>Ah, I think we really agree more than disagree. I do believe in government as a tool to protect society. I am much more collectivist than most people of my libertarian bent in that I believe it is in the interest of national security to have a society with a strong social safety net and universal health care ( which would emphasis public health and preventive medicine very strongly ) And of course I believe strongly that governments primary role should be to encourage safety and stability so inidividuals are free to seek their own vision of personal happiness or success without external threats or internal chaos.
>
>In my crazy-old-man rantings I was primarily focusing my ire in two directions - the abnegation of personal responsibility with the idea that 'the government should fix it' ( e.g. many of the social problems which are the result of bad choices or dysfuntional micro-cultures within the society )

While I think the government (i.e. the people) should get its people (i.e. itself) educated so that they know what they choose, it should not interfere with those choices and consequences thereof as long as these are limited to the one who chose.

Unfortunately, drugs, alcohol, gambling, signing papers with small print, joining a greedy cult, starting a polluting business and many other choices do affect the others, starting with immediate family and neighbors. Which is where the people should have a way to at least help those others, or make an effort to prevent the whole thing.

> and the political demagoguery of promising solutions by politicians self-identifying as more compassionate or caring because they are willing to make cynical promises to buy votes and fund those promises with other people's money.

Isn't it amazing that none of that counts if it doesn't cost? Seems to be most of the politicians think that if they can't do it by allocating tax money for it, it isn't worth doing.