6 ms·

I strongly disagree. In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. "The God Delusion" by

I strongly disagree. In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. "The God Delusion" by Dawkins includes a great (and somewhat Rawlsian) rule, 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.' E.g., as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.

flyinRyan 13y ago
>In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties. > 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.' This is a Utopian way to govern, which would be great. But it doesn't apply to the US system. If your position is reasonable and the other side is pushing extremely toward their interests you're going to end up with the middle point between you both. > as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not. Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner. I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
- drrotmos 13y ago
  > Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties. Well, I'm not an american, so I don't vote in the US, but if I could I would vote for Libertarian Party candidates. > Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner. No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical. > I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country. I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    >No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical. It's not about helping yourself. It's about consistent voting. If everyone votes for the rich person, the entire system will be skewed hopeless in their favor. You think taxes are unethical? Then how does the government pay for itself? Would you rather they just printed the money they need? That would also be a tax; a flat tax. And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system. >I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party. By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt. If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.
    - cpursley 13y ago
      U.S. as libertarian paradise? HAHAHAHAHA!!
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        Of course. If Libertarians ever got their paradise it would quickly devolve to exactly what you have now: a Corporatocracy.
        cpursley 13y ago
        The reason we have a corporatocracy now is due to the opposite of libertarianism: cronyism / crony-capitalism. When you have huge bureaucracy, you get a situation where corporations have to bribe (aka, lobby) for special rights, favors and bailouts. In a libertarian economy, a company would have to stand on it's ability to solve a marketplace demand. Are you against voluntary society?
        flyinRyan 13y ago
- cpursley 13y ago
  Your last paragraph couldn't be more further than the truth. Comparing libertarians to KKK members in not just insane, it's insulting. Libertarianism is a political philosophy more akin to classical liberalism than any modern movement today. Don't confuse the Libertarian party with the libertarian movement. Also, there are many libertarian organizations in the US and world wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizati... http://www.isil.org/aim/index.php/en/freedom-network http://www.isil.org/aim/index.php/en/freedom-network
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    Well yes, I rather intended it to be insulting as I find the fact that in today's world of instant connections to information, the fact that people still see Libertarianism itself as legitimate as insane and insulting. Any movement that considers Ayn Rand anything other then the uninventive, unoriginal hack she was is worthy only of ridicule. And I suspect any international "Libertarian" parties are actually american expats. The international community does have something comparable though: ancaps. I feel the same about them.
    - cpursley 13y ago
      You are mixing things up. Ayn Rand is more associated with the right-conservative movement. Libertarianism (with a lower-case l) is simply the belief in a voluntary society - one without coercion. The problem with most peoples political beliefs is they are ego-centric and are based the individual thinking their way is correct and they are so certain of it, they're willing to force others to comply via the barrel of a gun (or proxy gun - aka, military, police, etc) using property confiscation (non-voluntary taxes) as the primary means. Ask yourself, are you so certain of your position that you are willing to shoot or imprison me even if I'm causing you no harm? This is the modus operandi for both the left and right. You have some reading to do. Start here: https://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp https://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  If you give a billionaire a tax break he is likely to invest in things that make people like myself happy. Examples include SpaceX, Netflix, Facebook or whatever. If the government instead keeps taxes high, the money will simply pay people not to work. We are all poorer as a result.
  - Falling3 13y ago
    >If you give a billionaire a tax break he is likely to invest in things that make people like myself happy. People often make this claim and similar claims - ie tax cuts for the rich create jobs and growth. These are empirical claims; you need evidence for them. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine being a billionaire and not deciding to invest in cool stuff because my tax rate went up 5 or 10 percentage points. http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-g...
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      I made no claims about creating jobs or growth. I rarely make such arguments, since a) I think a focus on creating jobs is nonsensical and b) empirical evidence showing stuff causes growth is virtually nonexistent. My claim is much milder. As a billionaire, basically everything you have is invested. If he has $100m less, then $100m less is invested. Investment has a chance of benefiting me. Consumption by the leisure class (i.e., beneficiaries of government redistribution) does not. FlyinRyan is simply incorrect in his claims.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        What a bunch of nonsense. A billionaire investing millions has virtually no chance of helping you. The only conceivable way he can help you is by participating in an IPO so that particular company gets an injection of cash to use to hire more people, etc. But virtually all trading that will go on with his/her millions/billions is buying and selling of stock that IPO'ed long ago and no longer bring the issuer any money at all. The kind of investment the billionaire is doing is zero-sum in nature and doesn't help anyone but them. It's hilarious that you imagine some billionaire playing the stock market has more value to you than people spending money on products (that you could be making). The 80's called and asked for their misconceptions back.
cpursley 13y ago
Yeah, I'm a libertarian also. Most people think the way people understand taxes is a.) screw the poor, it's mine b.) screw the rich, you don't deserve it. But there's an entirely different philosophy out there. Taxes, which are non-voluntary by nature, are theft and therefore unethical. It's hard for many to conceptualize, but you can actually help the poor and those causes you care about and be anti-tax. It's not like we're a bunch greedy bastards. We just think voluntary society and government is the more ethical path.
- beat 13y ago
  Sadly, that's the exception rather than the rule for libertarians (I say this as a left libertarian). Far too many self-styled libertarians are convinced they'd be rich if they weren't being held down by taxes and regulation. Sigh. What I've started telling every single one who parrots this nonsense - "Show me an onerous regulation that causes real pain for individuals and businesses, and I'll show you an opportunity for a REAL entrepreneur to get rich by making their lives easier." For all the talk of entrepreneurial spirit among right-libertarians, they have shockingly little faith in the capabilities of entrepreneurs to turn other people's problems into business opportunities.
- MereInterest 13y ago
  If you define theft as non-voluntary taking, then I would argue that theft is not always unethical. The traditional example is that of a father stealing bread to feed his children. I would not call this to be unethical. Why, then, would I call it unethical to steal of funds to feed a nation?

flyinRyan 13y ago

>In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties. > 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.' This is a Utopian way to govern, which would be great. But it doesn't apply to the US system. If your position is reasonable and the other side is pushing extremely toward their interests you're going to end up with the middle point between you both. > as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not. Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner. I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.

drrotmos 13y ago
> Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties. Well, I'm not an american, so I don't vote in the US, but if I could I would vote for Libertarian Party candidates. > Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner. No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical. > I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country. I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  >No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical. It's not about helping yourself. It's about consistent voting. If everyone votes for the rich person, the entire system will be skewed hopeless in their favor. You think taxes are unethical? Then how does the government pay for itself? Would you rather they just printed the money they need? That would also be a tax; a flat tax. And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system. >I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party. By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt. If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.
  - cpursley 13y ago
    U.S. as libertarian paradise? HAHAHAHAHA!!
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      Of course. If Libertarians ever got their paradise it would quickly devolve to exactly what you have now: a Corporatocracy.
      - cpursley 13y ago
        The reason we have a corporatocracy now is due to the opposite of libertarianism: cronyism / crony-capitalism. When you have huge bureaucracy, you get a situation where corporations have to bribe (aka, lobby) for special rights, favors and bailouts. In a libertarian economy, a company would have to stand on it's ability to solve a marketplace demand. Are you against voluntary society?
        flyinRyan 13y ago
cpursley 13y ago
Your last paragraph couldn't be more further than the truth. Comparing libertarians to KKK members in not just insane, it's insulting. Libertarianism is a political philosophy more akin to classical liberalism than any modern movement today. Don't confuse the Libertarian party with the libertarian movement. Also, there are many libertarian organizations in the US and world wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizati... http://www.isil.org/aim/index.php/en/freedom-network http://www.isil.org/aim/index.php/en/freedom-network
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Well yes, I rather intended it to be insulting as I find the fact that in today's world of instant connections to information, the fact that people still see Libertarianism itself as legitimate as insane and insulting. Any movement that considers Ayn Rand anything other then the uninventive, unoriginal hack she was is worthy only of ridicule. And I suspect any international "Libertarian" parties are actually american expats. The international community does have something comparable though: ancaps. I feel the same about them.
  - cpursley 13y ago
    You are mixing things up. Ayn Rand is more associated with the right-conservative movement. Libertarianism (with a lower-case l) is simply the belief in a voluntary society - one without coercion. The problem with most peoples political beliefs is they are ego-centric and are based the individual thinking their way is correct and they are so certain of it, they're willing to force others to comply via the barrel of a gun (or proxy gun - aka, military, police, etc) using property confiscation (non-voluntary taxes) as the primary means. Ask yourself, are you so certain of your position that you are willing to shoot or imprison me even if I'm causing you no harm? This is the modus operandi for both the left and right. You have some reading to do. Start here: https://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp https://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
yummyfajitas 13y ago
If you give a billionaire a tax break he is likely to invest in things that make people like myself happy. Examples include SpaceX, Netflix, Facebook or whatever. If the government instead keeps taxes high, the money will simply pay people not to work. We are all poorer as a result.
- Falling3 13y ago
  >If you give a billionaire a tax break he is likely to invest in things that make people like myself happy. People often make this claim and similar claims - ie tax cuts for the rich create jobs and growth. These are empirical claims; you need evidence for them. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine being a billionaire and not deciding to invest in cool stuff because my tax rate went up 5 or 10 percentage points. http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-g...
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    I made no claims about creating jobs or growth. I rarely make such arguments, since a) I think a focus on creating jobs is nonsensical and b) empirical evidence showing stuff causes growth is virtually nonexistent. My claim is much milder. As a billionaire, basically everything you have is invested. If he has $100m less, then $100m less is invested. Investment has a chance of benefiting me. Consumption by the leisure class (i.e., beneficiaries of government redistribution) does not. FlyinRyan is simply incorrect in his claims.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      What a bunch of nonsense. A billionaire investing millions has virtually no chance of helping you. The only conceivable way he can help you is by participating in an IPO so that particular company gets an injection of cash to use to hire more people, etc. But virtually all trading that will go on with his/her millions/billions is buying and selling of stock that IPO'ed long ago and no longer bring the issuer any money at all. The kind of investment the billionaire is doing is zero-sum in nature and doesn't help anyone but them. It's hilarious that you imagine some billionaire playing the stock market has more value to you than people spending money on products (that you could be making). The 80's called and asked for their misconceptions back.

cpursley 13y ago

Yeah, I'm a libertarian also. Most people think the way people understand taxes is a.) screw the poor, it's mine b.) screw the rich, you don't deserve it. But there's an entirely different philosophy out there. Taxes, which are non-voluntary by nature, are theft and therefore unethical. It's hard for many to conceptualize, but you can actually help the poor and those causes you care about and be anti-tax. It's not like we're a bunch greedy bastards. We just think voluntary society and government is the more ethical path.

beat 13y ago
Sadly, that's the exception rather than the rule for libertarians (I say this as a left libertarian). Far too many self-styled libertarians are convinced they'd be rich if they weren't being held down by taxes and regulation. Sigh. What I've started telling every single one who parrots this nonsense - "Show me an onerous regulation that causes real pain for individuals and businesses, and I'll show you an opportunity for a REAL entrepreneur to get rich by making their lives easier." For all the talk of entrepreneurial spirit among right-libertarians, they have shockingly little faith in the capabilities of entrepreneurs to turn other people's problems into business opportunities.
MereInterest 13y ago
If you define theft as non-voluntary taking, then I would argue that theft is not always unethical. The traditional example is that of a father stealing bread to feed his children. I would not call this to be unethical. Why, then, would I call it unethical to steal of funds to feed a nation?