chances to make things better, but they haven’t. We already have government programs to help the elderly and at least a fig leaf of coverage for the most needy. why? because individuals and corporations have failed to provide for those people. Only the most heartless views of Libertarianism would say to let these people die on the streets. I could go on with other examples but we can start with that for now. That from a libertarian standpoint Health Care reform was a necessary event. The question is, did they get the details right or wrong?

Note:
*1 - when I compare the idea of a libertarian goal to a civil rights goal, I am in no way making a moral equivalence between the two