patrick.net

I agree with almost every thing in the first paragraph. But I don't agree with pinning the flaw of our enept policies and the process of regulating, then deregulating, and the corruption that steams from it. To just the Libertarian party. Every party has a good crack at this screwed up system since Regan.

Go libertarians! Maybe you'll get more than 0.4% of the vote someday. Bullshit works, and it's tough to find more bullshit than among Randroids and (right) Libertarians.

I'm a left-libertarian and honor the principles of self-liberty, but know that in the real world money trumps liberty.

Democratic Government is a locus of power derived from the people. Without government, free markets devolve into loci of power from wealth.

"In the days when all governmental power existed exclusively in the king or in the baronage and when the people had no shred of that power in their own hands, then it undoubtedly was true that the history of liberty was the history of the limitation of the governmental power of the outsiders who possessed that power. But today, the people have, actually or potentially, the entire governmental power. It is theirs to use and to exercise, if they choose to use and to exercise it. It offers the only adequate instrument with which they can work for the betterment, for the uplifting of the masses of our people." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

"libertarianism supports a society of law" as quoted from above.

Teddy Roosevelt? The warmonger? Imperialist? Sorry, his is not the America we can all love and respect.

It is a nice theory but "democratic government" is just another way of saying hidden oligarchy in practice.

Not in other countries. Our main problem is we've got 20-30% of the country voting for social issues like abortion restrictions and discrimination against gays. The oligarchs have no great problem throwing the social conservatives a bone on these, essentially eliminating the feedback powers of democratic government. That's the nutshell history of the Republican party, 1981-2008 at least.

It is a nice theory but “democratic government” is just another way of saying hidden oligarchy in practice.

LOL, you took the words right out of Roosevelt's mouth:

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Libertarians have no answer to that, just some woo-woo about freedom and markets.

LOL Roosevelt is about as honest to goodness champion of the little guy vs. corporatism as Bush. If you examine their records they both said what they had to during their campaign but Bush ignored it after election, and Roosevelt, well he lost. But he was only running to remove Taft who was not moving with the PtB's agenda for "progressivism" aka state growth/corporate growth. Thanks to Roosevelt we got Woodrow Wilson and American involvement in World War I. Yeah for the Bull moose elitist!

BTW as you know Roosevelt returned to the Republican Party after loosing the election. Pretty much sealing the deal that he didn't really mean anything he said. The disillusioned bull moose party soon collapsed in shame/disbelief.

I was interested in Libertarian ideas in college. For some years that's how I described my political affiliation.

However, increasingly I became disaffected with their "Greed is Good" core. There's a sociopath down in there screaming to be let loose on the world.

Sidebar: Ayn Rand idolizing a child-killer named William Edward Hickman is a eye-opener:

Rand also expressed sympathy for Hickman, writing, "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman

And more here:

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Vicente says

I was interested in Libertarian ideas in college. For some years that’s how I described my political affiliation.
However, increasingly I became disaffected with their “Greed is Good” core. There’s a sociopath down in there screaming to be let loose on the world.
Sidebar: Ayn Rand idolizing a child-killer named William Edward Hickman is a eye-opener:

Rand also expressed sympathy for Hickman, writing, “The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the ‘virtuous’ indignation and mass-hatred of the ‘majority.’… It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman
And more here:
http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Guilt by association. Nice Ad Hominem!

Kira : What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" - We the Living, p. 95.

Uh yeah.... nothing elitist about her!

Vicente says

Kira : What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?” - We the Living, p. 95.
Uh yeah…. nothing elitist about her!

Hmm. take a fictional character in a fictional story, not the best Ad Hominem. Sounds pretty desperate. But I'll give you a D+ for effort.

BTW I don't read Ayn Rand. I have seen recordings of her interviews but that is it. If I were you I wouldn't waste my time on fiction, unless you are into that kind of thing.

So you say Ayn Rand is not an elitist, and yet you have not actually read any of her tons of written work. I'd have to give you an F- on your reading assignment and debate preparation.

Vicente says

So you say Ayn Rand is not an elitist, and yet you have not actually read any of her tons of written work. I’d have to give you an F- on your reading assignment and debate preparation.

Just more Ad Hominem. This time it was perfectly executed. You will fit in here well.

BTW if you want fiction, just pick up the newspaper.

>> Hmm. take a fictional character in a fictional story,

In all Ayn Rand books that I have seen, there is a female heroine which is basically Ayn Rand's alter ego. You don't have to be Freud to see that one without using a magnifying glass.

The female heroine is the one that is always panting over the invincible strong-man which is the protagonist of the book. Sometimes she plays hard to get, but generally the strong-man is always strong enough to bend her will. Her books are basically of the bodice-ripper genre, but cloaked in an aura of (fake) intellectualism.

In the books, Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart. In real life, Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan. Yuck.

Fine, if you want to call Ayn Rand an elitist. I won't argue that one. However, she most certainly was not a Libertarian so it doesn't matter what she was. In fact she disdained the Libertarian party and movement (according to an interview in 1971 available on her website AynRand.org.)

The Roosevelts however. They were elitists, and passed themselves off as something entirely different. Good PR/propagandists, true politicians. Others in the same mold as the Roosevelts: LBJ, Bush Jr., Clinton, and perhaps even Obama and Reagan.

How are you defining "elitist"?

Do you mean "thinks they're better than ordinary folks, but actually aren't", or do you mean "are actually better than ordinary folks" ?

Because I certainly DO want the latter group running things. Sorry, I don't want joe six-pack, typical moron running the show. Thankfully neither did the framers of our constitution.

I would define elitist as one or both of the following:

A) Wants to tell others how to live their life. (both socially liberal and socially conservative do this)
B) A person from a powerful/wealthy background who is willing/wanting to use government to further their own (and their friends/supporters) wealth, power and influence. In other words they use government to put the screws to their competition. It is legalized looting, the elitists dream.

In my list of others in the same mold you have Roosevelts who were both A and B. LBJ who was primarily B (from what I know of him), Bush Jr. who was primarily B but also a little A, Clinton who was primarily A, and Obama and Reagan who were a little bit of both.

Clinton while he did want to expand federal government (tell people how to live) at least was fiscally conservative so he is in fact the least dangerous type of elitist. He at least respected our nation enough not to bankrupt it.

He likes to hear himself talk. And he's figured out how to use a dictionary. It's really super cool when they stretch their (verbal) wings, huh?

Elitist is just right-wing codespeak for whoever is their opponent, especially when opponents are correct and the right-wing has nothing better to say than that it is wrong to be correct.

What is the antonym to Elitist, in its real and warped meaning? Grass-roots and Astro-turf?

AdHominem says

[Ayn Rand] disdained the Libertarian party and movement (according to an interview in 1971 available on her website AynRand.org.)

Yes, Libertarians were degenerates by comparison. Every College Libertarian I knew read her complete works and loved them, they just considered one aspect or another of her rigid structure just a little TOO objectionable. Ayn Rand did not tolerate dissent and no point of her belief structure was subject to real-world compromises, thus you couldn't be a real Objectivist unless you were willing to COMMIT totally to everything she said. So they joined Objectivism Lite, which is basically what Libertarians are, they are more of a Big Tent practical lot, but there's no question Randist infestation goes right to the core.

I love hanging out on some other political forums and giggling madly when I watch a bunch of dweebs threatening to "go Galt!" and withdraw from society and watch it turn Mad Max. It reminds me of a small child threatening to run away from home. Many delude themselves they are that important. They don't seem to realize the graveyards of the world are filled with "irreplaceable" great people, who actually were replaced.

"How can you in good faith dispute this?"

Very easily! You greatly simplify or amplify the positions of one side or the other in order to support YOUR positions. You explain things in no less of a bombastic, outlandish way than you imply Fox does. In other words, you do not tell the objective truth, but instead propagandize things yourself.

Most of the larger players in the health care debate on the Dem side are already well on record stating they favor a single-payer plan or that the current initiatives are a step towards that plan. "How can you in good faith dispute this?"

As far as who understands the definitions of socialism, etc... Considering your stereotypical use of "fascism," you are no authority in the definition of socialism.

I am totally against SOCIALIST Health Care. We need a universal prohibition on it. All VA hospitals and MASH units should be closed before that disease spreads. If you get injured while on the job and don't have a good paying insurance plan, you can wait in the ER with all the other people. All field medical operations should be contracted out just like we did with so many other combat support functions already. I'm sure private insurance companies will be crawling over each other vying for these young and healthy customers, and will provide them infinitely better care.

CBOEtrader says

A single payer system is worse than socialism, IMHO. It allows private organizations to keep profits, while the government foots the bill…not too much unlike what we are already doing with Medicare.

Japan is de-facto single-payer and the government does not negotiate prices, it sets them. Japanese medical providers are free to set up shop in China or on a boat somewhere if they don't like it.

AdHominem says

“libertarianism supports a society of law” as quoted from above.
Teddy Roosevelt? The warmonger? Imperialist? Sorry, his is not the America we can all love and respect.
It is a nice theory but “democratic government” is just another way of saying hidden oligarchy in practice.

Give me a break, Teddy was a great man and I wont stand for this crap any longer.

Even a person advocating a single payer health care system in the United States is NOT A SOCIALIST any more than someone advocating a public library system is a socialist. You want to call them 5% socialist and 95% capitalist? Go ahead. Somehow I don’t think that would fit your agenda. Single-payer health care is not on the table anyway so why bring it up?

Why bring it up? Because if you are going to present the position of the other side, you should do so honestly. You presented it as if every simple tax proposal results in the cries of socialism. I presented numerous things other than simple tax proposals as the reason people cry socialism. You may disagree with them, as is your perogative, but to completely paint the position of your opposition as something that it is not is dishonest, though it certainly does "fit your agenda." You can spout Fox or any other media source as much as you want - that does not change the fact that Obama is on record favoring a single-payer system, nor change the fact that Barney Frank is on record stating that the current efforts were one step towards that eventual goal.

You may certainly be too literal and beg for charts and facts while discussing housing issues, and in that regard, as well as some other financial-related issues, I have watched your posts with respect and you deserve every bit of credit possible for being that way. But obviously, when it comes to discussing politics and presenting the positions of the other side, you fail to do so miserably. It is one thing to disagree with their positions: it is another to present them as something completly different than they are: that makes you a partisan hack - as far as politics goes.

Your Fox article link proves absolutely nothing (other than perhaps the first sentence actually hurting your argument), because it occurs in a vacuum: You choose not to accept that there is much more to it than simply tax proposals, but that does not make it a "fact." Try refuting the positions of conservatives as they see their positions: Obviously if you are so correct, it should be very easy for you and others to do.

Liberal and conservative aren’t labels used for the purposes of smearing someone. Socialism and Marxism are used because they carry emotional baggage left over from the Cold War. Thus the INTENT of using those words is to deceive. Fox doesn’t say “He’s promoting socialism because he thinks government should be involved here.” Fox is saying “He’s a socialist thus evil because look at the former USSR!”

Socialism and Marxism are established socio-political ideologies that did not die with the Cold War. They are alive and well in Venezuela, Cuba, and many other places. And ... according to many liberals... working well in Europe. Once again, you are completely making things up to support your position: You are simplifying the position of conservatives so much that your description does not reflect reality.

"If this results in a TRUE socialist revolution in America, I’m going to laugh my ass off."

Wow, what really more can be said about you and your politics? I guess now it makes sense why you would make all positions on the right to be something they are not: you are an extremist yourself! Just hope that you are not at the wrong end of a gun held by the socialists, as has happened to millions of innocent people under just about every "TRUE socialist revolution."

Perhaps it's time for you to do a little research on the term "fascism." Hint: The "fascist" regimes had as part of their platforms increasing government control of industry. To use the term as you do is exactly what you describe of others using different terms: a LIE.

By the way, more Democrats trust Fox than distrust Fox. Leftists like you constantly throwing Fox in the mix, often when not even relevant, may just be starting to "backfire." At the least, it's a clear indication of someone who is quite far to the left, and more than likely has never even seen Fox.

Paralithodes says

And … according to many liberals… working well in Europe.

And once again you misrepresent what liberals think. You're very good at it. Do liberals describe Europe as socialist? Really?

Paralithodes says

By the way, more Democrats trust Fox than distrust Fox

Do you have a link to back that up? I'd like to see that survey--not that I don't believe it, just curious to see how it was conducted.

And once again you misrepresent what liberals think. You’re very good at it. Do liberals describe Europe as socialist? Really?

If I said that "ALL" liberals, I would certainly be misrepresenting things. Since I did not, I misrepresent nothing. Visit other chat boards - liberal or conservative. You will find plenty of people pointing to Sweeden or Norway, etc., as successful Socialist countries. I'm sure that a Google search would probably result in some of this as well.

As far as the link: http://people-press.org/report/543/
(From personal experience, I have some friends who watch only MSNBC. In a recent conversation, one of them stated something to the effect, sarcastically, "We all know how fair and balanced Fox News is!" How did he know? The ONLY channel he watches is MSNBC: Since his opinion was - admittedly - not from personal experience, how could he make any statement? How many fellow liberals do you know who fit the same picture?).

This is precisely why you absolutely refuse to discuss specifics. To the question “how is Obama a socialist”, you’d fail utterly to give a single reason that conforms to “established socio-political ideologies”. What does that say about your defense of this crap?

I gave several examples. You just happen to disagree or refuse to acknowledge them. Or you make excuses like that they are temporary. Why did GM have to be taken over in the first place? Why did Obama put the UAW unsecured bond holders in front of lower-risk/lower-return secured bond holders, whom he labeled "speculators? Did you read through the cap and trade bill? Did you miss the EPA declaring CO2 as a dangerous chemical? Do you truly believe that those pushing for the health care bill have NO designs on it being nationally run, despite their views being very clearly documented? What about the "Fair Pay Act?" While it says that it will not lead to government-determined salaries, how could it not? Did you read it? These are certainly not all of them, and the Republicans - particularly under Bush - deserve no quarter either (If it were not for them under Bush, followed by Obama, I wonder if the Tea Party movement would have ever even started, despite anything Obama/Dems are doing). I'm sure you will have an excuse for every single government intervention as not being socialist, but at least acknowledge that you are way oversimplifying things, to the point of absurdity, when you claim that it is simply every little tax proposal....

MSNBC is biased to the left. That being said, it’s FAR more fair and balanced than Clusterfox [Fox Noise].

LOL!!!! I'm sure you've seen it enough to judge. Namecalling at a network, now that is just classic! It really proves your points.

I want to see evidence that more Democrats trust Fox Noise than don’t. You’re not going to explain that away by insisting there’s one guy somewhere that does.

Be honest: you don't want to see it. That is why you seem to have missed a link right in front of your face.

Speaking of elitism, here is a bona-fide example (watch the video):

http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-eu-tensions-boil-over-as-british-member-of-european-parliament-slams-eu-president-2010-3#comment-4b8ddf9a7f8b9aa0304d0000

This was a real example of British elitism, where the charisma and appearance of the EU president was called into question.

I hope they do not generally choose the EU president based on some arbitrary standard of charisma and appearance ( I know the job rotates, but they do get chosen still).

Vicente says

AdHominem says

[Ayn Rand] disdained the Libertarian party and movement (according to an interview in 1971 available on her website AynRand.org.)

Yes, Libertarians were degenerates by comparison. Every College Libertarian I knew read her complete works and loved them, they just considered one aspect or another of her rigid structure just a little TOO objectionable. Ayn Rand did not tolerate dissent and no point of her belief structure was subject to real-world compromises, thus you couldn’t be a real Objectivist unless you were willing to COMMIT totally to everything she said. So they joined Objectivism Lite, which is basically what Libertarians are, they are more of a Big Tent practical lot, but there’s no question Randist infestation goes right to the core.
I love hanging out on some other political forums and giggling madly when I watch a bunch of dweebs threatening to “go Galt!” and withdraw from society and watch it turn Mad Max. It reminds me of a small child threatening to run away from home. Many delude themselves they are that important. They don’t seem to realize the graveyards of the world are filled with “irreplaceable” great people, who actually were replaced.

It's a lot like people who say that they support everything Ron Paul believes in except foreign policy, as if that was just some small part of his agenda. Most of the tea partiers and even many mainstrain GOP folks seem to fall into this category.

And regulation is not socialism.

Socialism is a system wherein government owns the means of production (as opposed to capitalism, where private citizens/enterprises own it, or communism, where no one owns it).

If a country was "Socialist", then the government would own everything. The USSR and 1970s China came pretty close to this.

Most countries are a mixed economy, just like the US. The government owns some things (particularly natural monopolies, like roads and other infrastructure), and private people own some things.

It's fair to say that owning GM leans towards the "socialist" side of things, though given that the government has no intent on actually running GM, it's weak.

My big issue withe people throwing around the term "Socialism" is that most of the people using it don't even know what it is, and they think that government involvement in anything is bad (except for the largest socialist program in the world, the US military).

Nomograph says

CBOEtrader says

A single payer system is worse than socialism, IMHO. It allows private organizations to keep profits, while the government foots the bill…not too much unlike what we are already doing with Medicare.

You are looking at health care from a purely economic perspective. Many people, myself included, believe that access and medical outcome should be the most important factor in determining health care policy. I believe that if we succeed with an economically feasible system that fails to deliver health care to those that need it, then we have failed.

I was trying to make the point that the US healthcare system is privatizing profits, while socializing costs. The status quo is no where near a free market, nor is it socialism. Those that claim either are sometimes purely ignorant, and sometimes deliberately misleading.

So besides this being off topic, I don't disagree with you in sentiment.

The problem is, unfortunately, we have no way to negate scarcity. We will always want to use the $500K cutting edge medical methods to save any sick person, dog, or even bird. (Editor's note: Ever watch the Animal ER episode where the orthopedic surgeon rebuilds the squirrel's knee?)

We are dealing with limited resources. The best method of managing resources that humankind has ever developed is competition for profits. A government is a horrible replacement for a free market system. Competition for profits to keep costs low can fail with extremely inelastic demand curves. A heart attack patient needing an ambulance would be an easy example. I have no idea how much an ambulance costs, but if my Dad was having a heart attack, I'd empty my bank account to get him immediate help.

Conclusion: I have none. This shit is difficult. I would present Singapore as the best healthcare system model I could find.

A library is a socialist insitution. So is a police force. So is a fire department. They are very limited isolated examples of socialism in a gigantic sea of capitalist freedom.

Your library, local police, and fire department are all run and managed by the central government? Conservatives are against ALL government (and even ALL central government)? Perhaps, since you mock the alleged misunderstanding of others, we should assume that your strawman arguments are just simply lies? You seem to argue that because something is not currently socialist, then steps that may put us there are not socialist, do you not? Are you unfamiliar with the other half of the general definition of socialism, or just purposefully being obtuse about it?

In any case, whether you disagree or not that an end-goal of state run health care is socialist despite the political leaders' firm comments about it, calling for "redistributive justice," often using the term "social justice," that Obama running under the Socialist Party's support in a local election, or that hugely expanding government regulation of all industry and personal living conditions in a very short time is "socialist," I think we've very well debunked your initial assertion that those who cry "socialism" do so due to simple tax proposals. Just because you disagree does not make your re-interpretation of others positions correct.

Similarly, your false claims about a focus on the "USSR" does not make it true... BTW, if a conservative referred to the "Socialists" running Spain, would you interpret that as some type of derogatory statement about Spain? Since you seemed to be unwilling to accept that there are Socialist-run or influence countries in Europe, perhaps you can tell us who the ruling party is in Spain? Here's a hint: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Socialists_win_second_term_as_Spain's_ruling_party

Have fun... anxiously awaiting your next round of excuses, propaganda, and pot-meet-kettle moments of ignorance.

Many have been cowed into avoiding this approach by the idea that this “strong language” will put people off, or make libertarians seem unreasonable. But it is precisely this confrontation with the basic fact — that libertarianism supports a society of law — that is the most powerful weapon for its advocates. There is nothing wrong with telling people that taxation is robbery, that regulation is trespass, that drug laws are assault and robbery, that politicians are criminals, and that the state is a monstrous criminal agency.”

There sure the hell is entirely something wrong with it.

The problem with your point of view is that you're seeing your own needs only and none of your responsibilities to the people you share your life and community with. If you're going to live in a society that provides you with a fire dept, highways, a police system, sewage system, education, park system, and in any other civilized society I'd also be saying heathcare, then you need to be aware of what your responsibilities to it are and how your input shapes that society, and, more importantly, how it shapes you. And right now you sound blind to the benefits that you've been provided by that community. Where do you think your stable 'society of law' is coming from if not based in taxation? Right now you're no more interesting than a bleating animal.

Hey! Wake up and look round. Those things walking around outside your door are your neighbors. You know, other human beings.

Near as I can tell 'Libertarian' is just another name for selfish Republican jerks who smoke pot.

Paralithodes says

Do you agree with Obama that we need a National security/ police force just as well funded and armed as the military?

When did Obama say he wanted a national police force? Could you share that quote?

"So is your argument that a local government run institution is not socialist? But a nationally run one is? How do you make that distinction?"

Generally speaking, socialism refers to the means of production owned by the "state," which conducts the economic planning. "State" does not mean NJ or CA: it typically refers to the central - in our case Federal - government.

Arguing that a conservative should be against ALL local government services or policies because he/she is against SPECIFIC Federal government services or policies is specious at best. Arguing that the conservative is against ALL Federal government services or policies or is hypocritical if they are not - because they are against SOME - or the simply the DEPTH of some they might otherwise support - is illogical.

Using the local fire department vs. Federally run health care-type argument is essentially simplifying the claim to: conservative = individualist anarchist (who is generally against ALL government, as opposed to the extreme left wing social anarchist, of which some folks here might find company).

I will try to share the Obama video later, when I am at a computer less restricted and can search You Tube, etc.

I don't really agree with your definition of "state" in that usage, but regardless it seems like nitpicking to me. No one is arguing that a conservative should be against anything--just trying to figure out how you rationalize the library or fire dept. not being socialist in your world. Is it the size of the government that is running it?

Do you believe then that local or state governments run things better than the Federal government then? This is an agrument I hear often that I don't understand. In my experience, the local governments are more inept and on the take than the national guys. Why would we want to give them more power?

The size of the goverment, in my opinion, has little to do with it: it is more the scope and control of the government. In my experience, the Fed does somethings better than states and locals, and the states do some things better than the Fed. Why would I want to give them more power? Because the people affected by them have much more say and are able to get much more involved than at the Federal level. Politics and governing may not be pretty, but I'd rather it be slightly uglier and more free than the reverse.

Certainly state and local governments can have some "socialist" policies or programs - I will stand corrected on that matter in theory. But I think a huge disagreement is which type of programs conservatives vs. liberals see as vital services vs. entitlement programs and wealth distribution. Are libraries, fire departments, and police departments entitlement programs that attempt to distribute wealth? There is obviously a scale on which different people believe the tipping points towards too much capitalism or socialism are in different places. But throwing state and local services such as fire, police, etc., in the mix when discussing Federal programs is to essentially argue that conservatives must be on one extreme side or the other. Is that a valid argument?

Paralithodes says

Are libraries, fire departments, and police departments entitlement programs that attempt to distribute wealth? There is obviously a scale on which different people believe the tipping points towards too much capitalism or socialism are in different places. But throwing state and local services such as fire, police, etc., in the mix when discussing Federal programs is to essentially argue that conservatives must be on one extreme side or the other. Is that a valid argument?

First off--I'm not really sure what you are saying. I'm not arguing that conservatives should be on any side. I didn't even know we were taking sides. I thought the discussion was more about what constitutes socialism.

re--distributing wealth. This is another smoke screen just like the whole socialism refrain. All laws are redistribution of wealth. Reducing the capital gains taxes redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Getting rid of the top tiers of the progressive tax structure redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Those changes were OK. But--god forbid--a law is enacted to take some wealth from the top and give it to the poor, now all of the sudden redistribution of wealth is a bad thing.

And yes--libraries redistribute wealth in the broadest sense. Wealthier homeowners pay more local taxes so that everyone can enjoy the use of a public library.

Paralithodes says

I know no conservatives who are against all government and all government services: Neither do you, I would guess. To argue whether local government services when discussing Federal issues is silly because a) the examples brought up are what I would think were points of commonality, so why make them issues when they are not; b) they are locally managed and those debates can/do happen on the local level. Why would a conservative argue with a liberal about the existence - or lack there of - of a specific government policy or service at the local level, on a national stage (unless it violates the Constitution)?

I think that's my point though. Conservatives are hypocrites. A "socialistic" program is still "socialistic" whether it's run by the local government or the national government.