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.
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.