Good points, but...

Why do you think that the huge corporations support republicans and democrats, if libertarianism would be better for them?

A lot of Republicans have been on the ballot for the Libertarian Party. George Bush the elder was the candidate for the Libertarian Party during the early '90's presidential elections. The rich tend to favor the Republicans because they are the party of "morality" and this is who the right-wing Christians support.

Let me explain a little further. The ultra wealthy news corporations have demonstrated a systematic bias against ron paul. They have posted polls online, for example, for "who won the debate," and then, when ron paul got the most votes, they deleted the poll and put up another one. Why is that? The huge corporations even support democrats, but never libertarians these days.

The reason I brought up the good-heartedness of libertarians was because you described them as anti-poor. Now, if you were describing the party platform, then okay, sure, but if you were describing the mambers, then my point stands.

If any group of Libertarians want to eliminate the requirement of the rich to provide for the poor, particularly considering how the poor supports the rich with their labor, then it's favoring the rich over the poor. Plain and simple. The Libertarians are pro-capitalist, and as such, their policies will favor the rich, who are the true beneficiaries of pro-capitalist policies.

Now, I saved this for last because it is probably the most significant thing to discuss. You are claiming that you favor the rich by not correcting an imbalence. There is nothing against worker's rights in the libertarian party, although I would agree that the current build of it (still too right-wing to be the libertarian party that makes 100% sense) doesn't do enough to support it. Consider this (this argument is more leftist-libertarian then standard libertarian, since I suck at devil's advocate): a job is a contract between an employer and an employee. As it stands, it isn't an even contract because of the laws of supply and demand. There is a huge supply of workers, and a lower demand. Thus, employers can pick and choose the ones that will work the most for least. The employers are in low supply and high demand. An employer makes so much money off the backs of workers because a. they fill a vital role, and b. there are relatively few of them that can fill this role. Now, let me quote: In order to reduce the income of the rich, the key is to produce a superabundance of what the rich produce, so the rich can charge less. Part of the way to produce this superabundance is to be on the lookout for government programs that try to reduce this abundance in order to keep the price up. So, to decrease the imbalence, first there must be a rduction in the difficulty of being an employer. THat means cutting out regulations. There also must be encouragement for small businesses, because more employers to choose from means that employers have less of a stranglehold over the employed. Ultimatly, there is no way through the free market to eliminate the imbalence, but if you want ideas to reduce it, read the red chapters on holisticpolitics.org. The final piece in the puzzle is either government or the workers themselves. If the workers unified to refuse to pick up a crappy paid job, then the employers would offer better jobs. That is already done with unions, which are good but slightly corrupt. The government helps with minimum wages and stuff (which I support, hence leftist libertarian).

So, what I am getting at is that eliminating the requirement for the rich to provide to the poor is not the only approach. I prefer to eliminate the possibly for the rich to rip off the poor.