Really? I don't see it that way - here's why:
DMV: ...
The tangible benefit would be removing a source of tax cost, through removing fees, wages, and lifetime benefits and retirement for public employees. I pointed out that there really isn't much benefit to having the DMV, since it's in most people's interest to learn how to drive properly before getting behind the wheel alone. It's not the DMV's 'test' that is making people learn to drive; it's their sense of self-preservation. The fact that the DMV 'certifies' people to drive through abhorrently low standards does nothing to keep us safe on the road.
That's an interesting question. The best I could come up with is transferring the burden of certifying someone's ability to fly a plane to the private owner's home airport. Nevertheless, much like driving, the average Joe isn't going to buy a personal jet that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and attempt to fly it with no training. If self-preservation doesn't motivate him, the amount of money at stake will. Your example of someone with 10 flight hours attempting to fly his personally owned jet is completely unrealistic. Without the FAA, I would not live my life worried about a schmuck flying his private jet into my house.
Alternatively, you could write the law in such a way that severely penalizes (ie, on the scale of manslaughter) people who crash and can't prove that they have X flight hours under an instructor. The same stern penalties could be enacted for drivers who did not take driver's education and get into an accident.
FCC: I agree that the FCC shouldn't have control over content like it does. That's a flaw in the way it currently does business. But remember, the Libertarians aren't interested in tweaking the FCC's authority - they would abolish it. The result is frequency management anarchy. How is this better than the status quo, even with it's faults?
Most people in the U.S. subscribe to cable or a satellite service for their television; these companies can easily regulate what stations belong to who without the need for the FCC. Similarly, Sirius/XM is able to delegate stations for broadcasters to use all on their own. The FCC is not nearly as vital as you make it for doling out broadcast channels.
Foreign Policy: ... Case in point, Ron Paul thinks our involvement in WWII was wrong - he's written as much in the past 20 years....
You are taking one politician's opinion and extrapolating it to the entire party and everyone who follows it. Much like not every Republican believes we need to reinstitute prayer in schools and not every Democrat wants to abolish meat to appease PETA, not every Libertarian thinks our involvement in WWII was wrong, using our economic power to coerce other nations is off the table, and the use of force is never justified. Your use of the term "core beliefs" in this case refers to the extreme ends of the party, and every political party has those kinds of people. The 'core belief' of libertarians is that the federal government is broke, and with over 20% of U.S. budget going to supporting an offensive military infrastructure, there is room to cut spending by reducing the force and avoiding spurious conflicts. This isn't that foreign of an ideal; George Bush ran on a platform of avoiding 'nation building' for his first term, and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a Republican, wanted to cut down the amount of carriers we maintained prior to 9/11.
Education: ... How do Libertarians account for the lower class who couldn't/wouldn't afford private schools?...
Similar to colleges, private grade schools/local communities/local governments could offer grants, scholarships, loans, etc to children from lower income neighborhoods. However, the status quo is that most lower-income school districts have public schools that do a poor job of actually educating their children. In essence, the tax money spent is wasted as it is. Even in middle income suburban neighborhoods, public schools are more costly than private alternatives.
Since you wanted to see 'the money...'
My home school district spent $53.2 million last year across 3 elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school encompassing a total of 3200-3500 students. That equates to $16-17k per student. By contrast, the average private school tuition is between $7-9k, about half of what public school is costing. The only thing that saves public school is that the drastic expense increase is hidden because it is spread among all the residents and doesn't increase for people who have more than one child attending the district; because public school in my home district is funded by property taxes, each citizen (population approximately 15,500, after subtracting the 3500 students who don't pay property tax) *only* pays approximately $3400-3500 a year for it. But unlike private schooling which is paid for and done, that public tax will exist (and most likely increase, even after you retire) for the rest of your life...even if you never have any children. Assuming that someone moves out at 25 and lives alone until death at 78, he will have paid $180,000 toward education -- double what he would have paid for individual private education.
There's no denying that $3-3500 a year is more affordable than $7-9000 a year, particularly if you have multiple kids enrolled in the district. But working out the details of affordable payment plans for private school tuition should not make us dismiss the idea of it entirely.
Dunno, got any new news? Here's my prediction: he gets elected as President again and life goes on just as it did before.
And he probably supports public schools, too
.[/quote]
