Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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.
Really? Mitt Romney? Creator of Romneycare? Perpetuator of the myth of Russia as a geopolitical threat? That's who we want in a "Libertarian" administration? That would be an embarrassment.I don't know, I'd say Johnson is probably better than Bob Barr. That said, his newest nonsense is saying Mitt Romney of all people would have a place in his administration, supports a carbon tax, and a guaranteed annual income. There's no way to justify any of this on libertarian grounds.That's not true at all. I've been in the LParty for almost 30 years. And there was a LONG STRING of losers who had no clue what running for office was all about.
I consider Johnson/Weld to be a Mediation Team right now. I'm over being concerned how "libertarian" they actual are. The most important goal is to separate the partisans before they kill each other and us along with them.
We need 4 years of "cooling off" the rhetoric and delivering "consensus" solutions that aren't just 50/50 Conservative/Progressive compromise. A LOT can get done in 4 years if you cut off the partisan BullShit..
A century of "consensus solutions" are what got us into this mess. Proposing more of it is akin to drinking oneself to sobriety.
That you aren't concerned how libertarian the nominees for the Libertarian Party are, pretty much underscores my point that Johnson and Wed are the saddest sacks the party has ever run.
The duo is probably better than Barr. And I kinda like the idea of recruiting former Governors like Romney. Ought to draft more Governors for key positions. Because State Govs KNOW the squeeze play that comes from D.C. They are the ones that have to cope with all the half-baked, half-funded mandates. And they KNOW if they got a block grant -- they would come up with a better use of the funds.
Don't know about a carbon tax or guaranteed income. We already HAVE a functional guaranteed income with the EITC negative income tax. I'm not looking for miracles -- I just want the "noise" and excuses and cross-blaming to disappear for 4 yrs. We could all use a break. And in the process, maybe a demonstration of how EASY it actually is to fix some chronic problems like corporate welfare that NEITHER party wanted to end.
I mean exactly what you said. The government can't protect our rights with bullying. Since bullying is all they do, they do not protect our rights. And in that same vein, refusing the government anything doesn't work. They're going to do whatever they want to do, and a hypothetical Gary Johnson administration will be no different. As has been pointed out, he wants a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income. In other words, Gary Johnson wants to increase taxes and violence against people. I'm supposed to vote for him because he's marginally better than the other clowns running or because I want to see third parties get more traction in general? What do I care if we get a viable third party if it's also just running establishment candidates?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.
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.
Given the LP nominees, it's safe to say that embarrassment isn't a problem for them.Really? Mitt Romney? Creator of Romneycare? Perpetuator of the myth of Russia as a geopolitical threat? That's who we want in a "Libertarian" administration? That would be an embarrassment.
I mean exactly what you said. The government can't protect our rights with bullying. Since bullying is all they do, they do not protect our rights. And in that same vein, refusing the government anything doesn't work. They're going to do whatever they want to do, and a hypothetical Gary Johnson administration will be no different. As has been pointed out, he wants a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income. In other words, Gary Johnson wants to increase taxes and violence against people. I'm supposed to vote for him because he's marginally better than the other clowns running or because I want to see third parties get more traction in general? What do I care if we get a viable third party if it's also just running establishment candidates?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?
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.
Let's get back to the issue of "control" that you're talking about but let's flip the hypothetical around. Let's say the government imposes a new tax on fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King but not on Subway because they want people to eat at Subway instead. You're obviously opposed to the idea of the government trying to force people to make a choice they might not otherwise make. That's great, so what policy do you advocate? A.) Put the same tax on Subway to make it fair and stop controlling people, or B.) Eliminate the tax completely and stop controlling people.
I can absolutely deny that they make us safer in trade off for our tax money which they steal from us. So I'm not only robbed, but they then use my money to make me less safe. They make us less safe by provoking people overseas into killing us. Cops make us less safe in many ways as well. When they're sitting at the side of the road causing traffic to suddenly slow down, that makes us less safe on the road. When we assume that police will protect us from violence but really only show up after we've been murdered they make us less safe.I mean exactly what you said. The government can't protect our rights with bullying. Since bullying is all they do, they do not protect our rights. And in that same vein, refusing the government anything doesn't work. They're going to do whatever they want to do, and a hypothetical Gary Johnson administration will be no different. As has been pointed out, he wants a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income. In other words, Gary Johnson wants to increase taxes and violence against people. I'm supposed to vote for him because he's marginally better than the other clowns running or because I want to see third parties get more traction in general? What do I care if we get a viable third party if it's also just running establishment candidates?When has government protected our rights without bullying us?What is good government? What level of violence are we claiming as "good?"
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.
I don't see how you can hold that bullying is all a government does. Police aren't bullying when the arrest murders or thieves. The military isn't bullying us when it protects us from foreign invaders. Government does protect our rights. It might also do a lot of bullying on the side, but a sufficiently aware population can utilize a well-written constitution to keep government in check. That's what we should be fighting for.
Maybe your view is that, as long as government is funded via taxation, everything it does is tarnished. All of it founded on a rights violation. But that's to misunderstand the trade off involved in having a government. The basic deal is that we give up some of our rights (like the right to decide for ourselves how to pay for government, much of our right to use violence to defend ourselves, etc...) in exchange for increased security.
There are obviously better ways to protect ourselves. I believe that we'll eventually settle into peaceful anarchy. But that requires a general moral consensus far different than what we have now. I don't think it will happen until violence becomes something that is utterly beneath humanity. Something so deeply embedded in our cultural moral compass that anyone who reached for it would be exiled and shunned.
Let's get back to the issue of "control" that you're talking about but let's flip the hypothetical around. Let's say the government imposes a new tax on fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King but not on Subway because they want people to eat at Subway instead. You're obviously opposed to the idea of the government trying to force people to make a choice they might not otherwise make. That's great, so what policy do you advocate? A.) Put the same tax on Subway to make it fair and stop controlling people, or B.) Eliminate the tax completely and stop controlling people.
B is, for now, off the table. And A is far better than allowing Congress to keep ratcheting up its power with the tax code.
I can absolutely deny that they make us safer in trade off for our tax money which they steal from us. So I'm not only robbed, but they then use my money to make me less safe. They make us less safe by provoking people overseas into killing us. Cops make us less safe in many ways as well. When they're sitting at the side of the road causing traffic to suddenly slow down, that makes us less safe on the road. When we assume that police will protect us from violence but really only show up after we've been murdered they make us less safe.I mean exactly what you said. The government can't protect our rights with bullying. Since bullying is all they do, they do not protect our rights. And in that same vein, refusing the government anything doesn't work. They're going to do whatever they want to do, and a hypothetical Gary Johnson administration will be no different. As has been pointed out, he wants a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income. In other words, Gary Johnson wants to increase taxes and violence against people. I'm supposed to vote for him because he's marginally better than the other clowns running or because I want to see third parties get more traction in general? What do I care if we get a viable third party if it's also just running establishment candidates?When has government protected our rights without bullying us?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.
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.
I don't see how you can hold that bullying is all a government does. Police aren't bullying when the arrest murders or thieves. The military isn't bullying us when it protects us from foreign invaders. Government does protect our rights. It might also do a lot of bullying on the side, but a sufficiently aware population can utilize a well-written constitution to keep government in check. That's what we should be fighting for.
Maybe your view is that, as long as government is funded via taxation, everything it does is tarnished. All of it founded on a rights violation. But that's to misunderstand the trade off involved in having a government. The basic deal is that we give up some of our rights (like the right to decide for ourselves how to pay for government, much of our right to use violence to defend ourselves, etc...) in exchange for increased security.
There are obviously better ways to protect ourselves. I believe that we'll eventually settle into peaceful anarchy. But that requires a general moral consensus far different than what we have now. I don't think it will happen until violence becomes something that is utterly beneath humanity. Something so deeply embedded in our cultural moral compass that anyone who reached for it would be exiled and shunned.
Let's get back to the issue of "control" that you're talking about but let's flip the hypothetical around. Let's say the government imposes a new tax on fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King but not on Subway because they want people to eat at Subway instead. You're obviously opposed to the idea of the government trying to force people to make a choice they might not otherwise make. That's great, so what policy do you advocate? A.) Put the same tax on Subway to make it fair and stop controlling people, or B.) Eliminate the tax completely and stop controlling people.
B is, for now, off the table. And A is far better than allowing Congress to keep ratcheting up its power with the tax code.
And I'm flabbergasted that eliminating one tax, for a libertarian, is off the table. I can't even fathom why taking that position is off the table.
And why does that matter? It's not politically viable for Gary Johnson to be elected president. Libertarianism itself is not politically viable.I can absolutely deny that they make us safer in trade off for our tax money which they steal from us. So I'm not only robbed, but they then use my money to make me less safe. They make us less safe by provoking people overseas into killing us. Cops make us less safe in many ways as well. When they're sitting at the side of the road causing traffic to suddenly slow down, that makes us less safe on the road. When we assume that police will protect us from violence but really only show up after we've been murdered they make us less safe.I mean exactly what you said. The government can't protect our rights with bullying. Since bullying is all they do, they do not protect our rights. And in that same vein, refusing the government anything doesn't work. They're going to do whatever they want to do, and a hypothetical Gary Johnson administration will be no different. As has been pointed out, he wants a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income. In other words, Gary Johnson wants to increase taxes and violence against people. I'm supposed to vote for him because he's marginally better than the other clowns running or because I want to see third parties get more traction in general? What do I care if we get a viable third party if it's also just running establishment candidates?When has government protected our rights without bullying us?
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.
I don't see how you can hold that bullying is all a government does. Police aren't bullying when the arrest murders or thieves. The military isn't bullying us when it protects us from foreign invaders. Government does protect our rights. It might also do a lot of bullying on the side, but a sufficiently aware population can utilize a well-written constitution to keep government in check. That's what we should be fighting for.
Maybe your view is that, as long as government is funded via taxation, everything it does is tarnished. All of it founded on a rights violation. But that's to misunderstand the trade off involved in having a government. The basic deal is that we give up some of our rights (like the right to decide for ourselves how to pay for government, much of our right to use violence to defend ourselves, etc...) in exchange for increased security.
There are obviously better ways to protect ourselves. I believe that we'll eventually settle into peaceful anarchy. But that requires a general moral consensus far different than what we have now. I don't think it will happen until violence becomes something that is utterly beneath humanity. Something so deeply embedded in our cultural moral compass that anyone who reached for it would be exiled and shunned.
Let's get back to the issue of "control" that you're talking about but let's flip the hypothetical around. Let's say the government imposes a new tax on fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King but not on Subway because they want people to eat at Subway instead. You're obviously opposed to the idea of the government trying to force people to make a choice they might not otherwise make. That's great, so what policy do you advocate? A.) Put the same tax on Subway to make it fair and stop controlling people, or B.) Eliminate the tax completely and stop controlling people.
B is, for now, off the table. And A is far better than allowing Congress to keep ratcheting up its power with the tax code.
And I'm flabbergasted that eliminating one tax, for a libertarian, is off the table. I can't even fathom why taking that position is off the table.
I'm not saying it's off the table for me. Obviously, it would be my preference to eliminate all taxes, most especially income tax. I just meant that it's not politically viable.
And why does that matter? It's not politically viable for Gary Johnson to be elected president. Libertarianism itself is not politically viable.I can absolutely deny that they make us safer in trade off for our tax money which they steal from us. So I'm not only robbed, but they then use my money to make me less safe. They make us less safe by provoking people overseas into killing us. Cops make us less safe in many ways as well. When they're sitting at the side of the road causing traffic to suddenly slow down, that makes us less safe on the road. When we assume that police will protect us from violence but really only show up after we've been murdered they make us less safe.I mean exactly what you said. The government can't protect our rights with bullying. Since bullying is all they do, they do not protect our rights. And in that same vein, refusing the government anything doesn't work. They're going to do whatever they want to do, and a hypothetical Gary Johnson administration will be no different. As has been pointed out, he wants a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income. In other words, Gary Johnson wants to increase taxes and violence against people. I'm supposed to vote for him because he's marginally better than the other clowns running or because I want to see third parties get more traction in general? What do I care if we get a viable third party if it's also just running establishment candidates?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
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.
I don't see how you can hold that bullying is all a government does. Police aren't bullying when the arrest murders or thieves. The military isn't bullying us when it protects us from foreign invaders. Government does protect our rights. It might also do a lot of bullying on the side, but a sufficiently aware population can utilize a well-written constitution to keep government in check. That's what we should be fighting for.
Maybe your view is that, as long as government is funded via taxation, everything it does is tarnished. All of it founded on a rights violation. But that's to misunderstand the trade off involved in having a government. The basic deal is that we give up some of our rights (like the right to decide for ourselves how to pay for government, much of our right to use violence to defend ourselves, etc...) in exchange for increased security.
There are obviously better ways to protect ourselves. I believe that we'll eventually settle into peaceful anarchy. But that requires a general moral consensus far different than what we have now. I don't think it will happen until violence becomes something that is utterly beneath humanity. Something so deeply embedded in our cultural moral compass that anyone who reached for it would be exiled and shunned.
Let's get back to the issue of "control" that you're talking about but let's flip the hypothetical around. Let's say the government imposes a new tax on fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King but not on Subway because they want people to eat at Subway instead. You're obviously opposed to the idea of the government trying to force people to make a choice they might not otherwise make. That's great, so what policy do you advocate? A.) Put the same tax on Subway to make it fair and stop controlling people, or B.) Eliminate the tax completely and stop controlling people.
B is, for now, off the table. And A is far better than allowing Congress to keep ratcheting up its power with the tax code.
And I'm flabbergasted that eliminating one tax, for a libertarian, is off the table. I can't even fathom why taking that position is off the table.
I'm not saying it's off the table for me. Obviously, it would be my preference to eliminate all taxes, most especially income tax. I just meant that it's not politically viable.
So when it comes to the Selective Service your preferred order of policy preferences would be: No Selective Service at all-->Selective Service for all-->Selective Service only for men?And why does that matter? It's not politically viable for Gary Johnson to be elected president. Libertarianism itself is not politically viable.I can absolutely deny that they make us safer in trade off for our tax money which they steal from us. So I'm not only robbed, but they then use my money to make me less safe. They make us less safe by provoking people overseas into killing us. Cops make us less safe in many ways as well. When they're sitting at the side of the road causing traffic to suddenly slow down, that makes us less safe on the road. When we assume that police will protect us from violence but really only show up after we've been murdered they make us less safe.I mean exactly what you said. The government can't protect our rights with bullying. Since bullying is all they do, they do not protect our rights. And in that same vein, refusing the government anything doesn't work. They're going to do whatever they want to do, and a hypothetical Gary Johnson administration will be no different. As has been pointed out, he wants a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income. In other words, Gary Johnson wants to increase taxes and violence against people. I'm supposed to vote for him because he's marginally better than the other clowns running or because I want to see third parties get more traction in general? What do I care if we get a viable third party if it's also just running establishment candidates?
I don't see how you can hold that bullying is all a government does. Police aren't bullying when the arrest murders or thieves. The military isn't bullying us when it protects us from foreign invaders. Government does protect our rights. It might also do a lot of bullying on the side, but a sufficiently aware population can utilize a well-written constitution to keep government in check. That's what we should be fighting for.
Maybe your view is that, as long as government is funded via taxation, everything it does is tarnished. All of it founded on a rights violation. But that's to misunderstand the trade off involved in having a government. The basic deal is that we give up some of our rights (like the right to decide for ourselves how to pay for government, much of our right to use violence to defend ourselves, etc...) in exchange for increased security.
There are obviously better ways to protect ourselves. I believe that we'll eventually settle into peaceful anarchy. But that requires a general moral consensus far different than what we have now. I don't think it will happen until violence becomes something that is utterly beneath humanity. Something so deeply embedded in our cultural moral compass that anyone who reached for it would be exiled and shunned.
Let's get back to the issue of "control" that you're talking about but let's flip the hypothetical around. Let's say the government imposes a new tax on fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King but not on Subway because they want people to eat at Subway instead. You're obviously opposed to the idea of the government trying to force people to make a choice they might not otherwise make. That's great, so what policy do you advocate? A.) Put the same tax on Subway to make it fair and stop controlling people, or B.) Eliminate the tax completely and stop controlling people.
B is, for now, off the table. And A is far better than allowing Congress to keep ratcheting up its power with the tax code.
And I'm flabbergasted that eliminating one tax, for a libertarian, is off the table. I can't even fathom why taking that position is off the table.
I'm not saying it's off the table for me. Obviously, it would be my preference to eliminate all taxes, most especially income tax. I just meant that it's not politically viable.
It matters because it's not an either/or choice. We can argue for both. We can push for incremental change that will move toward the long term goal without giving up on it. Endorsing the buying off of special interests with targeted tax breaks, because it nominally reduces overall taxation, is short-sighted. It sacrifices equal protection for temporary relief. Arguably, it undermines the cause of limited government with its divide-and-conquer tactic.
So when it comes to the Selective Service your preferred order of policy preferences would be: No Selective Service at all-->Selective Service for all-->Selective Service only for men?And why does that matter? It's not politically viable for Gary Johnson to be elected president. Libertarianism itself is not politically viable.I can absolutely deny that they make us safer in trade off for our tax money which they steal from us. So I'm not only robbed, but they then use my money to make me less safe. They make us less safe by provoking people overseas into killing us. Cops make us less safe in many ways as well. When they're sitting at the side of the road causing traffic to suddenly slow down, that makes us less safe on the road. When we assume that police will protect us from violence but really only show up after we've been murdered they make us less safe.I don't see how you can hold that bullying is all a government does. Police aren't bullying when the arrest murders or thieves. The military isn't bullying us when it protects us from foreign invaders. Government does protect our rights. It might also do a lot of bullying on the side, but a sufficiently aware population can utilize a well-written constitution to keep government in check. That's what we should be fighting for.
Maybe your view is that, as long as government is funded via taxation, everything it does is tarnished. All of it founded on a rights violation. But that's to misunderstand the trade off involved in having a government. The basic deal is that we give up some of our rights (like the right to decide for ourselves how to pay for government, much of our right to use violence to defend ourselves, etc...) in exchange for increased security.
There are obviously better ways to protect ourselves. I believe that we'll eventually settle into peaceful anarchy. But that requires a general moral consensus far different than what we have now. I don't think it will happen until violence becomes something that is utterly beneath humanity. Something so deeply embedded in our cultural moral compass that anyone who reached for it would be exiled and shunned.
B is, for now, off the table. And A is far better than allowing Congress to keep ratcheting up its power with the tax code.
And I'm flabbergasted that eliminating one tax, for a libertarian, is off the table. I can't even fathom why taking that position is off the table.
I'm not saying it's off the table for me. Obviously, it would be my preference to eliminate all taxes, most especially income tax. I just meant that it's not politically viable.
It matters because it's not an either/or choice. We can argue for both. We can push for incremental change that will move toward the long term goal without giving up on it. Endorsing the buying off of special interests with targeted tax breaks, because it nominally reduces overall taxation, is short-sighted. It sacrifices equal protection for temporary relief. Arguably, it undermines the cause of limited government with its divide-and-conquer tactic.
I admit I have no interest in equality when it comes to violence. If somebody punches me in the face I'm not going to say they should also punch you to be fair. My interest is in having as little violence as possible.
