Buzz word or not, dependence is the alternative to taking care of oneself. You either take care of yourself or someone else takes care of you. Of course there are different levels of dependence and sometimes it ain't all that bad. My question still is, how much dependence do you believe is safe before it hampers progress? We could go to extremes and point out the level China is at with dependence, or Venezuela, and you could argue how safe complete anarchy is with me. Neither of us believe in these extremes. But maybe you could point out which country you most associate with as far as its citizenship's dependence on government entities. How have these dependencies been good or bad? All that matters, is the context you put those results into, and that context is molded by your own past experiences. A libertarian most likely has viewed his experience with government entities very pessimistically, unlike a liberal who feels it is their duty to society to support others through the government. Libertarians look for alternatives, or just dont care (which I'll admit is a downfall of many libertarians) to contribute to society. Liberals also tend to think that through some of the bad experiences we have had with the 'free-market', we should avoid that or regulate it. We always will have seperate oppinions on what is better.
My beef will always be that there is so much that seperates us, that we view the other as 'moronic' or 'delusional'. I shy away from that of course, I think your a very smart man, but I think you enjoy getting under the Libertarians skin a little too much
