NEW POLL: Johnson Rises To 1st Place With Young Voters, Trump Last

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think we libertarians will feel free to define our ideology for ourselves.

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax Breaks

I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.

My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.

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.

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.

 

[dblack]

And we don't always agree. On this one narrow issue, for example, I think Roshawn is right - targeted tax breaks are worse that not lowering taxes at all. They violate equal protection and expand government power to coerce society.

The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax Breaks

I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.

My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Answer to "Unfair" Tax Breaks Is More Tax Breaks

I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.

My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What is good government? What level of violence are we claiming as "good?" When has the Constitution ever limited government power? That said, I think we're talking past each other. Of course government granting privileges to its favored cronies is wrong, which is why my position is that taxes should be abolished. Make it an even playing ground for everyone. However, 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.

 

[iRush]

Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - The Libertarian Republic

I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influence!!!

They already have too much power, in fact I think they deserve none. This country has gone to shit in the past 8 years under democrats.

 

[dblack]

I'm less interested in the psychology of how we characterize targeted tax breaks, than I am their actual effects. I oppose them because Congress uses them to implement mandates on behavior that would be utterly objectionable (to the general public) if implemented as regulations with more straightforward penalties. The use of "tax incentives" to manipulate society has radically expanded the power of government and I'm opposed to the practice regardless of whether we think of them as penalties or benefits.

My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You have "consensus solutions" confused with "bipartisan deals".. The FORMER are specific action items that have UNIVERSAL support --- like ending corporate welfare and ending "democratic imperialism" in the middle east, and regaining oversight and control over the massive D.C. bureaucracy..

The LATTER are sausages made out of 1/3 Socialism, 1/3 capitalism, and 1/3 payoff to constituencies and political debts on both sides. That stuff is vile..

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

You have "consensus solutions" confused with "bipartisan deals".. The FORMER are specific action items that have UNIVERSAL support --- like ending corporate welfare and ending "democratic imperialism" in the middle east, and regaining oversight and control over the massive D.C. bureaucracy..

The LATTER are sausages made out of 1/3 Socialism, 1/3 capitalism, and 1/3 payoff to constituencies and political debts on both sides. That stuff is vile..

Those items don't have universal support in the halls of corny Congress. If they did, then we'd have those deals cut already.

Again, I refer you to the term of Governor Jesse Ventura. The consensus there was for the cronies to override the most vetoes in state history.

 

[flacaltenn]

You have "consensus solutions" confused with "bipartisan deals".. The FORMER are specific action items that have UNIVERSAL support --- like ending corporate welfare and ending "democratic imperialism" in the middle east, and regaining oversight and control over the massive D.C. bureaucracy..

The LATTER are sausages made out of 1/3 Socialism, 1/3 capitalism, and 1/3 payoff to constituencies and political debts on both sides. That stuff is vile..

Those items don't have universal support in the halls of corny Congress. If they did, then we'd have those deals cut already.

Again, I refer you to the term of Governor Jesse Ventura. The consensus there was for the cronies to override the most vetoes in state history.

Man -- you're not getting it. Those issues have CONSENSUS with the public. Those "little people" that Congress is there to serve. THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT. The PARTIES are standing in the way of MANY consensus solutions that are entirely simple to fix.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Man -- you're not getting it. Those issues have CONSENSUS with the public. Those "little people" that Congress is there to serve. THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT. The PARTIES are standing in the way of MANY consensus solutions that are entirely simple to fix.

I'm getting the point. Your idea requires a total cleaning out of the Congress as well.

You're not going to get career warmongers like Feinstein, McCain, and Graham to suddenly adopt a far less aggressive interventionist policy, just because the guy at the top says so.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's been so long since the voters had humble servants and not power hungry demagogues, that they don't realize how easy it is fix some of these chronic problems that have MASSIVE public support.

The parties MAINTAIN these problems (like southern border immigration and govt/corp collusion) for THEIR benefit and power.

 

[flacaltenn]

Man -- you're not getting it. Those issues have CONSENSUS with the public. Those "little people" that Congress is there to serve. THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT. The PARTIES are standing in the way of MANY consensus solutions that are entirely simple to fix.

I'm getting the point. Your idea requires a total cleaning out of the Congress as well.

You're not going to get career warmongers like Feinstein, McCain, and Graham to suddenly adopt a far less aggressive interventionist policy, just because the guy at the top says so.

Not so much cleaning out -- as a general shaming. This Dem/Rep cross-blaming has been a very effective weapon in distracting the public from scams the parties PREFER to maintain. All you need is a mediator/whistle-blower THIRD party to point out the collusion between the parties.

Let them try to spin and deflect --- We will shame the hell out of them. No more cross-blaming.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Not so much cleaning out -- as a general shaming. This Dem/Rep cross-blaming has been a very effective weapon in distracting the public from scams the parties PREFER to maintain. All you need is a mediator/whistle-blower THIRD party to point out the collusion between the parties.

Let them try to spin and deflect --- We will shame the hell out of them. No more cross-blaming.

Shaming people who have no shame. That'd be a neat trick.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

OK...He's officially dead to me.

Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My interest is in reducing aggression. If one person gets a tax break that's less overall aggression.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

When has government protected our rights without bullying us?

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK...He's officially dead to me.

Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming

He's jumped the gun on that one. Not good. Has no clue what to "fix" with the proceeds. Or how to do it.
Some good appointments will fix his "priorities".

 

[Gracie]

I think most folks are sick and tired of the Trump/Clinton crap...and want a 3rd choice. Young and old alike.

 

[Gracie]

Then again..Alice Cooper said he would run if Tom Hanks would be his VP. Hell, I'll go for that.