A Libertarian is a liberal with little heart.

[Anguille]

Outdoor fire ans in auto da fe'?

You're determined to make me post a pic of Nuns and Octopii, aren't you.

I'd be a Fibbertarian if I said no.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me what is cowardly or heartless in wanting to make any and all decisions accept total responsibility for the results of those decisions and how they affect one's own life?

Seems to me the people who blame everyone else for their failings and failures are the cowards.

Then there are the whiny ones.

A sub species of the sinister type.

So asking you a straight forward question, which by the way, you did not answer is now defined in the libby dictionary as whining?

And what are your thoughts, if you actually have thoughts that aren't regurgitated progressive libby doma, on the statement:

The more responsibility you take away from people, the more irresponsible they become

?

 

[Truthmatters]

Some called us whiners for questioning the last admin when they were so clearly fucking things up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Some called us whiners for questioning the last admin when they were so clearly fucking things up.

And some call people who question this administration hateful racists bigots so what does that have to do with the very simple question I asked?

 

[Ravi]

So says a friend of mine.

What say you?

I have to disagree.

It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.

mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So says a friend of mine.

What say you?

I have to disagree.

It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.

mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?

You are obviously simply retarded because no libertarian I know or even on this board has ever advocated no taxes or no government.

What we have advocated is smaller less expensive, less intrusive government and much lower taxes

 

[Ravi]

So says a friend of mine.

What say you?

I have to disagree.

It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.

mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?

You are obviously simply retarded because no libertarian I know or even on this board has ever advocated no taxes or no government.

What we have advocated is smaller less expensive, less intrusive government and much lower taxes

I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.

What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?

 

[Anguille]

So says a friend of mine.

What say you?

I have to disagree.

It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.

mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?

That would be a Retarditarian.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have to disagree.

It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.

mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?

You are obviously simply retarded because no libertarian I know or even on this board has ever advocated no taxes or no government.

What we have advocated is smaller less expensive, less intrusive government and much lower taxes

I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.

What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?

Having no taxes on income is not the same as having no taxes

I don't know how many times this has to be rehashed but here we go again.

The government should collect enough taxes to perform its constitutional responsibilities. That can easily be done with a small flat tax on every citizen.

All other government services should be a fee for use and nothing else.

 

[Ravi]

You are obviously simply retarded because no libertarian I know or even on this board has ever advocated no taxes or no government.

What we have advocated is smaller less expensive, less intrusive government and much lower taxes

I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.

What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?

Having no taxes on income is not the same as having no taxes

I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.

What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?

Having no taxes on income is not the same as having no taxes

I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?

A tax on a specific product ie tobacco, alcohol, soda etc is not needed. A flat consumption tax like the fair tax would be more acceptable. A flat income tax with no deductions or exemptions would be acceptable

 

[Ravi]

Having no taxes on income is not the same as having no taxes

I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?

A tax on a specific product ie tobacco, alcohol, soda etc is not needed. A flat consumption tax like the fair tax would be more acceptable. A flat income tax with no deductions or exemptions would be acceptable

You aren't totally opposed to income or use tax. Good. Some of your cohorts seem to be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?

A tax on a specific product ie tobacco, alcohol, soda etc is not needed. A flat consumption tax like the fair tax would be more acceptable. A flat income tax with no deductions or exemptions would be acceptable

You aren't totally opposed to income or use tax. Good. Some of your cohorts seem to be.

Some government is needed and that government needs fund to run. that has never been the argument.

The argument is just how much government is needed to ensure the protection of an individual's rights.

Government Size and Economic Growth

The Armey Curve

Borrowing a graphical technique popularized by Arthur Laffer, Representative Richard Armey, an economist by training, developed what he termed the Armey Curve (see Figure 1).1 In a state of anarchy, output per capita is low. Similarly, where all input and output decisions are made by government, output per capita is likewise low. Where there is a mix of private and government decisions on the allocation of resources, however, output often is larger. The output-enhancing features of government dominate when government is very small, and expansions in governmental size are associated with expansions in output. At some point, however, further expansion of government no longer leads to output expansion, as the growth-reducing aspects of government grow larger, and the growth-enhancing features of government diminish. Further expansion of government contributes to economic stagnation and decline.

Why is this so? In a world without government, there is no rule of law, and no protection of property rights. Bullies and strong people can steal the assets of weaker persons with impunity. There is little incentive to save and invest because the threat of expropriation is real and constant. Moreover, without some collective action, there is no protection from bigger bullies, namely foreign nations, or pirates on the high seas. Collective action also facilitates the creation of roads that improve transportation and lower trading costs. Government can also create a reliable medium of exchange, further developing the gains from trade. Thus, the establishment and early growth of government is associated with rising levels of income and positive rates of economic growth.

As governments grow, the law of diminishing returns begins operating. While the construction of roads initially assists output expansion, the construction of secondary roads and upgrading primary roads start to have less added positive impact per dollar spent. Moreover, the taxes and/or borrowing levied to finance government impose increasing burdens. Low tax rates become higher. New taxes, such as income taxes, are added to low consumption levies, with increasingly adverse effects on human economic behavior. Tariffs are raised, thwarting trade. New government spending no longer enhances economic growth.

When government is small, political actions at income redistribution via tax policy or through payments to the poor are modest in magnitude. As transfer payments and progressive taxation grow with increasingly large government, the negative effects of governmental spending magnify. In small amounts, welfare payments help the poor and do not dramatically influence behavior. As the payments grow larger and more comprehensive, they lead to pronounced work disincentive effects. Thus, it is to be expected that as government absorbs an increasingly large percent of national output, incremental spending will actually have an adverse effect on output.

The Armey Curve does not suggest that "all government is bad." To the contrary, some government serves the public good. But like most good things, too much of it is harmful. Just as drinking one glass of wine daily may be good for the drinker's health but drinking 10 glasses is bad, so government in moderation is good for the economy while in excess it is bad. Milton Friedman, comparing the United States and Hong Kong, put it well recently:

Government has an essential role to play in a free and open society. Its average contribution is positive; but I believe that the marginal contribution of going from 15% of the national income to 50% has been negative.....2

And you can see that we are now at a point where government spending is nearly 50% of GDP

We have clearly reached the diminishing returns predicted by the Armey Curve

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The non-aggression axiom is the cornerstone of libertarianism, and I could certainly see how that might be considered "heartless."

 

[Samson]

I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?

A tax on a specific product ie tobacco, alcohol, soda etc is not needed. A flat consumption tax like the fair tax would be more acceptable. A flat income tax with no deductions or exemptions would be acceptable

You aren't totally opposed to income or use tax. Good. Some of your cohorts seem to be.

Ravi should just give all of her(?) income to some beaurocrat in DC so they can decide how much she(?) needs to keep.

This would streamline the entire income tax process for Ravi and The Cohorts....and

I'm sure the Treasury Department would be able to reduce its $13.4 Billion 2010 budget if everyone were as cooperative.

 

[Ringel05]

There is a darker. more sinister type of Libertarian though, who I think typifies the breed. This type can never be trusted.

You're thinking, "Catholics."

 

[Modbert]

I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.

What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?

Some of them would wish to be taxed on nothing and go back to the system we had in the 1790's. Obviously the Founding Fathers did believe in some sort of taxes if I do remember reading correctly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.

What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?

Some of them would wish to be taxed on nothing and go back to the system we had in the 1790's. Obviously the Founding Fathers did believe in some sort of taxes if I do remember reading correctly.

Contrary to popular belief, libertarians are not always in line with the founding fathers.

 

[Modbert]

Contrary to popular belief, libertarians are not always in line with the founding fathers.

Yeah, I would hope you guys wouldn't want to own slaves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Contrary to popular belief, libertarians are not always in line with the founding fathers.

Yeah, I would hope you guys wouldn't want to own slaves.

That would violate the non-aggression axiom, and the slave's natural rights.