Is public, systematic theft, better than private, personal funding?
Some videos are from libertarians who are minarchists (such as John Stossel, and his videos about the military are not included because of this) and defend there being SOME, though limited government. This is minarchism, and Larken Rose explains why this is faulty:
I have included a short video about roads where the man defends libertarianism/minarchism, and it is due to this continuous defense of any form of government whatsoever, even limited, that I am not, as I have repeated for many years, a libertarian, but an anarchist/voluntaryist.
Now, to answer the title question in brief:
Now, each one:
Healthcare and Military.
Someone else pays for it = disaster:
Social Security, Roads.
3. Social Security.
This is the video that advocates limited government, but makes the basic case of "fund it the same way, just privately" fairly well:
Well this all sounds great, but what prevents a monopoly forming on the free market? Then aren't you right back where you started?
Actually, you only get monopolies when you have government, per the monopoly on force, which creates systematic insensitivity to consumer demand, (since you can't fire the government (discussion)), systematic brainwashing (John Taylor Gatto), and perpetual complaining (with the assumption that if you don't vote you can't complain):
The only way that can be dismissed is via gaslighting, both by politicians, and fellow Stockholm Symdrome peers:
No one has reviewed this piece of content yet