4 ms·

I just went and read the Libertarian Party's platform. [1] Under the issue of Environment: "Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technol

I just went and read the Libertarian Party's platform. [1] Under the issue of Environment: "Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required." And under Government Finance and Spending: "All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes." So, unless it is shown to be constitutionally mandated a carvon tax is not endorsed by their platform. If I read correctly, it would not be endorsed under their Crime and Justice section either. Interesting aside, the Libertarian Party doesn't seem to be aware that all (100%) of U.S. currency is based on debt. The Treasury issues a bond, the Fed lrints money to buy it, and then all that goes into circulation. It's not magic, it's explicitly fiat, but I guess they missed that, or want to go back to something like the gold standard, which totally makes sense if you believe in the intrinsic value of gold rather than simply inderstanding it as a convenient means to mark a currency against if you want to limit inflation as only so much gold production per year is possible. [1] https://www.lp.org/platform https://www.lp.org/platform

dpark 10y ago
Most people who identify as libertarian (little 'l') do not identify as Libertarian (big 'L'). When someone makes a libertarian argument, it's generally not intended to be a Libertarian argument, in the same way that someone making an argument based on democratic principles is generally not making an argument based on the platform of the Democratic party.
- JustUhThought 10y ago
  Cool. Well put. Thank you for putting that out there. It makes sense to me, given the conversations I've been a part of. And, likewise, this thread makes more sense in that context.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
What you describe related to government debt is a really big problem. The eco/land use thing is less so, although constructing an administrative apparatus to implement that seems horrendously expensive. So enter Pigovian taxation. My very informal and unreliable impression is that most libertarian writers ( who are worth reading ) embrace a Pigou regime as a pallative for managing CO2 in the atmosphere. Some libertarians espouse land taxation. This exploits the symmetry between the role of government as protector of land ownership and how this is to be paid for. Tax land rents. And I think there's an argument to be made that income taxation is both a poor proxy for rents and very invasive.

dpark 10y ago

Most people who identify as libertarian (little 'l') do not identify as Libertarian (big 'L'). When someone makes a libertarian argument, it's generally not intended to be a Libertarian argument, in the same way that someone making an argument based on democratic principles is generally not making an argument based on the platform of the Democratic party.

JustUhThought 10y ago
Cool. Well put. Thank you for putting that out there. It makes sense to me, given the conversations I've been a part of. And, likewise, this thread makes more sense in that context.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

What you describe related to government debt is a really big problem. The eco/land use thing is less so, although constructing an administrative apparatus to implement that seems horrendously expensive. So enter Pigovian taxation. My very informal and unreliable impression is that most libertarian writers ( who are worth reading ) embrace a Pigou regime as a pallative for managing CO2 in the atmosphere. Some libertarians espouse land taxation. This exploits the symmetry between the role of government as protector of land ownership and how this is to be paid for. Tax land rents. And I think there's an argument to be made that income taxation is both a poor proxy for rents and very invasive.