In your system there is a tremendous incentive to be just at the top of the bottom tier.  Do people try to game the system that way ?

What we do with these people should be part of our spending policy, not our taxing policy and this spending should be implemented at the lowest level of government possible to provide the greatest accountability to the taxpayers.

Or as I believe Franklin put it, those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for security deserve neither.

I would not because that's the kind of social engineering that got us in this mess in the first place.  First, you'd have to decide which struggles are legitimate and which are not and I would suggest that it's not the government's job.  For those who are struggling, there is  plenty of government assistance at the local, state and federal level to ensure that they have the neccessities of life.  I would also like to see a much more federal approach to government such that states and localities can implemement whatever tax regimes that can be supported by the voters in that community.

So which one in the picture is the LIV ?

He sounds like a very smart guy :)

Probably for similar reasons that my wife watches shows about vampires and zombies which I find completely inane.  I just wish I knew what the reasons were.  I can't image she would want to live in a world with them.  Maybe it has something to do with the supernatural or extranatural.  Some people find the real world very limiting.  I've never understood why Hollywood, when depicting historical events, feels the need to take license with the story to make it more interesting or compelling.  I find the real world to be plenty of both.

Talk radio serves a similar purpose as Ricochet; an outlet for discussion of conservative issues.  The great advantage of Ricochet is that I can participate in any discussion I want any time I want whereas in talk radio, the opportunity for participation is very, very small.

I enjoy listening to Rush and Mark Levin but I don't let them make my mind up for me.   

It seems to me that what the LGBT community wants is not tolerance of their relationships but approval of them through SSM.  That's what marriage is; society's way of approving of the union.  For what it's worth, I don't consider homosexuality immoral but I do believe it's unnatural.  Given the inherent reproductive roles of a man and woman and how all the parts are designed, it seems clear to me how they were intended to be used.  I frankly couldn't care less what anyone does in the privacy of their bedroom provided that its between consenting adults but please don't ask me to approve of it.

...or to the people.  That's the crux of constitutional conservatism.  Eveything else is fluff.

Dancing with the Vampires.

I believe that artists and artisans are two different breeds.  Artisans want to make something of value.  Artists want to make a point.

The constitution, and the concept of federalism contained within, was designed to allow the states and local communities to live and legislate as they saw fit with a minimum of interference from the federal government...a very libertarian idea.

You are correct in pointing out that at the founding the prevailing culture was one that was inherited from the British.  Therefore there was a much stronger cultural consensus underpinning many of the laws of the time, particularly local and state laws.  That was a historical coincidence, not by design from the constitution.

I'm a libertarian and I fear both the restrictions on individuals by the state and the moral debasement of society.  However, I recognize that it's not my place, nor the government's place, to legislate morality beyond the minimum set of laws and regulations that we can agree on.  If I want to create a more moral and virtuous country, I need to do so through private and civil institutions, not through the government. 

Yes, Libertarians want people to have the freedom to do what they want, provided that it's not hurting anyone else AND they are solely responsible for the consequences of their choices.  Unfortunately, our society has taken away much of the risk of reckless behavior so where's the incentive ?

When politicians are asked a direct question about SSM they should distinguish between what their personal beliefs are (which they should be honest about) and what they are willing to do in terms of public policy.  Do we really need to nationalize the issue of SSM with a constitutional amendment prohibiting it ?  Why not let each state decide ?  I also believe we should de-emphasize the issue  and focus on what we on the right, and many in the center can agree on; getting our fiscal house in order. 

You can't change the culture through the government.  the government is just a reflection of the culture through the democratic process. 

I am PERSONALLY opposed to SSM, a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights and wouldn't think of asking SoCons to abandon their beliefs.  However, I will ask that SoCons change their political tactics so that we can get more conservatives elected.  We have to change hearts and minds before we try to change things through public policy and the laws.  The fact is that many SoCon positions alienate voters in the center who would otherwise vote with us on economic issues.  Change the culture first and the votes for what you want will follow.  This is how the left has been doing it for decades.