- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
When the options can't be reconciled, which should government's role be - to pursue policies that maximize opportunity for the best and brightest, or seek to serve as the protector of the weak, poor, and disadvantaged? This isn't a theoretical discussion - Social Security is a good example. For those who are financially savvy, creating "personal accounts" and allowing them to manage their own money would be an unqualified boon. But for those who aren't money-smart, giving them control over their social security dollars would be an unmitigated disaster. Likewise with many other policies and programs, where those with smarts and maturity could do far better if given the same level of federal benefits, with far more control over how to use them, and others would probably waste their benefit money and be in the payday loan store the next day.
While I figure many opinions may break down by party lines, as a person who leans libertarian this is a difficult question for me. How do you come down on this question?
While I figure many opinions may break down by party lines, as a person who leans libertarian this is a difficult question for me. How do you come down on this question?