Saying "true right wing" is not an indication of favoritism, I could use the same term as in "true left wing" and it would mean the same thing. By saying "true" I merely mean someone not having a watered down stance on that particular political position.

My post was indeed neutral, but it was commenting on a clear intention of leftist thought toward attacking aspects of right wing politics. The original post had statements in it that I believe were secretly manipulative and partisan, as much leftist material is.

In my post I brought out positive and negative aspects of both sides, thus it was neutral. While I have affection for the Libertarian viewpoint I can also see flaws in it. And while I recognize that left-leaning politics make valid points that need to be discussed and hashed out, governments have an insatiable desire to get bigger and make more and more rules. We have to put a cap on government size and total laws at some point.

On the military:

Okay, on the topic of military... So, military is one of the main things the Libertarians agree needs to be paid for actually, and here's why they are right...

Military is the very first reason to have a government. Health care, education, retirement support are all fine and dandy, but those things were not why government came into existence. Humans created governments because of raiders.

Young men with no gold, women, children and fancy purple dyed clothing would notice that lots of old dudes had cooler tents, horses and of course women and gold. Well, those young men wanted that stuff too, and its sure easier just killing the old dude and taking their gold, women, horses and tents than spending twenty years working and accumulating like the old dudes did in order to obtain it. So, thus began the killing, raping and pillaging.

The natural solution to that problem was old dudes teaming up together and also compensating young men to protect there gold, women, horses and fancy tents. This began the birth of what we now call capitalism, a system for protecting people's accumulated wealth from anyone that would try to take it from you by killing you, outwitting you or stealing from you, including entire nations that would try to conquer another nation for their valuables and of course women. Having our women is good, but having our women and their women is better!

People need to be able to protect themselves from other nations. Allow me to give you an example that is certainly not pro-US. The US invented anti-nuke defenses that made it so the US has security against nuclear war, then Russia has claimed they developed offensive weaponry that can circumvent US defenses. Initially, I thought it was terrible for Russia to try and circumvent anti-nuke technology, because I believe developing defensive technology is better than developing offensive technology.

I had to think it out as I watched a video of Putin explaining Russia's side of the story. I got it eventually, Russia wants equal power to harm the US as the US has to harm Russia. If the US is immune to Russia's nukes but Russia is not immune to the US then the US has all the power. To a person that thinks the US constitution is a brilliant document, it makes perfect sense. Russia's concerns are the same as US citizens that believe in gun rights. The gun rights in the US were not intended for hunting so much as anti-tyranny defense. The citizens need to be as powerful or more powerful than the government in order to prevent it from complete corruption. In the same way Russia needs to be as offensively capable as the US in order to maintain its right of independence from the US.

Defensive technology is important, but so is offensive technology. Why though? Simple, because defensive technology means that you can save yourself, but you can't save anyone else. Some regions are not as capable of defending themselves as other regions, and some nations are more aggressive than other nations. Having offensive power allows you to not only protect yourself but others as well.

On socialism:

In every ecosystem problems arise and people end up unhappy. In the capitalist system the young men being compensated by the old men grow tired of not having the same things the old men have and so arguments over equality comes up. The young people begin requesting for the governmental authorities to adjust the economy. Governments figure out how to leverage this desire by many in the community to obtain more control over the citizens. Socialism and communism become attractive options to the young men and women with less than the old men and women.

Its a romantic mindset, one depicted in such stories as Robin Hood and countless others. Steal from the rich to give to the poor. After all, there are a lot of bad people that are rich. In reality though, history shows us that this socialism/communist movement is essentially the reversal of capitalism. The envious young men just figured out a new method of taking the old dude's stuff.

Historically speaking, it gets worse. Taking the old dude's stuff sounded like a good idea at the time, but it was a deal with the Devil. In order to get the old dude's stuff you had to go through the government, but the government wanted something in return... more power! Next thing you know, you don't have free speech, you don't have much choice about your day. You go where you are told, you do what you are told, you eat when and what you are told. Eventually, the reality of the inefficiency of government production becomes apparent and extreme poverty has begun.

Well then, am I a staunch capitalist that won't budge? Actually, a universal basic income sounds good to me. Universal medical also sounds cool, and so does education, but my concerns are not with any of those things being free so much as I have a problem with how they are packaged. Universal basic income is fine, so long as it is not a tool for governments to control its citizens. Free medical is fine so long as government has no leverage over its citizens for providing it. Free education is all well and good so long as it is not a thinly veiled propaganda program.

In my opinion, public education is unnecessary because we have the internet and a wide availability of educational materials for free or cheap. Frankly, I believe the public education is terrible and really designed for the purposes that most benefit governments and not citizens.

I believe governments are causing medical bills to go up by overly regulating the medical field. The government create many regulation-based bottlenecks that prevent new doctors, hospitals and scientists from competing with established infrastructure. The lack of competition prevents us from having competitive prices. For example, if government was not protecting the current infrastructure and the jobs of doctors I believe the free market would have already replaced most doctors with simple, cheap testing kits and AI.

That said, I do recognize that people can be stupid. People sometimes can afford medical insurance but don't get it, and then when they need it everything is far more costly than they can afford. I like some social nets, and I believe it is fine to take a portion out of taxes to get it, but I emphasize that these social nets need to come without added power to the state.

I genuinely believe human liberty cannot co-exist with large government. How many laws exist in your country? I can't tell you how many exist in mine. Nearly every day people gather into fancy rooms dressed in fancy clothes making decisions for you and me, and they are changing rules on you and me that we never knew existed and will now be changed in some way.

My viewpoint is that the governments got twelve years of our lives to tell us how to be proper citizens and if they can't teach us all the rules of society within those twelve years then we have too many rules and its time to cut back on them.

If you bothered to read that wall of text, I thank you for your effort to do so.