9 ms·

Why? One could argue that the goal of a libertarian is to maximize individual liberty, and plausibly argue that the loss of liberty via taxation is both a faux

Why? One could argue that the goal of a libertarian is to maximize individual liberty, and plausibly argue that the loss of liberty via taxation is both a faux loss (eg, actually a charge for externalities, not an "extra" cost imposed by others) and liberty maximizing (eg, freedom from concern of unemployment ruining your life is more freeing than the loss of freedom to not pay taxes).

djrogers 9y ago
Why? For he simple reason that the more money funnels through the government, the less choice an individual has in how to use it. It’s about power, and in our world, money is power.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Does that argument extend to courts and police? If not, why not? Do the same reasons not apply to healthcare?
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Healthcare costs a hundred times more. That makes it almost incomparable. And has knock-on effects like different people wanting different styles of coverage with very different price schedules. Courts/police are relatively straightforward and cheap, and act as an enabler for contracts and personal choice.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      It's about 10x more if you count just police and fire; about 2x more if you count defense spending along with policing, using UK numbers. (Nowhere near 100x!) Of course, many more people spread colds, cause accidents, etc than commit crimes, so it makes sense that the cost of controlling their externalities is more than those of criminals. But your choice seems arbitrary: you couch it in pragmatic terms, because you're not categorically against government programs, but then avoid actual cost-benefit analysis, rendering your opinion nothing more than whim. That's what it always seems to come down to with "libertarians": unprincipled bullshit that aligns with their whims (such as yes police, no NHS).
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        I would definitely not categorize defense spending as police. Healthcare doesn't stop people from spreading colds. You're not actually reducing externalities with most categories of care. And if there were no police you would see a lot more theft. Anyway, you can put it in cost-benefit terms, but you have to include a strong freedom factor. A government that takes 2% of GDP to keep public order is far better than not doing that. But taking a very large fraction of income to provide health care? That is an enormous cost to both spending and freedom, and reasonable people can see those costs as higher or lower than the benefits.
        xg15 9y ago
        > Healthcare doesn't stop people from spreading colds. If it includes vaccinations then yes, it very much does.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        They don't have cold vaccines. And vaccines are part of the reason I said "most categories". Note also that vaccines are pretty cheap. They're far removed from expensive surgery and drugs.
  - brightball 9y ago
    It does apply to healthcare because healthcare costs are only inflated due to artificial influences. Health insurance, removal of choice of health insurance from the marketplace, government influence on that arrangement due to tax deductibility of employer sponsored insurance but not personally purchased insurance, and finally the expansion of "insurance" to mean a payment system in all transactions and not just the serious items (home owners insurance doesn't pay for minor things). Government influence is what inflated healthcare costs in the first place by removing all aspects from true consumer choice (aka - the market).
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      Yet in the UK government activity keeps healthcare costs very low by removing consumer choice.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      And without the government, insurance companies can refuse to provide insurance to people with preexisting conditions. What other product that people need can people not buy no matter how much money they have?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >For he simple reason that the more money funnels through the government, the less choice an individual has in how to use it. Well, if the money funnels in billionaires and overseas corporate accounts, an individual has even less choice in how to use it (unless he is the owner of said company or the billionaire). Whereas with the government at least the individual gets a vote on how those money should be used. >It’s about power, and in our world, money is power. So better than the government, where we have some say, have that money, than billionaires and mega-corps, which we don't control.
  - watecmascript 9y ago
    > Well, if the money funnels in billionaires and overseas corporate accounts, an individual has even less choice in how to use it Billionaires buy things, travel, and hire people to work for them. They don't hold onto their money forever. And if they do hold on to, it lowers the supply of money in circulation, thus increasing the value of the dollars YOU hold. A rising tide lifts all ships. So I fail to see the problems. Besides, it's their money, what right does anyone else have to it? If you want their money, find something to sell to them. Maybe start a billionaire vacation resort on the moon. That will create tons of jobs. > Whereas with the government at least the individual gets a vote on how those money should be used. Voting is just a small piece, the bigger part is the full-time lobby groups and interest. They have a much more control than the individual gets 1 vote out of 200+ million. And just because 51+% of voters think it's ok to steal someones income, doesn't make it right.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Billionaires buy things, travel, and hire people to work for them. They don't hold onto their money forever. Their living and partying costs are so tiny compared to their wealth, we can just as well say that they are "holding onto their money forever". >Besides, it's their money, what right does anyone else have to it? I don't believe in the concept of "their money" above a certain degree. After a point such gains are so much part of systemic faults and imbalances that it should be "everybody's money" but its just hoarded. >And just because 51+% of voters think it's ok to steal someones income, doesn't make it right. Absent a god, it's only what people think that makes something right or wrong.
differentView 9y ago
I believe you're describing classical liberalism, freedom with governmental safety nets. Libertarianism would have no safety nets and very minimum police and military. If you can't afford food or health care, that's on you.
- Aloha 9y ago
  I'm a libertarian who believes that in a modern industrialized world, you can't not have SOME sort of safety net - the days of the yeoman farmer are long gone (subsistence farming isn't possible in the city) - I'd rather it be in the form of a GMI which would enhance personal freedom of choice, over the existing patchwork of expensive, discriminatory programs and wage controls. Give people money, give them mandatory financial literacy training before they get said money, let them figure out how best to live their lives, remove the minimum wage in the process. I'm also strongly opposed to malum prohibitum laws as well - the government does a poor job of respecting peoples civil liberties out of the misguided concept that any and all evils are preventable - the truth is, sometimes bad things happen, and not every potential bad thing is worth the collateral costs to prevent it.
matt-attack 9y ago
I guess those seeking your brand of liberty should just get thrown in prison. There you're "free" to not worry about having to feed yourself, "free" from having to pay for healthcare, and rent. Way to completely invert the definition of freedom.

djrogers 9y ago

Why? For he simple reason that the more money funnels through the government, the less choice an individual has in how to use it. It’s about power, and in our world, money is power.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Does that argument extend to courts and police? If not, why not? Do the same reasons not apply to healthcare?
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Healthcare costs a hundred times more. That makes it almost incomparable. And has knock-on effects like different people wanting different styles of coverage with very different price schedules. Courts/police are relatively straightforward and cheap, and act as an enabler for contracts and personal choice.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    It's about 10x more if you count just police and fire; about 2x more if you count defense spending along with policing, using UK numbers. (Nowhere near 100x!) Of course, many more people spread colds, cause accidents, etc than commit crimes, so it makes sense that the cost of controlling their externalities is more than those of criminals. But your choice seems arbitrary: you couch it in pragmatic terms, because you're not categorically against government programs, but then avoid actual cost-benefit analysis, rendering your opinion nothing more than whim. That's what it always seems to come down to with "libertarians": unprincipled bullshit that aligns with their whims (such as yes police, no NHS).
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      I would definitely not categorize defense spending as police. Healthcare doesn't stop people from spreading colds. You're not actually reducing externalities with most categories of care. And if there were no police you would see a lot more theft. Anyway, you can put it in cost-benefit terms, but you have to include a strong freedom factor. A government that takes 2% of GDP to keep public order is far better than not doing that. But taking a very large fraction of income to provide health care? That is an enormous cost to both spending and freedom, and reasonable people can see those costs as higher or lower than the benefits.
      - xg15 9y ago
        > Healthcare doesn't stop people from spreading colds. If it includes vaccinations then yes, it very much does.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        They don't have cold vaccines. And vaccines are part of the reason I said "most categories". Note also that vaccines are pretty cheap. They're far removed from expensive surgery and drugs.
- brightball 9y ago
  It does apply to healthcare because healthcare costs are only inflated due to artificial influences. Health insurance, removal of choice of health insurance from the marketplace, government influence on that arrangement due to tax deductibility of employer sponsored insurance but not personally purchased insurance, and finally the expansion of "insurance" to mean a payment system in all transactions and not just the serious items (home owners insurance doesn't pay for minor things). Government influence is what inflated healthcare costs in the first place by removing all aspects from true consumer choice (aka - the market).
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    Yet in the UK government activity keeps healthcare costs very low by removing consumer choice.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    And without the government, insurance companies can refuse to provide insurance to people with preexisting conditions. What other product that people need can people not buy no matter how much money they have?
coldtea 9y ago
>For he simple reason that the more money funnels through the government, the less choice an individual has in how to use it. Well, if the money funnels in billionaires and overseas corporate accounts, an individual has even less choice in how to use it (unless he is the owner of said company or the billionaire). Whereas with the government at least the individual gets a vote on how those money should be used. >It’s about power, and in our world, money is power. So better than the government, where we have some say, have that money, than billionaires and mega-corps, which we don't control.
- watecmascript 9y ago
  > Well, if the money funnels in billionaires and overseas corporate accounts, an individual has even less choice in how to use it Billionaires buy things, travel, and hire people to work for them. They don't hold onto their money forever. And if they do hold on to, it lowers the supply of money in circulation, thus increasing the value of the dollars YOU hold. A rising tide lifts all ships. So I fail to see the problems. Besides, it's their money, what right does anyone else have to it? If you want their money, find something to sell to them. Maybe start a billionaire vacation resort on the moon. That will create tons of jobs. > Whereas with the government at least the individual gets a vote on how those money should be used. Voting is just a small piece, the bigger part is the full-time lobby groups and interest. They have a much more control than the individual gets 1 vote out of 200+ million. And just because 51+% of voters think it's ok to steal someones income, doesn't make it right.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Billionaires buy things, travel, and hire people to work for them. They don't hold onto their money forever. Their living and partying costs are so tiny compared to their wealth, we can just as well say that they are "holding onto their money forever". >Besides, it's their money, what right does anyone else have to it? I don't believe in the concept of "their money" above a certain degree. After a point such gains are so much part of systemic faults and imbalances that it should be "everybody's money" but its just hoarded. >And just because 51+% of voters think it's ok to steal someones income, doesn't make it right. Absent a god, it's only what people think that makes something right or wrong.

differentView 9y ago

I believe you're describing classical liberalism, freedom with governmental safety nets. Libertarianism would have no safety nets and very minimum police and military. If you can't afford food or health care, that's on you.

Aloha 9y ago
I'm a libertarian who believes that in a modern industrialized world, you can't not have SOME sort of safety net - the days of the yeoman farmer are long gone (subsistence farming isn't possible in the city) - I'd rather it be in the form of a GMI which would enhance personal freedom of choice, over the existing patchwork of expensive, discriminatory programs and wage controls. Give people money, give them mandatory financial literacy training before they get said money, let them figure out how best to live their lives, remove the minimum wage in the process. I'm also strongly opposed to malum prohibitum laws as well - the government does a poor job of respecting peoples civil liberties out of the misguided concept that any and all evils are preventable - the truth is, sometimes bad things happen, and not every potential bad thing is worth the collateral costs to prevent it.

matt-attack 9y ago

I guess those seeking your brand of liberty should just get thrown in prison. There you're "free" to not worry about having to feed yourself, "free" from having to pay for healthcare, and rent. Way to completely invert the definition of freedom.