So Libertarianism is dead, if it ever was alive. What do do?

[Prokne]

Great, I'll give you credit when you offer to pony up the same portion of your income for these essential services as you're demanding of Steve Jobs. Then we'll really find out just how essential you really think they are.

The point is that it really doesn't matter how much you pay in taxes as long as you have enough money at the end to have a reasonably luxurious life, or at least what a reasonable person would say is enough to do what they would want to do. Like I said, I would happily pay whatever percent of taxes as long as I end up with a high take home after that - like $250k+.

And I do care where my money goes, which is why I would rather it go to social services instead of to military for example. However, it affects my life much more to pay 50% of my income in taxes than it does someone making $1 million.

[Naiattavain]

pepe can do what ever he wants.

[Ivanstone]

Take that shit up with Stephen Molyneux. Not a single person was discussing race here. Perhaps you should entertain the possibility differences in opinion and philosophy can exist in the absence of racism.

Is this discussion about Libertarianism or American Libertarianism? If we're discussing the latter you're not going to be able to divorce this from race.

GOP political strategist Lee Atwater summed up small government in America:
"Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger""

Big government brought you the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Roe v Wade, gay marriage, etc, etc. Small government starts looking appealing to a certain type of person.

[Draco-Onis]

I opened this discussion with a proposal that would eliminate deductions and exemptions for everyone, preventing the very thing you’re complaining about. Try reading a little.

My point was you have continued to repeat the lie that the left only wants to raise taxes on the rich without any context. My opinion is one approach others just want to raise taxes because removing loopholes means facing individual lobbies.

[Adam Jensen]

As for taxation, a would much prefer a flat tax, and have no tax-exempt status for anyone. Yes, that would mean churches, non-profits, and everyone else would be paying taxes. There would be no deductions, no credits. Married people would pay the same rate as single people, poor people would pay the same as wealthy (as a percentage). The only way we can realistically cut spending, is if everyone actually feels it in their wallets.

Which hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich.

Tax someone by 10% across the board? Sounds good on the outside, but it severely hurts the poor more than the rich. 10% of someone making minimum wage (~$32,000 is $3200. 10% of a millionaire is $100,000. That $3200 is worth more to a poor person than the $100,000 is for a rich person, because it can be the difference between going hungry and putting food on the table. Whereas a millionaire paying $100,000 still has $900,000 which is a substantial amount of money.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right, the rich will probably not use some things, for example public schools, or public hospitals etc (they may go to private ones)
So my system would still be unfair to the rich. But it is definitely more fair than now

The rich do use public schools and public hospitals.

Having an educated populace means they can better run their businesses because their employees will be better educated and make better decisions at work. Public hospitals mean that their employees will be healthier and more productive.

Maybe it's not a direct benefit for the rich, but it is an indirect one.

- - - Updated - - -

Libertarianism was tried once in this country with the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation.

It lasted 10 years before they realized it was not a viable way to run a country and new they had to form a different system of government.

And the Gilded Ages was another era where it was tried. Capitalists were running amok in our country. Standard Oil had their monopoly, factories sprung out where the work was long, hot, and inhumane. Conditions in mines were so poor miners would die from black lung and be paid only in scrip that could only be used at the company store. Wages were stupidly low and poverty was high.

Workers got fed up and tried to unionize but got smacked down by Pinkertons and union busters.

What brought an end to all of this?

Government regulation. The National Labor Relations Board. Workers rights enshrined into law.

The Gilded Age is a prime example of why libertarianism is a flawed ideology.

[Lindestria]

Which hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich.

Tax someone by 10% across the board? Sounds good on the outside, but it severely hurts the poor more than the rich. 10% of someone making minimum wage (~$32,000 is $3200. 10% of a millionaire is $100,000. That $3200 is worth more to a poor person than the $100,000 is for a rich person, because it can be the difference between going hungry and putting food on the table. Whereas a millionaire paying $100,000 still has $900,000 which is a substantial amount of money.

I don't think the 'how this hurts the poor' argument will ever get through to people, especially since it was already used on like the third page of this thread and was completely ignored.

[Adam Jensen]

Well, it is force, is it not? If a person does not pay, then the government will come knocking. Luckily, I want as small of a government as possible, so that level of force from the government will be minimal. Ideally, we have voluntary governance, but I don't see humanity ever embracing such a thing.

In the end, it's about slowly sliding the bar towards libertarianism.

Force by government is a necessity. Violence by government is a necessity.

Order cannot be maintained by a government by "promise of word" and an "honor system." A system of laws must have enforcement, and enforcement must have the power to physically compel its subjects to proper behavior.

The Bill of Rights exists in part to ensure that this "force" is never used to abuse a government's subjects. Democracy also exists to limit the power of this "force." Libertarianism however would make this force ineffective and lead to more destructive policies while corporations blindly go after more profits while abusing those beneath them.

This isn't anything we've never seen before from capitalism, again, its the reason regulations exist. There aren't any people who sit down and go "you know what the world needs right now? Another regulation! Hey Bill, what should we outlaw now?" No. Companies, like Standard Oil, abuse their workers and that forces the government to say "hey, this is destructive to society! Stop that!"

Certainly, some regulations go overboard, and some don't go far enough. There's always human error in the system. But to immediately resort to deregulation and to claim all regulation is bad is irresponsible.

[Slybak]

"The constant "tax the rich!" refrain from the left is neither moral or practical"

I admit it's not practical, because the rich would never let it happen

Hard stop something from happening when armed tax collectors are kicking down the door. Maybe we should stop being a nation of neutered dogs and do stuff like that, instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Right. This is why I said earlier that it's much more informative to look at the negative outcomes required by any given ideology, rather than the positives.

Libertarianism is the result of a massive head trauma causing the ability to weigh cause and effect to become damaged beyond repair. Libertarians are anti-consequentialist to the point of a deranged fundamentalism, concluding in all cases that the means justify the ends. Immunocompromised people suffer because all vaccinations must be voluntary? Sorry, kiddo, but in this country we spell "poliomyelitic infantile paralysis" with the letters F-R-E-E-D-O-M.

[Ashrynn]

The idea that Donald Trump is the end of Democracy as our Republic is absurd and stupid. And it was absurd and stupid when Republicans cried that Obama would do the same. Vote with your head first and your heart second neither agrees with either choice write in your own or vote down the ticket only.

Libertarianism is not dead, but it has changed somewhat.

[Nalera]

Hard stop something from happening when armed tax collectors are kicking down the door. Maybe we should stop being a nation of neutered dogs and do stuff like that, instead.

- - - Updated - - -


Libertarianism is the result of a massive head trauma causing the ability to weigh cause and effect to become damaged beyond repair. Libertarians are anti-consequentialist to the point of a deranged fundamentalism, concluding in all cases that the means justify the ends. Immunocompromised people suffer because all vaccinations must be voluntary? Sorry, kiddo, but in this country we spell "poliomyelitic infantile paralysis" with the letters F-R-E-E-D-O-M.

What the hell are you going on about. Libertarians are not against vaccinations lol. Libertarians simply understand the relationship of government to individuals. The responsibility of government is not to make sure you are healthy, educated, or rich. The government is simply there to protect individuals rights and liberties and people will organize themselves based on their own self-interests because why would they not?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

No where does it say its the governments job to make you happy, it says it's your right to pursue happiness, contrary to the opinions of a growing majority who want instant gratification from the government. And the people arguing about income tax in this forum also don't understand Libertarians. In fact there was no real income tax until WW1 and they had to amend the constitution just to do it and its one of the worst ways to tax people. Instead of taxing people making money the proper way a libertarian would enforce tax is through consumption. Tax people when they spend money rather than earn money, this incentives saving and investing which helps an economy grow.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Aren't Libertarians simply capitalists wanting to wrap their greed into something that sounds better...?
That's what I always gathered at least.

[Machismo]

Which hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich.

Tax someone by 10% across the board? Sounds good on the outside, but it severely hurts the poor more than the rich. 10% of someone making minimum wage (~$32,000 is $3200. 10% of a millionaire is $100,000. That $3200 is worth more to a poor person than the $100,000 is for a rich person, because it can be the difference between going hungry and putting food on the table. Whereas a millionaire paying $100,000 still has $900,000 which is a substantial amount of money.

- - - Updated - - -



The rich do use public schools and public hospitals.

Having an educated populace means they can better run their businesses because their employees will be better educated and make better decisions at work. Public hospitals mean that their employees will be healthier and more productive.

Maybe it's not a direct benefit for the rich, but it is an indirect one.

- - - Updated - - -



And the Gilded Ages was another era where it was tried. Capitalists were running amok in our country. Standard Oil had their monopoly, factories sprung out where the work was long, hot, and inhumane. Conditions in mines were so poor miners would die from black lung and be paid only in scrip that could only be used at the company store. Wages were stupidly low and poverty was high.

Workers got fed up and tried to unionize but got smacked down by Pinkertons and union busters.

What brought an end to all of this?

Government regulation. The National Labor Relations Board. Workers rights enshrined into law.

The Gilded Age is a prime example of why libertarianism is a flawed ideology.

And that is exactly why I want as little taxes collected as possible.

- - - Updated - - -

Force by government is a necessity. Violence by government is a necessity.

Order cannot be maintained by a government by "promise of word" and an "honor system." A system of laws must have enforcement, and enforcement must have the power to physically compel its subjects to proper behavior.

The Bill of Rights exists in part to ensure that this "force" is never used to abuse a government's subjects. Democracy also exists to limit the power of this "force." Libertarianism however would make this force ineffective and lead to more destructive policies while corporations blindly go after more profits while abusing those beneath them.

This isn't anything we've never seen before from capitalism, again, its the reason regulations exist. There aren't any people who sit down and go "you know what the world needs right now? Another regulation! Hey Bill, what should we outlaw now?" No. Companies, like Standard Oil, abuse their workers and that forces the government to say "hey, this is destructive to society! Stop that!"

Certainly, some regulations go overboard, and some don't go far enough. There's always human error in the system. But to immediately resort to deregulation and to claim all regulation is bad is irresponsible.

I would rather say that force and violence by government is an inevitability, but I get your point. And yes, it is. I simply want far less government than most.

[Ivanstone]

I don't think the 'how this hurts the poor' argument will ever get through to people, especially since it was already used on like the third page of this thread and was completely ignored.

I look at this way. You could tax the poor 10%. That's money they're not spending in the economy. If a poor person keeps $3200, that money will be spent on shelter, transportation, clothing and food.

And who sells the most shelter, transportation, clothing and food? Rich people. A rich person could save money on taxes or could make money selling goods and services. At least in the latter scenario the poor person is more likely to have better shelter, transportation, clothing and food. Who knows they might also have some left over money to buy entertainment. Which is also sold by the rich, so they could get more rich.

[Slybak]

What the hell are you going on about. Libertarians are not against vaccinations lol. Libertarians simply understand the relationship of government to individuals. The responsibility of government is not to make sure you are healthy, educated, or rich. The government is simply there to protect individuals rights and liberties and people will organize themselves based on their own self-interests because why would they not?

People organize themselves based on their own self-interest only through the principles of democratic self-government. The state solves all problems that the state itself does not create, and democracy in turn solves most of those problems. If someone refuses to perform any obligation that literally means the difference between life and death for someone else, the libertarian says "freedom." Yes, you're "for vaccinations," but only in the delusionally narrow sense of self-actualization and personal liberty. No one can make you vaccinate, and if they do then they're evil.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

No where does it say its the governments job to make you happy, it says it's your right to pursue happiness, contrary to the opinions of a growing majority who want instant gratification from the government.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

To put in in the modern vernacular, the government's job is whatever the fuck a majority of the populace says it is. It owes us precisely what we demand of it because, in the end, it belongs to us and can only slip from our grasp if we let it. The only solution that libertarianism offers in the case of tyranny and oppression is self-disarmament and surrender, contenting itself with the solipsistic belief that all is well because its intentions were good and only intentions matter.

[Nalera]

People organize themselves based on their own self-interest only through the principles of democratic self-government. The state solves all problems that the state itself does not create, and democracy in turn solves most of those problems.



"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

To put in in the modern vernacular, the government's job is whatever the fuck a majority of the populace says it is. It owes us precisely what we demand of it because, in the end, it belongs to us and can only slip from our grasp if we let it.

The United States is not a democracy it's a democratic Republic. Republics guarantee rights, hence the constitution, in fact many of the founding fathers where explicitly against Democracy.

"Democracy, will soon degenerate into an anarchy" - John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison

So no a Republic is not "whatever the fuck a majority of the populace says it is". You should read what happened with radically aggressive Athenian Democracy if you believe Democracy is purely virtuous. If 51% wake up on Monday and want Socrates dead, then he dies. The American founding fathers were very much against large government, and America has very much deteriorated from a free market libertarian Republic to Democratic socialism-lite.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't Libertarians simply capitalists wanting to wrap their greed into something that sounds better...?
That's what I always gathered at least.

Is that what you believe the founding fathers were? I mean the U.S has slid so far from its first principles, its now closer to socialism than its roots.

[Felya]

And that is exactly why I want as little taxes collected as possible.

That’s the same as saying, 0. I think what you are trying to say, is that as little as needed should be collected. Which doesn’t really mean anything, since the whole issue is what is needed, not if we should pay for it or not.

[Theodarzna]

Libertarians were never really going to be a thing because in truth it is the SJW who is really the logical conclusion of the Liberal project. Libertarians have always had this problem of being nostalgic, imagining that Liberalism just needs to be set back to the right course instead of acknowledging that everything happening is a logical outgrowth of the trajectory of the culture.

[Felya]

Libertarians were never really going to be a thing because in truth it is the SJW who is really the logical conclusion of the Liberal project. Libertarians have always had this problem of being nostalgic, imagining that Liberalism just needs to be set back to the right course instead of acknowledging that everything happening is a logical outgrowth of the trajectory of the culture.

Libertarian can yell on twitter, just like any SJW. I am not seeing anything truth in this post. Sorry...

[downnola]

The United States is not a democracy it's a democratic Republic. Republics guarantee rights, hence the constitution, in fact many of the founding fathers where explicitly against Democracy.

"Democracy, will soon degenerate into an anarchy" - John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison

So no a Republic is not "whatever the fuck a majority of the populace says it is". You should read what happened with radically aggressive Athenian Democracy if you believe Democracy is purely virtuous. If 51% wake up on Monday and want Socrates dead, then he dies. The American founding fathers were very much against large government, and America has very much deteriorated from a free market libertarian Republic to Democratic socialism-lite.

- - - Updated - - -



Is that what you believe the founding fathers were? I mean the U.S has slid so far from its first principles, its now closer to socialism than its roots.

The U.S. at it's founding was a free market libertarian republic with tarrifs, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and fucking slavery? I really fucking hate Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell, they spread the most asinine history retcons of any ideologues I've come across.

[Nalera]

Libertarians were never really going to be a thing because in truth it is the SJW who is really the logical conclusion of the Liberal project. Libertarians have always had this problem of being nostalgic, imagining that Liberalism just needs to be set back to the right course instead of acknowledging that everything happening is a logical outgrowth of the trajectory of the culture.

I doubt you even understand what you are actually talking about. The United States has been married to Libertarianism longer than it has been to democratic socialism. The people who call libertarianism Utopian, ahistorical, or nostalgia don't know America's roots. I hope America doesn't have to spend this century, like many countries spent last century, learning why socialism doesn't work.