I'm not a libertarian. I am using the correct terms that apply to those policies. I don't think of the phrase "welfare state" as pejorative, nor was it originally intended to be so. A combination of redistributionist tax code and generous healthcare/education/benefits are working out really well for Scandinavia right now, and in my opinion we could learn quite a bit from what we're seeing in those countries.

In my experience, strong libertarians prefer to avoid even mentioning that the poor exist.

> I don't think of the phrase "welfare state" as pejorative

But since many others do, then it is. It is not the speaker which decides whether insult was intended, but the listener.

I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. "Welfare state" is a widely accepted academic term, and I was using it in that context. I could just as easily have said "states with very progressive tax systems that offer substantial benefits to all citizens, rather than only those who pay." It would have gone over better with those of us who feel strongly about a US transfer payment system ("welfare"), but it didn't really roll off the tongue.

Can we talk about the merits of the policy now?

I wasn't offended, I was merely pointing out that saying you don't think of it that way isn't really what matters in these matters; what others think is.

But sure, talk about the policy, though I didn't disagree with anything you said policy related.

My bad. Also, in my experience, strong libertarians believe that the way things are is the way they ought to be -- if you're poor, it's your fault.