- security
- access to reasonably priced, simply administered healthcare
- fair, monitored access to the job market.
I think minarchists like myself accept security as one of the mandates of government, but that doesn't mean subsidizing the defense of Europe, being the world's policeman, endless war, spending more than the next 6 or 7 nations combined in expenditures.
We minarchists also see a functioning court system to protect individual rights vs. the tyranny of the majority, to enable and enforce contracts. I do not want government imposing arbitrary constraints in hiring practices. It's one thing to argue the government, funded by the people, should be nondiscriminatory in hiring and procurement practices, but do you really want government second-guessing, say, Fred Trump hiring Donald over more qualified candidates? Poor hiring decisions provide a hiring opportunity for competitors; unfair employers get a reputation in the marketplace which makes it harder to attract the talent they need. We don't need the politically correct police.
One of the things that really annoyed me as a pro-life Dem during my undergrad salad years at OLLU, was the Mexican American student group filing a complaint over professor hiring. I was a philosophy (and math) major, and they listed the philosophy department. Well, for one thing, the two major professors were a Czech-American sister and an immigrant Irish priest. I don't know how many Chicano philosophy PhDs there were at the time, but my guess is they would have attracted multiple offers from prestigious programs.
I have been in jobs that didn't work out and where I got screwed over major league, but my attitude was, why would I want to work for an employer who didn't want me? That's like hell on earth. They can and will make your life miserable.
I've even lost jobs on 2 occasions before the job officially started. (In one case, an accountant remembered that I had tried to expense a breakfast during an in-person interview in New Orleans. Someone no-showed meeting me for breakfast, where they would have picked up the check. So the accountant rejected the claim, saying it exceeded their employee per diem rates (like I chose the hotel, not to mention they never discussed expenses and I wasn't an employee). The company didn't make an offer. About 3 years later I was contacted by a Chicago manager for the same company; they finally made an offer. The accountant recognized my name, and the company quickly cancelled the job offer. All over a breakfast check--never mind they spent over $300 in air fare and $100 for the hotel room. So, yeah, life isn't fair, and move on.
Does this mean I endorse unfair hiring practices in the private sector? No. But I think a discriminatory employer will have a hard time attracting talent.
Now as for healthcare, the healthcare market is like any other market. If there is a need, the free market seeks to address it. What they don't need is super-expensive, gold-plated plans of expensive government mandates and paperwork. They certainly don't need anti-competitive state government qualifications to write insurance in the states. We didn't have government involvement in the healthcare sector until the twentieth century in America--and Bill O'Reilly doesn't distinguish between traditional state responsibilities and a limited federal mandate.
Finally, O'Reilly somehow tied in a discussion of poor urban public schools with fair access to the marketplace. Here I think he confounds the idea of negative rights with positive rights. We pro-liberty folks focus on negative rights, i.e., things that government cannot impose on us, vs. positive rights, which the government must do on our behalf. We think there's no such thing as positive rights, which basically is an open-ended obligation.
