When has government protected our rights without bullying us?What is good government? What level of violence are we claiming as "good?"Where is isn't it applicable? Where is government empowered to coerce people into maintaining a home mortgage, investing in solar energy, buying insurance from approved government vendors, or any other of the myriad ways government uses tax incentives to manipulate society?I think that's because your analogy isn't applicable. If people get married and thus get a tax break those of us who remain single shouldn't begrudge them that even though we're not eligible.I don't think that's valid. The aggression of taxation lies in the original claim on your income. Offering discounts for those who do as they are told doesn't mitigate the aggression.
It's like a mugger who offers half your money back if you give him a hand job. I don't see how that's any less aggressive.
The goal is no taxation, or at least as minimal as possible, so every tax break is a step in the right direction.
That's a myopic view. The goal is good government. Constitutional limits on state power and guarantees of equal protection are fundamental requirements for good government. Sacrificing them to the narrow goal of reducing overall taxation simply isn't a good tradeoff. As long as we're going to grant government the power to tax us, we must insist in not also be used as a way to micromanage our lives.
Good government is government that protects our rights without bullying us. I think our primary disagreement is your view that targeted tax cuts represent less overall aggression. I think it's the opposite. They are more aggressive and more intrusive in our lives because they attempt to coerce behavior outside the government's proper authority.
... if the government says you can get a tax break when you buy from Competitor A but not Competitor B, yes that's government picking a winner, but it also means that consumers get to keep more of their money. I say the libertarian should not be wasting their time trying to raise taxes for people who buy from A, but instead focus their efforts on getting the same tax break for those who buy from B.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Let's take a more concrete example: the home mortgage interest deduction. How would we get the same tax break for those who don't maintain debt?
Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Government can't protect our rights with bullying. As soon as they start bullying, they are violating our rights. If you're asking when government actually protects our rights, rather than bullying, I'd say they still manage it most of the time. But that's changing rapidly
Well obviously if you don't have a mortgage you can't get the exact same deduction, but a deduction on something else. Or, better yet, no taxes at all. Again, I see this argument as akin to saying because it's unjust for men to have to register for the selective service, women should have to as well. The correct answer is to just abolish the selective service just like we should abolish taxation. The idea that we should rob Peter because we're also robbing Paul doesn't make sense. Just stop robbing everyone.
Sure. And I agree, the solution is to get rid of taxation altogether. But as long as we do have taxation, we should refuse government the power to use it as a means of control.