> This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives.
That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine".
Since I never clarified what I meant and you came up with such a specific notion, it would appear you're projecting some defensiveness here.
But I will go ahead and clarify my position: The fact of the matter is, the US is a combative system. For it to work properly, each side has to take the extremes of their own position so the result ends up in the middle.
The rich don't need the poor or middle class to vote as a rich person, they can literally pay people to do that for them if they wish. A poor person should vote for issues that help them specifically and directly. Forget trickle-down even if you're ignorant enough to believe in it.
A perfect example is right-to-work states. Within the last year or so I read a story about a husband in (I believe it was) Kentucky who was sent out on a neglected platform to do some work, it collapsed and he died. The family was simply out a husband, father and provider. They couldn't even sue because the way the laws worked in that state meant the company would have literally had to try and murder the man for the family to be able to sue over the indecent.
I bet if you talked to most people in that state, they would be for this law because they don't want people suing McDonald's over hot coffee, for example. But why would they care? They're closer to the burned woman than they are McDonald's, voting their interests would mean they vote for the ability to sue McDonald's if they accidentally burn themselves.
Of course ditto-heads will scream "yea but if we did that it would ruin the whole country!" and indeed if the poor and middle class always got their way it would. But that wouldn't happen. Voting their own interests would simply pull the final result closer to the middle. That is, it would present ridiculous situations like a family not even being able to sue a company for a true case of near-criminal negligence and wrongful death.
Correct, I was taking up an example, which is why I used the phrase "one might say". I didn't advocate a specific position (higher or lower taxes). I am completely detached; I don't participate in the political system in America (neither do I plan to ever) so I simply don't care.
I am not in disagreement with your thesis. The problem that bugs me is this presumption that the people are not cognizant of what is good for them. Maybe, the people do something for a reason which is of interest to them (but not the reason that someone else thinks is right for them). E.g. maybe, the people who sue McDonalds don't want their neighbor becoming rich while they are poor. This of course is not limited to the poor; this is a human thing. I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes; then again that is my opinion and is not necessarily the same as his. If you examined your decisions over a certain period of time, you will find that the reasons you do something are not necessarily in accordance with what society (or $person whom you think is smarter than you) does them for.
Go to America. Live there for a while. Move to a red state and actually talk to people. This presumption won't seem so arrogant when you meet so many people for which there is no other logical conclusion to make.
>I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes
It's not, but the voting environment has gotten so skewed that people like Buffet feel they have to abandon voting in their best interests to try and get some kind of balance. At least they claim to publicly.
It basically labels our different concerns, or different weighting of various concerns, as illegitimate. In your case, a lot of this seems to reduce to the economic man world view ... and even then, since you don't consider things like "trickle down economics" (sure seemed to work better for us in the '80s than what's been tried after Clinton) or our "libertarianism" AKA classical liberalism at least debatable points vs akin to the KKK....
I mean, is there any room in your world view for religion, e.g. "Man does not live by bread alone", or, say, non-economic principles that are worth dying for??? Any non-economic reason why anyone would volunteer for the military?
>since you don't consider things like "trickle down economics" (sure seemed to work better for us in the '80s than what's been tried after Clinton)
If you're not going to educate yourself, there's not much point in bothering with this. The stats are in, trickle down never worked [1]. And trickle down was continued through Clinton (somehow you don't realize he was more conservative than a lot of so-called republicans) on to the present time.
>or our "libertarianism" AKA classical liberalism at least debatable points vs akin to the KKK....
Of course libertarianism has some debatable points. But luckily, those points also belong to legitimate political movements as well (minus the naivety inherent in an-cap/libertarianism).
>I mean, is there any room in your world view for religion, e.g. "Man does not live by bread alone"
Sure.
> non-economic principles that are worth dying for???
As a matter of fact there are, though I would phrase it as "worth risking your life for" since simply dying is extremely unlikely to help anything.
>Any non-economic reason why anyone would volunteer for the military?
Sure. For example, if an imperialist, evil world power claimed my country was "terrorists friendly", "has weapons of mass destruction" or some such nonsense I would volunteer for the military to try and help push back these scum from our lands.
But blind patriotism? No. I don't believe someone "died for my freedoms" simply because they joined the military and died. For me to believe they died for my freedoms, my freedoms would have to be in danger from something they actually fought.
[1] Starting point, not that you'll care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Criticis...
I lived in a red state (TX) for three years. Tell me more how this is supposed to have exposed me to the idiotic masses who have one exact reason why they vote conservative.
In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. "The God Delusion" by Dawkins includes a great (and somewhat Rawlsian) rule, 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
E.g., as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
But there's an entirely different philosophy out there. Taxes, which are non-voluntary by nature, are theft and therefore unethical. It's hard for many to conceptualize, but you can actually help the poor and those causes you care about and be anti-tax. It's not like we're a bunch greedy bastards. We just think voluntary society and government is the more ethical path.
What I've started telling every single one who parrots this nonsense - "Show me an onerous regulation that causes real pain for individuals and businesses, and I'll show you an opportunity for a REAL entrepreneur to get rich by making their lives easier." For all the talk of entrepreneurial spirit among right-libertarians, they have shockingly little faith in the capabilities of entrepreneurs to turn other people's problems into business opportunities.
Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties.
> 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
This is a Utopian way to govern, which would be great. But it doesn't apply to the US system. If your position is reasonable and the other side is pushing extremely toward their interests you're going to end up with the middle point between you both.
> as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy more akin to classical liberalism than any modern movement today. Don't confuse the Libertarian party with the libertarian movement. Also, there are many libertarian organizations in the US and world wide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizati...
And I suspect any international "Libertarian" parties are actually american expats. The international community does have something comparable though: ancaps. I feel the same about them.
Ask yourself, are you so certain of your position that you are willing to shoot or imprison me even if I'm causing you no harm? This is the modus operandi for both the left and right.
You have some reading to do. Start here: https://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
Then why was she all over those links you gave me? I think your movement has moved on without you.
>is simply the belief in a voluntary society - one with coercion.
You meant without here, right? Then we're talking anarchism. Since libertarians always talk about free markets, that would make it ancap. Which is an oxymoron.
> they're willing to force others to comply via the barrel of a gun (or proxy gun - aka, military, police, etc) with property confiscation (non-voluntary taxes) as the primary means.
A but this is exactly my issue with libertarianism: it's so much more complex than this but libertarians just hand wave all the problems away. Just a few more incantations of "laissez faire" and Utopia will arrive.
I'm not pro-coercion, I simply recognize that capitalism itself implies a level of coercion no matter how you package it up.
>You have some reading to do.
As do you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/rbxjm/an_anarchi...
Well, I'm not an american, so I don't vote in the US, but if I could I would vote for Libertarian Party candidates.
> Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical.
> I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
It's not about helping yourself. It's about consistent voting. If everyone votes for the rich person, the entire system will be skewed hopeless in their favor.
You think taxes are unethical? Then how does the government pay for itself? Would you rather they just printed the money they need? That would also be a tax; a flat tax.
And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system.
>I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt. If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.
> And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system.
Well, since I'm also an opponent of fiat currency, the government couldn't very well print any money :)
I'd prefer a night-watchman state, with the government handling police, courts, the military and possibly other services relating to emergency rescue, the justice system or government administration.
I would prefer the following for funding the (very small) government in ranking order: 1. Donations, 2. Fees, 3. A small flat tax levied either as an income tax or a corporate tax.
And yes, the third option isn't a very good option.
> By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt.
Indeed. I can't speak about the BNP, since I don't know anything about it, but the classic liberal party of Sweden only got a few hundred votes last election.
> If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.
I'll do that once the US stops being a collectivist surveillance state corrupted by cronyism, and actually starts respecting the principles set forth in its constitution again. (Not to mention when it actually starts allowing immigrants again.)
Until such a time, I'll try to make the situation better where I happen to reside.
So you want the gold standard again? Hasn't being in the EU shown you the dangers of having a currency you can't adjust to respond to international conditions?
>I'd prefer a night-watchman state, with the government handling police, courts, the military and possibly other services relating to emergency rescue, the justice system or government administration.
And somehow you imagine that the megarich corporations aren't instantly going to (a) start using unregulated practices to set up all kinds of monopolies and (b) start spending money to turn the country to their favor resorting in the exact same place the US is right now?
>1. Donations, 2. Fees, 3. A small flat tax levied either as an income tax or a corporate tax.
Donations? Seriously, donations? The police, military and so on will be at the mercy of what people decide to give of their own free will? Why am I not surprised to see such a position from a self proclaimed Libertarian.
>Until such a time, I'll try to make the situation better where I happen to reside.
Turning Sweden even more over to corporations isn't going to make it better, you must be out of your mind.
Being in the EU has shown me the dangers of government meddling in the market.
> Donations? Seriously, donations? The police, military and so on will be at the mercy of what people decide to give of their own free will? Why am I not surprised to see such a position from a self proclaimed Libertarian.
Yes, because it's far better to steal the money instead of it being given freely. I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?
Oh ffs. What place has shown you the joys of a completely laissez faire market? I'd be interested to hear about it since no such thing actually exists at any reasonably large scale. It was tried in Chile once and failed so hard that Friedman's own "Chicago boys" had to back it off.
>I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?
Well, no actually. I'm not willing to spend a dollar on those services until I know those getting more value out of them (i.e. the rich) are paying their fair share. In reality, they'll probably be paying nothing so I will join them.
Okay. That would be your right. Just don't start complaining once the underfunded justice system won't have the resources to handle burglaries in homes which cannot afford private security.
Are you against voluntary society?
This is the libertarian hand waving I complain about.
As long as you have a group with guns, companies will be paying that group to use their guns to enforce the rights of those companies. That's the most rational thing for a company to do. You can't out-innovate your competitors forever, you can't undercut their price forever and you can't provide better quality forever. Doing any of these things is very hard work, can be very expensive and you will lose eventually. It's a safer approach, once you win in a market to use those winnings to buy government-created barriers to entry against you're biggest enemy: new competition.
>Are you against voluntary society?
No, I assume it's inevitable given a large enough timescale. I have simply read enough to know that such a society is incompatible with capitalism.
If the government instead keeps taxes high, the money will simply pay people not to work. We are all poorer as a result.
People often make this claim and similar claims - ie tax cuts for the rich create jobs and growth. These are empirical claims; you need evidence for them. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine being a billionaire and not deciding to invest in cool stuff because my tax rate went up 5 or 10 percentage points.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-g...
My claim is much milder. As a billionaire, basically everything you have is invested. If he has $100m less, then $100m less is invested.
Investment has a chance of benefiting me. Consumption by the leisure class (i.e., beneficiaries of government redistribution) does not. FlyinRyan is simply incorrect in his claims.
The kind of investment the billionaire is doing is zero-sum in nature and doesn't help anyone but them.
It's hilarious that you imagine some billionaire playing the stock market has more value to you than people spending money on products (that you could be making). The 80's called and asked for their misconceptions back.
Why? Your vote doesn't matter. The probability of your vote affecting the outcome is so small it can't be represented with a double precision floating point [1].
So why shouldn't the poor do the same thing everyone else does, namely vote for the guy who makes them feel good?
(Incidentally, the idea that the poor vote R is statistical artifact caused by state level aggregation. http://www.tino.us/2012/11/republicans-may-be-many-things-bu... )
[1] I'm looking at state/federal elections here. Your vote might matter in, e.g., your local school board election.
Political campaigns certainly behave as if they believe voters already do vote this way. That's why Bush is the regular guy who clears brush from his estate, for example, and why everyone who disagrees with Obama is racist.
The coffee's temperature met McDonald's policy. They set it higher than their competitors because they assumed people would keep it in a cup holder and want it to be a more drinkable temperature when they arrived at their destination. Today, McDonald's has not changed their policy and still serves coffee at 80-90C, and places like Starbucks serve it at similar or higher temperatures. They are able to do this because of better packaging that's less likely to spill the entire drink even if it's dropped on your lap like Liebeck did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...
Personally, I don't think that it was a frivolous lawsuit. She did receive serious burns, more serious than I would expect someone to receive from spilled coffee.
HN is pretty good at programming and startups, but even the shortest expedition into history gets even the most amateur historians all wound up and LOL.
The fundamental problem was regionalism and federalism vs states rights. Not talked about for obvious political reasons now a days because that would bring up obvious difficult questions... All the issues mentioned were trees in the forest being fought over as PR fodder for the bigger issue of the south wanted to be the south and didn't want some yankee telling them anything, even if the yankee was correct. Extreme stubbornness on both sides. Then the war of northern aggression started because the southerners told the northerners to F off and leave them alone too many times.
If you could have magically removed slavery and plantations from the history of the south and reinsert another set of trees like space alien contact and medieval era 3-d printers, the forest would remain and the civil war would have been fought more or less the same way over PLA vs ABS figurines of intellectually protected property of images of space aliens or something.
The Trees Just Don't Matter (compared to the forest)
To some extent I believe this comes from the HN population consisting of many unmarried people. Trust me, once you get married you can bicker over stuff that has nothing to do with the real issue all day if you want.
But you can't ignore the slavery though. Without it, there would have been no wealth in the south worth going to war for (nor enough resources to support succession).