That's ridiculous rhetoric. Nominal taxation means that NO ONE is
getting his money taken, be he poor or rich.

Why should I pay for things that I neither want nor need?

Why should someone in Alaska pay for programs that only benefit people
in New York?

Why should I pay for someone else's welfare?

...and you think I'M a "freeloader." Yeesh.

Why should I pay for things that I neither want nor need?

Why should someone in Alaska pay for programs that only benefit people
in New York?

Why should I pay for someone else's welfare?

...and you think I'M a "freeloader." Yeesh.

">Excessive taxation + social programs = income redistribution.
No it doesn't."

*sigh*

Basic economics here. If I make an income, and then have to give a
portion of it to a third party (government), which then distributes it
to other people in the form of social programs, than that is income
redistribution.

"People who aren't starving are safer to be around. People are social
(most of us, apparently libertarians are not so much) and do not like
to watch their neighbors starve. That you pretend this is all to
redistribute income, is a lie to yourself."

That's ridiculous. 'People who aren't starving are safer to be
around'? I'm sure those starving people in Africa are really dangerous.

As for your position that someone in California who is starving is my
neighbor, I think that's bullocks. What more of a connection do I have
to people in other states than I have to someone in Africa?

"Liberals advocate a social welfare system that provides the bare
minimum and no more. If you had paid attention you would know this."

Unfortunately, it seems you either don't know what you're talking
about, or have a rather expansive definition of 'bare minimum.' Your
socialist (social welfare) system is quite large.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-9.pdf

"And if you want services you have to pay for them. Paying is much
better than putting them on the credit card. If a war costs too much,
you have to pay 'excessive' taxes to pay for it."

I don't want welfare, I don't want the government to fund my education,
I don't want the government to wage a war on drugs - I don't want any
services except defense. Why should I pay for things that I don't need
or want, and why should other people be made to pay for them?

"Neo-conservatives do advocate income redistribution. They do so by
setting up the tax system so large corporations and rich people pay
less taxes on their income than middle income people. They try to set
up laws so that it is harder for small businesses to become big
businesses. This has nothing to do with socialism. It is a facet of
fascism."

That's laughable. What you described is not only false (rich people
shoulder more of the tax burden than poor people), but contains no
element of redistribution.

">You don't see many conservatives advocating high taxes or many social

programs, do you? It's mostly the neo-liberals who are in favor of
welfare, and medicare, and social security.

What are neo-liberals - an lame attempt to cash in on the bad
reputation for lack of brains the self titled neo-conservatives have?"

Unfortunately, neo-libs are people who have perverted the traditional
laissez faire ideology of classical liberalism into a desire for
dependency on "big daddy" government."

">Conservatives (in

particular libertarians, as LP pointed out) are traditionally in favor
of NOT taking peoples' property and giving it to other people.

It's not taking people's property if they get services for it. Do
libertarians advocate stealing services?"

What services do I get for my taxes?

Education? No. Welfare? No. I'm safe from drugs? Oh, joy. I get
social security? At this rate, no.

Libertarians realize that social services funded by taxes are nothing
more than forced income redistribution.

">Unfortunately, neo-liberals have a strong tradition of supporting

forced income redistribution, as evidenced by the plethora of social
programs and tax hikes proposed and pushed by neo-liberal politicians.

Taxes go to pay for services. If you don't like it, too bad. Go live
somewhere else. This is a democracy and you have to pay for what the
consenses decides they want in services. That you don't wanna pay is
just damn bad. If you want to live here, you have to play by the
rules. "

That's ridiculous logic, as it can equally be applied to your position.
"People are starving. If you don't like it, too bad. Go live
somewhere else."

This isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. A democracy is
nothing more than mob rule - and the masses are asses (to quote John
Adams).

"Essentially this country did not have these social laws and taxes
before. People didn't like living like that, so they changed it. You
can find the same state that you advocate in any 3rd world country."

Most of our social programs were instituted by Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, a man who proposed quick fixes to the problems presented by
the Great Depression and ignored the projected outcomes of his
programs. As for your claim that 3rd world countries are laissez
faire, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

"Essentially you think that life would be just as safe and secure
without laws because you can't imagine it otherwise. I'm sorry, it
doesn't work that way. Try reading some history and find out how hard
and arbitrary life was back when there was no welfare and hospitals
were not required to treat people who didn't have the money.
Libertarians always imagine that disaster will never happen to them.
Natural disasters, disease, and economic depressions take them out
with everyone else."

Libertarians don't think that it's just to force people in Alaska to
pay for the troubles of people in New York. It's not a matter of
absolution of responsibility, but rather allowing people to keep their
money and give charity because they want to, not because they're forced
to.

"Liberals are pragmatists. They understand and support what works and
they have been successfully doing so since this country was started by
them. They also support and use capitalism and always have. Either
you didn't know this and are foolish for not checking and making sure,
or you prefer to lie to yourself and others, which is unethical."

That's ridiculous. Neo-liberals are definitively idealists - hell-bent
on changing the world and trying to make it a "better place." Everyone
else accepts the world for what it is, and doesn't try to force their
own vision of utopia onto it.

Furthermore, the plethora of social programs and heavy government
involvement in business that neo-liberals adore is the exact opposite
of capitalism - it's hardcore socialism. It sounds to me like you're
living in a fantasy world if you think that neo-liberals advocate true
capitalism or any sort of just system of government.