Hmmph. I used to be a libertarian. Then I realized libertarianism had a fundamental inconsistency in its conditional support for the state, so I became an anarcho-capitalist. Then I realized anarcho-capitalism had yet to be formulated in a tenable way, so I re-examined my moral premises and concluded that my consequentialist views of morality were enough to allow me to accept some level of state intervention. Then I realized that liberty =/= utility and that, while liberty overwhelmingly maximizes utility, and the institutions of free trade and property ownership are utterly necessary for wealth generation, there are times when liberty is a less important goal. I would rather one stubborn rich man, pacifist though he may be, be dragged to prison or before a firing squad for not paying his taxes, than that ten people starve to death needlessly. I guess that makes me the devil, but the devil at least spells out all of his logic. God presents you with a nonsensical series of apparent contradictions that you're supposed to accept as coherent on faith. Largely moot since a market economy doesn't have large numbers of starving people. So I guess I'm halfway between libertarian and social democrat. Quick everyone, argue with me! >_<
