I should clarify that I don't mean taxing the rich and then litterally sending a check to poor people. I do, however, believe giving the rich higher taxes, and spending the tax money on social development.
The people among the richest 1 percent of the population in this country has far more many that can be reasonably earned or used by one person.
I see nothing wrong with taking it from them. On the other hand, many poor people are so disadvantaged that they barely have a chance. If money taken from the rich is spent on education(among many other things) especially where it is most lacking, then it might even the playing field more.
Growing the pie simply does not do. As you know, if you enchance the size of the pize, the proprtionate distribution of the pie will remain the same. The disproportion of the distribution in this country is destructivel rampant.
First of all, to get the poorest people of this country to a middle-class living standard simply by increasing the GDP Per Capita would take an enormous amount of financial growth. More than can be expected.
Even then, how rich will the rich be at that point? The imbalance will still be too vast, with the rich basically holding half if not more of society under their thumbs.
Further more, the country has been getting progressively more imbalanced for decades. Growing the pie will not counter-act this trend. Re-distribution is the most obvious way to deal with it.
Right now, the authoritarian nature of corporations is having a negative impact on sociey, because business is about as important as the government itself now. Authoritarian commerce is as good as being run by an authoritarian government.
I see libertarianism in its purest form as a society where regulation and command has been almost completely removed, and instead, the composition of individual wills is what guides the society.
The way this relates to Feudalism is that it will inevitably become Feudalism.
Here's a great exampl. "Market feudalism" as I like to call it, comes about as a result of having no business regulations whatsoever. Stronger companies use strictly predatory methods to dominate weaker ones for their own gain. The system within the company is often the same, with rich executives and share holders deciding the fates of masses of meager employees.
This is what happens when no outside force(like a federal government) draws lines on what is and isn't fair.
If you can call this a "system", then it is one with far too much inner conflict and power jockeying to be a productive one.
People do not always have merrit just because the win the fight. They might have the most merits for protecting themselves and conquering others, but that in no way implies that they are the based for serving the people.
A business or government has no reason to help anyone if it does not have interests bound to the needs of its people. A society must be stable for it to provide a good living, and to make developmental progress. A society will be most stable when everyone feels that it is in their own best short and long term interest to account for the interest of others.
On that note, I notice there is an affinity between Libertarianism and INTJs, which might explain some things.