The standard for whatever you are talking about.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
This is classical liberalism, not the type of liberalism you identify with. Of course not all progressives think alike, but they are generally not in favor of any of the freedoms you listed other than perhaps religious freedom. They tend to like a sizeable amount of regulation in the economy and typically favor government overhauling of the healthcare system. I'm not quite sure what you mean by political freedom; anyone over the age of 18 or a naturalized citizen can already vote so I'm guessing you're referring to something else.
For the most part, no. Sometimes if the kids are home-schooled or go to private schools with vocational programs they get a good preparation. But the vast majority of all kids are economically useless upon graduation from public high school, which is why they are compelled to go to college. This is not something that's accidental, either. Labor unions would hate it if floods of 18-year-olds entered the work force, joined a labor union (which is required in most U.S. states) and undercut the overall wages of union workers. So the public schools orchestrate the curriculum accordingly. They force you to learn a lot of math that you likely will never need to use , a few proganda-laden history courses, a lot of useless science, etc. Obviously these courses wouldn't be useless if you chose to apply the knowledge gained from them to a career, but the rest of the young 'uns get set back.
Yes, medical services should be free. As well as everything else we know in this world. Sadly, we don't live in Utopia. Instead, we live on planet Earth where resources are always limited and finite and have a price attached to them as a result.
You are wrong in stating that you can't have society without taxation. Such a society has been conceptualized (stateless society). It's too bad you think that in such a society citizens would be like the old Germanic tribes, or any tribes for that matter. It seems obvious that people would still want insurance against having their rights violated by other citizens and that would pave the way for private rights enforcement agencies, arbitrators, dispute resolution organizations, etc. I'm not saying I want privatized legal systems but to say that law can't exist without government is silly.
If by the world you mean Germany, then I would say no. Even though nations generally don't learn from their history, they will this time....mostly because they're forced to ...by the U.N. and such. Plus, their laws forbid any verbal mention of certain Nazi-related terms and Nazi flags etc. and I don't see that changing any time soon.
If you want civilians to be defenseless in the event of armed conflict, then yes. Otherwise, no.
The thing that I find to be most ridiculous about this hotly-debated issue is the idea that it's better for guns to be in the government's hands then regular civilians...as if government officials have a different moral fabric than a regular civilian. Who's to say that if the government has most / all of the guns they won't use them for evil? History shows how ridiculous that idea is.
I favor a state. However, the only moral and legitimate function of a state is to enforce property rights and preserve liberty. Anarchists always say that a government can't possibly protect property because it must tax a citizen to do so, and taxation is inherently a violation of property rights because it takes a citizen's money without permission and may not use it for its stated purpose anyway. However, the reason why rights can't be better protected in a stateless society is simple: Rights don't exist unless others objectively recognize them. So, in a stateless society, your property rights could theoretically be violated by corrupt private DRO's and legal agencies perpetually without a monopoly on force in place. Sure, if every human was rational and sane the entire society would recognize rights as universal and we wouldn't need a state. But humans are not rational actors so we need rights to be declared objective by a monopoly on force to make sure that enforcement happens. Yeah, a state can be corrupt, but so can any private organization. There is simply no foolproof way to keep power completely in check; to believe otherwise is Utopian and frankly, really stupid. We're all human beings, not perfectly programmed machines.
Absolutely more harmful. Religion came into existence because of "men" in the Stone Age who were desperate for a way to control people once their physical and mental strength deteriorated. Without the establishment of religion and a priest class to enforce the dogma, these "men" would move down in the social heirarchy. Religion has always been predatory and evil, and its perceptions on morality are far too often not in synch with many basic tenets of human ethics.
Government is a monopoly on the initiation of force, also known as central planning. It is representative of the political paradox: an entity designed to prevent predation but possessing the ability to be the most predatory thing in the world.