>>20
"Because letting the poor be poor and letting the hungry starve is in essence, unethical."
Inaction doesn't equate to action. The rich are not responsible for taking care of the poor. Each individual is responsible for taking care of himself.
"Libertarianism is so fucking air-tight because it has never been implemented in reality, because it is incongruent with human beings."
We had a more or less libertarian society in many parts of the USA for quite a long time, and to great success. During this span of time, as Friedman said:
'We didn't live in a paradise, but there is no period in human history in which the ordinary man -- the ordinary man -- had as great an improvement in his lot in life as in the nineteenth century in the United States when the government was of trivial importance.' -Milton Friedman
The point is that it was not a pleasant time in history, no. BUT- nowadays? We are standing on the shoulders of the people who came before us. Our economy is already developed thanks to the industrial revolution and the capitalism that helped move things along and created progress. Your mixed economy, if implimented back in the 18th and 19th centuries would not only not likely have worked, even if it did, it would have resulted in a far lesser standard of living for the people today than was the result of our chosing to go with the more individualistic system that we did.
"A political system that doesn't work with human beings and their psychological tendencies should really be ignored in favor of one that works, IE a mixed economy."
Mixed economies 'work'? I guess if enormous amounts of corruption, foreign intervention, and warfare statism equates to what 'works' in your mind, well fine. :) Such are the consequences of abandoning libertarianism for your mixed economy you revere so dearly.
"Having little ethical grounding, they will seldom acknowledge how despite their "horrible, oppressive society of freeloading and government bureaucracy", they live in the freest, most luxurious, and nice country on earth. Rather than bitch and moan about how "bad" we've got it, why not devote our energies to working harder, developing the sciences, and helping other human beings."
Our standard of living that we have right now is NOT because of the mixed economy. Our standard of living is because we went through a few centuries of capitalism in the past. Again, we are standing on the shoulders of our forefathers who lived in a libertarian society and provided what was necessary for us to have the standard of living we enjoy today. Had we implimented a mixed economy to the extent that we have it now, do you think it would have provided the standard of living we have today in 1850? Get reasonable. I am not saying we are worse off now than people were in 1850 - that isn't the argument. If you still don't understand what is being argued, gb2 high school.
"Last I checked, in America, we have millionaires and billionaires. I don't think the system needs to be pushed in a pro-business direction, or that it even needs to be pushed at all."
Removing regulations on business would likely allow smaller businessmen to compete with larger and already established businesses more effectively. Allowing companies to establish themselves, grow large, and then establish all kinds of complex and often expensive regulatory measures and taxes is a recipe for punishing small businesses and eliminating competition for the millionaires and billionaires you despise so much.