I think democratic or meritocratic libertarian socialism (solitarianism) is the best form of government for humans in their current state of evolution and given our current, 21st century, socio-economic situation.

Libertarian socialism is the best balance of individual rights, personal freedoms and the need for the wealthy to contribute a greater and greater share to the public good that I have come across.

Nothing is perfect in human society, though I think that this combination of a strong bill of rights and also a push towards the rich paying the lion's share of public roads, schools, museums, etc. is a great idea that, to some degree, we are experimenting with here in America and in many European countries.

Libertarianism, by itself, has a nasty economic dark side- all the wealth will eventually funnel into the hands of a few trillionaires and billionaires. But, libertarianism has the bright side of showing how important the individual is.

Communism, or extreme socialism, excludes the importance of the individual.

This, I think, is a great error that leads to oppression.

Socialism, by itself, has a nasty social dark side where the state dictates thought and action and we end up with a homogenous, hive-like, ubiquitous education system and overly oppressive cultural dictates.

Strictly socialist nations dictate private freedoms concerning sexuality, naming children, cameras everywhere, what you can do with your body, your money, your time.

Socialism has the dark side of stifling free speech and becoming a mental tyranny.

So, what is the solution?

Take the individual freedoms from libertarian philosophy and take the economic justice found in socialist philosophy and combine them into libertarian socialism.

This is not to give too much freedom to individuals and this is not meant to take too much wealth from the rich.

I do believe people should be materially rewarded for their ideas and hard work but, at the same time, there must be some balance between this and taking care of the poor or the less fortunate or those who chose not to participate in the economy.

In other words, let people be free but also help those who need it.

I do not condone helping people who are stagnant or lazy, but I also do not think people should be left to die in the gutter.

There is a reasonable balance between help and being spoiled, between wellfare and corruption of drives to be a member of society.

There should be room for people who want no part of the system and there should be room for people who want to rise up materially.

Taxes should never be completely oppressive, but I don't think taking 70% of a billion dollar a year income is harsh, given that the remainder is 300 million dollars.

What we have now in the United States and in the west, in general, is a movement away from taxing the rich at all but rather putting the entire tax burden on the working class, the middle class, the upper middle class, and the lower upper class.

The richest of the rich are all but living tax free because of unjust loopholes and laws written by the very people who have the money to buy political power.

This is what happens when we let the wealthy mind fuck the rest of the population into believing the myth of trickle-down economics.

What if, for example, one man ends up with all the wealth and decides not to spend it?

He is surely free to do so in our system as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are free to do. I am not against the amassing of wealth at all.

Rather, I think the lion's share of public good should come from those who have done so well and been so fortunate in any society to make themselves into very wealthy individuals.

Maybe a way to break this spell of no good choice would be to invent a new word.

A SOCIALIST LIBERTARIAN would then be called a believer in SOLITARIANISM. Hmmm? As my limited vocabulary has shown me, this word already means someone who prefers solitude. So, SOLITARIANISM may be a better term but all words can have more than one meaning.

Any takers? Maybe? I don't know... maybe it will catch on, maybe not.

There needs to be a simpler term without the negative connotations for both libertarians and socialists, who, generally, are on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum.