The Libertarian Viewpoint

[T-Dawg]

Well, during Thanksgiving I met a rather nice stranger from my family who was very keen on politics. He never expressed what party he supported, but he seems to be Libertarian. He's written a letter to his senator or congressman or something expressing his discontent with their positive votes on the healthcare bill (they both voted yes). I'm not sure if his issue is with the way they voted, or the fact that they voted against the population they were representing (I think it was Arkansas, and about 57% or something like that of the people there opposed the bill). He also pointed out how our founding fathers once said that it was the People's duty to overthrow the government if it gets to be tyrannical (he expressed this to his representative and stated that he would try to settle the problem with the voting booth before overthrowing the government, or something like that ).

I also remember him stating that both the republicans and the democrats will lead us to socialism, although the democrats may do it slightly faster (I think he have gotten socialism mixed up with fascism). We both agreed on how a lot of the policies the government's been implementing in recent years were fascist, that is, the merging of corporation and government, which of course was bad. The healthcare bill, from what we know of it, is a perfect example - the government requires that everyone buy insurance... except that the problem is, there's NO PUBLIC OPTION. Obama is literally implementing a government healthcare system run by the private sector, and mandating that we buy from them. Our terminology on the situation differed (he said that the government was taking over the private sector; I explained that it was actually the private sector taking over the government), but we agreed on most of it.


So the interesting part is where he explains how to fix our economy... here's a summary of the system:

- Low/no income taxes
Yeah, it's that simple. O_O

The idea is that we lower income taxes for everyone. The corporations will use the money to create new jobs (generating more profit for them), and the people will be able to buy more things, giving the government revenue from sales tax, and creating profits from the companies they buy from. Of course, for this to work, according to him, you would need to have an incredibly small government.

The problem with this system is that it places the burden of taxation on the consumer (which is usually the worker), and it trusts that the corporations will seek long term profit and create jobs instead of looking for short term profit and hoarding up their cash and creating bubbles (which American corporations have consistently done). There could be a law that required corportions to spend a certain amount of their income on workers, but it won't be simple - for example, if the law simply said that companies must spend, at least, say, 10% of their profits on creating new jobs, they may just hire a "worker" who's "job" is to take the money and "donate" it back to the corporation.
The setup seems designed to funnel money into the upper class - the upper class is taxed little, and pays some sales tax as they buy goods, funneling money into other upper class folks; the working class is taxed little, and pays some income tax as they buy goods, which funnels more money into the upper class. In the situation America is in right now, with big-name companies dominating the market (ie, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Coca-cola...), this might put us dangerously close to a monopoly as the big companies take up more and more of the jobs.


Any thoughts?

 

[Magic Man]

Any thoughts?

Well, your friend seems to be very conservative, especially considering that whole "socialism" aspect.

Was that his idea for fixing the government permanently or just to get us out of this recession?

He seems to have a very skewed and crazy idea of how taxes work and how the government works.

 

[Valjean]

Low taxes and a laissez-faire government has been tried repeatedly. It fails every time. It produces a tiny, predatory group of rich men on top; a vast, complient, insecure, underpaid, impoverished lower class; and almost no middle class to buy the goods and services the corporatists produce. It is unsustainable. Friedman is just plain wrong.

 

[Zephyr]

The Libertarian Viewpoint.

"**** you, more money for me."

 

[T-Dawg]

The Libertarian Viewpoint.

"**** you, more money for me."

No, that's the republican viewpoint .

 

[Magic Man]

The Libertarian Viewpoint.

"**** you, more money for me."

Actually, it's more like:

"We should be completely free. I want to be able to live in society, but not actually have to contribute to it."

 

[Reverend Rick]

The real issue is not taxes, but unfair sacrifice.

This fairy tale assumption that the majority can impose draconian taxes on the minority is not sustainable.

Every time a state has targeted the few to pay for the many, it has back fired. The well off just move away or close down their enterprise.

It is real simple actually, if a business cannot be profitable, you shut it down. Who actually suffers? The rich man or the employees?

If Liberals attempt to redistribute wealth, the rich will just close the doors and take the year off. What most people miss is, the rich do not have to make any more money to live their lives. They don't have to spend much either. Their tax liability would be next to nothing.

You want to get the ball rolling, you entice the rich to invest. Raising taxes has the opposite effect.

 

[Wandered Off]

I have seen several people on this board charicature a libertarian viewpoint in just the same way they accuse others of charicaturing socialism. Most confuse libertarians with anarchists.

While anarchists want no government or regulation of any kind, libertarians recognize the need for structure that all parties can agree upon to facilitate economic and social activity. Government acts to enforce contracts and as a legal infrastructure. Government also is tasked with certain common duties (aHa! socialism...) such as national defense (does not include nation building or policing the planet) and safety-net services.

Beyond these basics, though, the government should have little role. For example, subsidizing farmers to grow nothing or handing cash to oil companies, car companies, banks, telling consenting adults whom they can't marry, telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they have to buy and what size television is too big, .... all out of scope.

Yes, there certainly are libertarians who think even common services such as police and fire protection should be privatized, but not all are this naive, IMO. Many realize that these, schools, and some other services do make more sense at a government level.

Seyorni correctly pointed out that a limited-government model has failed in the past. It is also true that large-government models have failed. Limited-government models require an active, educated, and responsible citizenery in order to work. It is not the kind of system where citizens can just live their own lives obliviously and expect the government to work itself out - where 20% voter turnout is considered high. For that reson, I see this kind of governance only feasible in a smaller-scale environment. Just my opinion.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The pure Libertarian believes taking money from one person and giving it to another is immoral.

I don't believe there is a problem with collectively building a road or employing fire and police.

Schools are another matter. The average family has children in school about 20 years. Paying a school tax for 60 years of home ownership is tripple dipping and draconian.

 

[Zephyr]

Schools are another matter. The average family has children in school about 20 years. Paying a school tax for 60 years of home ownership is tripple dipping and draconian.

So...we should take our already-underfunded public education system...and cut it even further? Do we really need to make our system even worse than it already is?

 

[Magic Man]

The real issue is not taxes, but unfair sacrifice.

In other words "taxes".

This fairy tale assumption that the majority can impose draconian taxes on the minority is not sustainable.

Your fairy tale assumption that our country can sustain itself without taxing the wealthy more than the middle class is silly.

Every time a state has targeted the few to pay for the many, it has back fired. The well off just move away or close down their enterprise.

Yeah, right. You're welcome to go ahead and show me some evidence of this.

It is real simple actually, if a business cannot be profitable, you shut it down. Who actually suffers? The rich man or the employees?

The problem is the assumption that the higher taxes makes the business unprofitable. That's simply not true.

If Liberals attempt to redistribute wealth, the rich will just close the doors and take the year off.

Cool, then that'll leave more room for others who aren't as selfish to step in and run businesses and actually pay their fair share. Good riddance to those who don't want to do their part.

What most people miss is, the rich do not have to make any more money to live their lives. They don't have to spend much either. Their tax liability would be next to nothing.

Good, then tax people on their wealth instead of their income.

You want to get the ball rolling, you entice the rich to invest. Raising taxes has the opposite effect.

Get the ball rolling on what?

 

[Magic Man]

I have seen several people on this board charicature a libertarian viewpoint in just the same way they accuse others of charicaturing socialism. Most confuse libertarians with anarchists.

While anarchists want no government or regulation of any kind, libertarians recognize the need for structure that all parties can agree upon to facilitate economic and social activity. Government acts to enforce contracts and as a legal infrastructure. Government also is tasked with certain common duties (aHa! socialism...) such as national defense (does not include nation building or policing the planet) and safety-net services.

Beyond these basics, though, the government should have little role. For example, subsidizing farmers to grow nothing or handing cash to oil companies, car companies, banks, telling consenting adults whom they can't marry, telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they have to buy and what size television is too big, .... all out of scope.

Yes, there certainly are libertarians who think even common services such as police and fire protection should be privatized, but not all are this naive, IMO. Many realize that these, schools, and some other services do make more sense at a government level.

Seyorni correctly pointed out that a limited-government model has failed in the past. It is also true that large-government models have failed. Limited-government models require an active, educated, and responsible citizenery in order to work. It is not the kind of system where citizens can just live their own lives obliviously and expect the government to work itself out - where 20% voter turnout is considered high. For that reson, I see this kind of governance only feasible in a smaller-scale environment. Just my opinion.

Good post. I just wanted to point out that my caricature of libertarianism was meant to be exaggerated. I know that's not an accurate depiction of a lot of libertarians. I think that's the difference between my caricature and the incorrect caricatures of socialism.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TAL,

The problem with this system is that it places the burden of taxation on the consumer (which is usually the worker), and it trusts that the corporations will seek long term profit and create jobs instead of looking for short term profit and hoarding up their cash and creating bubbles (which American corporations have consistently done).

Do you have an actual example of this ever happening? I wouldn't even know how a private company could create a bubble. Bubbles are created by government banks playing around with the monetary policy (tinkering with interest rates).

For example, was the housing bubble created by a private company?

 

[Reverend Rick]

For example, was the housing bubble created by a private company?

Uh, Nooooo. Barney Frank, Sally Mae, Freddie Mac, and these banks who bundled securities and the corrupt government that rated those funds. All so we could put people in houses they could not afford.

 

[T-Dawg]

For example, was the housing bubble created by a private company?

Uh, actually, that was the example I had in mind... I thought the whole Freddie Mac thing was a private corporation?

You mean the housing bubble was created by the government? How? I thought Bush was a strong free-market advocate? I doubt he would have allowed government interference with the housing bubble... but meh, I don't know much on that subject, I'll leave it to someone smart (ie, mball) to argue with you on that one...

 

[Magic Man]

Hi TAL,

For example, was the housing bubble created by a private company?

Indeed it was. Ever heard of Goldman Sachs?

 

[Luminous]

Any thoughts?

I'm a Libertarian and i agree with you're point of view alot more than with ur conservative relative. He seams to think that the best government is plutocracy government. when the government shrinks the power vaccum has to be filled by another force. not neccessarily a better force, but our government is already a plutocracy in a way: bailouts for coorporations and trickle down economics. Perhaps your relative doesn't like public education or roads or subsidies, perhaps third world is more his standard.

 

[Gunfingers]

So, i'm a pretty ardent libertarian and i think i can say a few things here.

First, economic matters are a fairly small part of what we believe. I am, for example, uncomfortable with a public option in healthcare, but accept it as possibly a necessary evil. The real meat of libertarianism is the issues of individuality and civil rights. A libertarian supports reproductive rights, gay marriage (i actually prefer no legal marriage), and decriminalization of marijuana or even "harder" drugs and prostitution. On the other end of the spectrum, libertarians usually dislike anti-discrimination laws such as affirmative action, hate crime legislation, and movements to ban hate speech.

We share the conservatives distaste for government spending, but lack their weird boner for defense spending (seriously, what the hell guys?). We share the liberals love of civil liberties and progressiveness, but lack their desire for mandatory equality. Basically, our desire is to simply maximize individual freedom, whatever that may mean.

 

[Magic Man]

So, i'm a pretty ardent libertarian and i think i can say a few things here.

First, economic matters are a fairly small part of what we believe. I am, for example, uncomfortable with a public option in healthcare, but accept it as possibly a necessary evil. The real meat of libertarianism is the issues of individuality and civil rights. A libertarian supports reproductive rights, gay marriage (i actually prefer no legal marriage), and decriminalization of marijuana or even "harder" drugs and prostitution.

I'm with you so far. The only difference is I'm uncomfortable with a public option only because it's not as good as universal healthcare.

On the other end of the spectrum, libertarians usually dislike anti-discrimination laws such as affirmative action, hate crime legislation, and movements to ban hate speech.

Well, I feel the same way about affirmative action and hate crime legislation as you do about the public option. I'm slightly uncomfortable with them, but they are a necessary evil. Some day the hope is that neither is needed.

I'm curious about the movements to ban hate speech, though. I've never heard of such movements. Are they mainstream?

We share the conservatives distaste for government spending, but lack their weird boner for defense spending (seriously, what the hell guys?). We share the liberals love of civil liberties and progressiveness, but lack their desire for mandatory equality. Basically, our desire is to simply maximize individual freedom, whatever that may mean.

I can understand wanting freedom. What I don't understand is wanting freedoms just because they're freedoms. Clearly, some limits on freedoms are necessary to make a good society work. I want to maximize our personal freedoms, too, but only in the framework of a society that makes sure everyone has what they need and they work together.

 

[Wandered Off]

IMO, another important aspect is that all physical infrastructure (primarily the kind we share paying for) is ultimately local, so to the the extent practical, libertarians would rather see more power at a lower level (city, county, state) and less at the federal level. Obviously, there are items where federal infrastructure makes sense, like the highway system to connect the states, but the general emphasis is on having power concentrated closer to the people who benefit from and pay for the services.

Local control, with some federal oversight makes for more of a bottom-up approach when feasible. In a sense, people are more "free" when they have more influence over decisions that impact them directly rather than being stuck with mandates that might not or stuck paying for items that return no benefit to the area.