Did someone say something about a free meal..?

The Mestizo invaders have known about this for decades. I'm surprised you found an English version.

Are you frustrated at the loss of a free-ride and sense of entitlement in America, while the growth of government involvement and distribution of wealth stalls?

Yes. The economic disparities in America are awful.

Do you want to live in communities where your right to three meals a day and universal healthcare are respected?

Yes. Don't you?

Do you want others to fund welfare by forcing them to redistribute, by force if necessary, the earnings they have worked hard for?

Yes and no. Yes, I want wealth redistributed. No, I don't only want others to do it - I'm more than happy to chip in my fair share.

Are you looking for freedom without responsibility?

Nope - that would be idiotic. IMHO the responsible thing to do is to lend a hand when necessary.

@blankfist I will pose a list of my own questions.

Is it annoying when you are reminded that there are those less fortunate than you?
How angry do you get when you are taxed (at much lower rates than the rest of the western world) to help people who would otherwise starve to death, or who would die of treatable diseases and ailments?
How do you feel about using the internet - a system that was initially funded by U.S. Government money? Highways? Airports? Driver's licenses?
What country/state/nation/society (historical or modern) comes closest to the ideal vision of a libertarian society?

Looking forward to your responses.

Libertarianism is not the antonym of socialism, but of authoritarianism.
It is as broad as any other political ideology. Libertarianism is not anarchism, just as socialism is not communism.
Minimizing government is not eliminating government. The "minimum" clearly includes infrastructure, security, and justice, amongst other things.

In a small society, charity is the libertarian welfare, a personal decision to care for those who need care. In a large society such as ours, some level of gov't involvement and social organization is useful (quite possibly even required) for support of those who would otherwise slip through the cracks. Given good enough organization, charity could manage care, but some amount of socialism seems to be required for the simple fact that not all people are generous or compassionate. However, to generate a society in which these two virtues are completely irrelevant is socially self-destructive, perpetuating a child-like state of apathetic obedience. When government enforces compassion, the word becomes meaningless.

I mostly agree Doc. Allow me to explain;

Libertarianism is not the antonym of socialism, but of authoritarianism. Yes, I know - so why paint socialism as 'nanny state' government-runs-everything-and-makes-all-decisions-for-you authoritarianism? I know you didn't, but blankfist and many others do.

The "minimum" clearly includes infrastructure, security, and justice. Yup, right on. What is 'infrastructure'? Some would say roads and airports. Others (like me) would expand it to include hospitals, schools, etc. Security would include protection from exterior forces, but also from the elements, from starvation, from criminals, etc. Security has to mean security for people, not just property. Justice is the fun one. Justice is not just prisons, justice is not just laws - justice includes a human element, an element of dignity.

Many 'socialist' states are generous and compassionate - many are very generous. Socialism does not preclude generosity or compassion, just like libertarianism does not guarantee it. In fact, many socialist countries are far more charitable than the U.S. Would you suggest people in Sweden or Norway (which both give the most to charity by % of GNI) are apathetic zombies?

This is the problem I have with rhetoric - it often ignores easily verifiable facts. I would gladly support a libertarian society with minimal government if all people were in good health with access to good educations and a level-playing field, but that doesn't exist anywhere I know of. Oddly enough, the closest thing to just, equal societies I can think of are the socialist countries at the top of that ^ wikipedia list.

I went ahead and answered Blankfist's loaded questions, I hope he can answer mine.>> ^Doc_M:

Libertarianism is not the antonym of socialism, but of authoritarianism.
It is as broad as any other political ideology. Libertarianism is not anarchism, just as socialism is not communism.
Minimizing government is not eliminating government. The "minimum" clearly includes infrastructure, security, and justice, amongst other things.
In a small society, charity is the libertarian welfare, a personal decision to care for those who need care. In a large society such as ours, some level of gov't involvement and social organization is useful (quite possibly even required) for support of those who would otherwise slip through the cracks. Given good enough organization, charity could manage care, but some amount of socialism seems to be required for the simple fact that not all people are generous or compassionate. However, to generate a society in which these two virtues are completely irrelevant is socially self-destructive, perpetuating a child-like state of apathetic obedience. When government enforces compassion, the word becomes meaningless.

We're more or less on the same page, but the fact about socialist nations being more charitable misses my point and taken alone is a bit misleading. The info on that link is charity given by governments, not individuals. It's not surprising that a socialist nation would be at the top, since that is by definition, socialism.

"To qualify as official development assistance (ODA), a contribution must contain three elements: 1.) be undertaken by the official sector (that is, a government or government agency); 2.) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and 3.) at concessional financial terms (that is, with favorable loan terms.) Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations."

This is still enforced "compassion". Actual compassion by the individual person is not required. That is taken care of by their government, removing the responsibility from the individual and thus from their consideration and common practice.

Here are some statistics about personal charitable giving:
http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf
The US is at number one with a 1.67% of GDP giving rate (2005). If that has continued to this day, that puts the US's charitable giving (by the individual people, not the government) at $238 billion (each year). If the US gov't looks a bit cheap when it comes to aid, look to the people. Tthe citizens of the USA are remarkably giving, though they choose to do so individually rather than by governmental proxy... and that's clearly verifiable, not rhetorical.

I'm not saying that "government led 'charity'" is somehow wrong or worthless, but as one might expect, it is [roughly] inversely proportional the personal giving of the citizens of the country. Makes sense. From my point of view, government "charity" is not ideal, since I would rather have more to do with the decision about where my "giving" goes.

"giving tends to represent a lower proportion of GDP in countries with higher levels of personal taxation, particularly social insurance; if social insurance payments were to rise in the future because of the needs of an ageing population, this could represent a threat to voluntary income" (above linked report)