Mission Crisis?

The problem with welfare is that it doesn't work.

In order to "rescue" someone from the welfare state, you need to provide them three things:

1. A sufficiently comfortable lifestyle that Maslow's heirarchy of needs allows them to think about the future in the first place.

2. A clear and plausible opportunity for a future significantly brighter than they would achieve on welfare.

3. Insulation from the naysayers in the welfare community who self-delude with the premise that nobody can ever get off welfare.

This works if, and only if, it is a volunteer program which ruthlessly eliminates underperformers without prejudice - the moment you slip up, you're out, but you can return to the program as many times as you like.

Sad Sad Sad.....

i totally agree with Bryan...

But I act like Tyler...
I have too many more important things in my life...
Life is good in the U.S. ..
Yes , I think it can be more free ..
But I don't have the time to fight for Liberty until I lose a lot more of it (than I will fight)

There is one caveat to your supposition that conservatives and (some) liberals were against hard-core central planning from the '30s to Trixonian controls. That is their resolute support for central monetary planning, perhaps the single worst form of socialismo we had then and still have.
I think a crucial litmus test for libertarianism is the question of free banking vs. central banking. Anyone favoring the latter can't be a libertarian.
(Re: Tom Palmer's post on Radicals for Capitalism, he says making the case for libertarianism is not a good substitute for making the case for liberty. Converting a critcal mass of the masses to the former won't achieve the latter, or so he says if I understand his argument. You also have to make an anti state argument and convert the great unwashed to antistatism. That means arguing for shutting down the Fed, among other projects.)