Libertarianism & pragmatism (4)

I'll reply to the penultimate batch of David Bergland's questions as follows:

What is the best way to deal with the current massive budget deficits?
Pragmatic: First, cut out wasteful government spending (about 15% - 20% of all spending, or around £100 bilion per annum). Second, try and boost economy by deregulating, leaving EU, reducing barriers to trade, unilaterally if necessary. Third, simplify and reduce taxes, esp. phasing out VAT and Employer's National Insurance (the worst taxes of all). Fourth, shift from taxation of turnover/income to taxation of land/location values.

Is there a solution to the long-term financial problems of the Social Security system?
Pragmatic: The welfare system is, in practice, a pay-as-you-go system. As long as this is clear to taxpayers and welfare claimants, hopefully, society as a whole will be able to strike a 'fair' balance between benefit and tax levels. Older workers may be happy to pay more in tax if in exchange they are likely to get a higher pension. Students may be happy to accept lower grants (a form of welfare) if they know that they'll have to pay less tax once they get jobs, and so on. As long as people aren't living in absolute poverty*, then benefits are generous enough.

Should the government send foreign aid to other countries?
Pragmatic: Nope. We have been sending tens of billions of dollars a year to The Third World for negligible benefit. It just ends up going on waste, corruption and warfare. Even the massive transfers from West to East Germany, both civilized, law-abiding societies, since 1990 have achieved very little. The best we can do is scrap barriers to free trade and, at the margin, send clandestine help to democratic forces inside the worst régimes.

Should children be required by law to attend schools? Should parents be allowed to teach their children at home?
Pragmatic: 'No' to the first, provided their parents keep them off the streets and out of crime, either by making them find jobs, or indeed educating them at home, so 'Yes' to the second.

Should the ownership of firearms be restricted by law?
Pragmatic: Yes. There is no harm in shooting at private shooting ranges or on private farmland, provided gun-owners are trained/supervised properly. In practice, the idea that all citizens should be able to carry guns for self-defence seems a bit misguided. Unauthorised use of firearms (i.e. not at places mentioned above) should be punished most severely, with no lower age limit - the recent spate of black teenagers killing other black teenagers has arisen because the penalty for carrying weapons is much less severe for younger age groups.

* Except working age adults who refuse to do what work they can or otherwise sort themselves out, as a pragmatist, you have to accept that a hard core will fall through the safety net, the only question is "how many?".