Posted to TribLive/Opinion/The Review
By Antony Davies & James R. Harrigan
Nov. 16, 2013
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls them anarchists. Sen. John McCain speaks of “libertarian kids” in condescending tones. One thing on which Democrats and Republicans agree is that libertarians represent a threat.
Hyperbole and ridicule aside, one thing is true — libertarians approach questions differently than do Democrats and Republicans. Where the major parties develop “platforms” of issues they support, libertarians begin with a single assumption with which most everyone can agree — all humans are free and equal in dignity by virtue of their being human. Everything else is commentary.
The reason for partisan scorn is that the two-party faithful do not grasp that libertarians don’t think in terms of issues. Libertarians think in terms of principles. They begin with the principles of freedom and equality and apply these timeless principles to the issues of the day. What emerges is an extraordinarily civil discourse. The civility arises because libertarians begin at a point of consensus, not a point of contention.
Read the rest of the article here
Awesome, everyone is happy! Good job team.
pf and jp, sounds like you both have carved out nice, satisfying niches for yourselves. Most excellent.
Of course we do. I know many people have told me I have, and they in turn have influenced many others and so on.
RC said: “What have you bent, personally? Or anyone here?”
You didn’t address me,. but I’d like to answer this. Personally, I believe I’ve “bent”, or exposed to in a positive manner, many people. I’m the only Libertarian among the group of State Farm lady agents that I have lunch with from time to time. They’ve never heard some of our beliefs, and are always interested in my take on things. A couple family members who have been historically conservative, have started looking at the LP due to their disappointment with Republicans. And my son, who of course understands libertarianism, attends UCLA, which is filled with progressive kids. He has explained the philosophy to many of his friends, and a couple actually cast a Libertarian vote as their first vote. I’ve said it before, and I’ll repeat myself: if you model a libertarian lifestyle consistently, people take notice. The fact that so many libertarian-leaning inititaitves passed in this past election leads me to believe that people are “walking the talk” in many parts of the country.
I’m certain that Paulie has had an influence on many of the people he’s met, also. Certainly Starchild, Joshua Katz, George Phillies and many others who comment here also influence those around them.
We’re ripples in a pond and reflect other ripples. I think we here have way more impact than you give us credit for, collectively, but as for what I have done personally much of it is intangible, as some part of a collaborative process, or things I don’t really want to get into. I do believe I am having an impact. If you believe you are not, or even that I am not, I am OK with that.
Cool. So let’s be honest. What have you bent, personally? Or anyone here? Or pretty much anywhere? We’re all drops in the ocean, near as I can tell. The ocean keeps being an ocean, doing its ocean thing.
Sleeping at night is helpful. Naps are pretty cool, too!
I try to bend it as much as I can and get as clear as I can in a continuous progression, and each process helps the other along in various ways. I can only do what I can do, but at least if try I can sleep at night, or at some point during most 24-hour cycles.
PF, I’d say get as clear *as possible* is vital. 100% clarity is extremely rare. But, more importantly, the world is going to do what the world is going to do, regardless of what you do…almost always. Hasn’t THAT been your experience?
Many have attempted to move GJ off the FAIR tax, to no avail, for ex.
Sometimes some bend the curve is about it.
The world can get remarkably worse while you spin your wheels trying to get clear. I work on that while I also work on trying to make things better (as I best understand better) at the same time. Sometimes that work gives me good feedback on why I should change my mind on what will make things better and what will make them worse.
pf, yes, anything can be distorted for ill. Jefferson was right about eternal vigilance.
Strikes me the first thing to do is get clear in one’s own head what direction is optimal. Then to test your idea’s feasibility and whether it’s peaceful. If all systems are go, advocate it!
The income tax did not start out with that either. It would not be long before the exclusions and preferences would begin to apply to sales taxed items as well as to individuals paying the tax, depending on a variety of factors. To aid the process along, paper money and coins would likely very soon be replaced with a government “credit” card, or maybe skip that step and go right to the scannable implanted microchip (wave your hand over the scanner).
I think it might very well happen, but not a pristine form, and most likely on top of existing taxes rather than as a replacement for them.
Don’t worry, we’ll soon all be in a private prison, with different levels of security depending on good behavior.
Maybe.
pf, yes, my gut tells me that the FAIR taxers understate the complexity of enforcement, but it also feels overstated to say that compared with the income tax, the FAIR tax would be MORE onerous. It’s assessed on ONE number (sales), not a wacky schedule of inclusions, exclusions, and tax preferences. How that’s not simpler, I cannot begin to guess.
All moot, since it ain’t gonna happen. So it’s all pie-in-the-sky theorizing.
They would have to know about it first. And that requires spying on people. Also it’s a disincentive to becoming a business owner as opposed to working for someone else (or living off the “prebate”, I guess. )
It would be far easier for the government to crack down on businesses to collect the so called fair tax than it is for them to go after everyone who earns money for the income tax.
National sales taxes on gasoline are included in the “shelf” price, as I think would be the case with the unfairtax. State sales taxes are at a much lower rate (thus far less incentive for tax evasion and far less perceived need for the government to take countermeasures as a result) and most states don’t have the resources for a massive tax enforcement bureaucracy that comes anywhere close to what the feds do (California is one exception that comes to mind). That too was discussed in prior threads.
NO ROI for me to research just how bad a bad idea is!
I’ve only lived in places where there already is a sales tax. Only 5 don’t, and they are low pop states. And there’s national sales taxes on at least gasoline. I guess I could read more about it, but, again, no obvious ROI.
Yeah, way worse. I really recommend reading the prior discussions, but then you already knew that. By the way, sniffing through what everyone buys and sells, who they buy it from and who they sell it to, and making sure it doesn’t go untaxed could get very, very intrusive in a hurry. But then I already said that and much more in the past discussions, so why repeat it instead of just reading what is already there?
PF, you could be right that it would need more. FAIR taxers disagree, though, and on its face it seems assessing a sales tax should be a far less intrusive matter than sifting through the complexities of what constitutes “income.”
If you are correct, then it’s an even worse idea than I initially thought.
It would actually need more. See the links I posted earlier as to why.
See the rest of my comment that you left out of your quote.
jk: I also like useless government spending – it decreases the money available for acts of violence.
me: Does it? That’s not how I see it. Government spending in an age of deficits and generally expanding wealth seems uncapped, where few trade-offs are made that I can see. Last I checked, both the IRS budget and military spending have both been increasing in tandem. And, in a sense, government spending IS “violence,” since it involves an involuntary taking.
jk: So I like the amount of money wasted on information-gathering when it comes to income, handling paperwork, etc. I dislike the IRS for other reasons, primarily enforcement – and do you think the Fair Tax won’t need enforcement?
me: No, it would need enforcement, just less of it compared with the current tax schemes. Again, I don’t advocate the FAIR tax. I wish GJ didn’t and that he’d drop it if he’s the L nominee again.
I’d be for shifting the tax burden toward pollution taxes, if one can be crafted wisely. I see that as the potentially more peaceful solution, with the added benefit of being more aligned with a property-rights attitude.
“paulie
November 15, 2014 at 11:19 pm
Regarding private prisons, Gary told me that as governor he was lobbied by the state employee prison guards union to lock more people up and keep them there longer and denies that private prison corporations did any such lobbying.”
He either doesn’t know what he is talking about or he is lying. Private prisons are a major lobby for locking more people up.
starchild: If you’re not willing to take this advice seriously, then I think either your whole thing about being practical-minded is a sham, or you aren’t really as pro-freedom even as you present yourself, and are in fact deliberately seeking to undermine the libertarian cause.
me: How very top-down of you, S! Those are the ONLY choices? I thought you were Mister Pluralism?
Regardless, as a Randian-Rothbardian in recovery, part of the recovery process is to share one’s experiences for others to consider. I recall how dysfunctional that thought system is, and I share as a means to expiate the dysfunction.
It’s been said, “To have peace, teach peace to learn it.”
I’m really sorry if I offend, but sometimes the obvious has to be stated.
Well, I am concerned about introducing a new tax and keeping the old (make new friends, and keep the old, as the politicians might see it) but that’s not the concern I was expressing. I was saying that I think the description of the prebate given by Fair Tax advocates is inaccurate – partly because of how humans will actually act, yes, but also partly because it’s just wrong-headed in some ways. In addition, I made an argument about economic impact that had nothing to do with the difference between how it is described and how it will turn out.
I do not doubt that state employee prison unions advocate for more prisoners. I also believe that, on the whole, large corporations are more likely to be successful in such endeavors. He oversaw the privatization – there’s likely a lag time between that and the start of the pressure-applying process.
Also, the difference would be that the corporations don’t need to lobby him – they can make their case directly to judges.
Both groups can also directly expand sentences through internal means – act in a way calculated to cause unrest, then use the actions of prisoners, through the internal trial process, to extend their sentences. This is why I am calling for prison abolition. The more privatization we have, the harder abolition will be.
Regarding private prisons, Gary told me that as governor he was lobbied by the state employee prison guards union to lock more people up and keep them there longer and denies that private prison corporations did any such lobbying. I sent him a link showing that they have in at least some states, at his request.
JK, thanks for clarifying on the FAIR tax. Again, I’m no fan, either. I think you are concerned with what it might become rather than what it is on paper. On paper, it’s not regressive with the prebate, but in practice, it could easily become so. On paper, it’s less onerous, but it could supplement rather than replace the current “system.”
I share your concerns there.
“Find other organizations and forums to get involved with where most people are less libertarian than you are, where your beliefs will lead you into discussions where you can argue for more freedom, not less. ”
Well put. Thank you!
On my opponent’s Reason-inspired policies on crime and punishment:
The market is a wonderful producer of goods. However, it is not a sentient being. It does not purposefully create goods. It creates what incentives cause it to great. That is, it can easily create bads. Attemping to place prisons in the market system is an example of a means of producing bads. We do not want large corporations having large financial interests in large-scale imprisonment.
We also do not want the incentives placed on judges and legislators when the prison owners are guaranteed a minimum payment, which must be done to get them to invest in the first place. No one likes to pay for a service they do not use. Governments do not want protests from taxpayers that they are paying for prison beds they are not using.
There is far more to this issue, though. Private prisons serve unwilling customers – and demand payment for years after this ‘service.’ Many, despite being paid as contractors, also demand ‘rent’ payments from their tenants. Most see their unwilling tenants as labor supplies at far sub-market wages.
The residents of private prisons suffer from being imprisoned, in many cases, far from home. Their families are unable to visit. They have difficulty returning to their families upon release. Their lives are disrupted more than those of government-owned prison inhabitants.
A nation cannot know peace – the most vital of all characteristics for a society, for our world – when the destruction of freedom and lives is a big business. The outsourcing of unjust imprisonment is the hallmark of the unholy alliance of corporation and state.
I hope my opponent will back away from this position. If not, I will continue to point out this error.
Robert, I am surprised you haven’t heard these arguments before. The very first point that usually comes up with a sales tax is that it is regressive since, on net, poorer people (not lower-income, but poorer in general) spend a higher percentage of income on consumption than do higher-income people. The Fair Tax claims to combat this with a prebate – the existence of a prebate, by the way, should signal that even its proponents recognize the regressivity issue. However, the poor also have a tendency, on net, to have more children. Children are a large expense, yet the prebate calculates their cost as lower than basic necessities for an adult.
Next, the prebate equals the tax rate times the government-calculated poverty rate (as dependent on family unit.) The idea is supposed to be that the poverty rate covers basic necessities, and so there is no tax paid on basic necessities. If all you buy are these basic necessities, so the story goes, you’ll pay no taxes.
But government numbers are never honest. There will be a strong political incentive to understate these numbers, making it regressive. Additionally, while, if everyone were honest, this might handle the problem at the bottom, it produces a pinch-point at the attempt to rise out of poverty by disincentivizing having anything but the minimum if you’re poor. The rich and upper middle class will not be strongly disincentivized from having nice things, but those just climbing out of poverty will – and if they go ahead and do it anyway, they will be paying a higher percentage of their wealth (and income) in taxes than the upper classes do.
As to the level of government intrusion – I am unusual in that I think we have moved into an age where we need to define privacy. I’m more concerned with the impact of the government on the economy, and particularly on the most vulnerable members of society, than with reporting requirements. I also like useless government spending – it decreases the money available for acts of violence. So I like the amount of money wasted on information-gathering when it comes to income, handling paperwork, etc. I dislike the IRS for other reasons, primarily enforcement – and do you think the Fair Tax won’t need enforcement? Instead of my income being monitored and compared to my self-reporting, the same will need to be done for every business. This will impose larger costs on small businesses, per capita, than large – again regressive, if in a different sense. Whether we call this enforcement arm the IRS or not is as immaterial as “closing Guantanamo” and simply torturing elsewhere.
That said, let’s look to the economic impact. The income tax disincentivizes increases in income beyond a certain point. The Fair Tax disincentivizes consumption and rewards saving. As a general matter, I can be expected to think that increased capital and decreased consumption is good – and I do, when it is a market fact. However, I think that penalizing consumption politically is actually more distorting than penalizing income politically. Worse, it distorts in worse ways. It punishes the small business located in a poor neighborhood more than the yacht dealership. The overall pattern, I believe, is government action increasing inequality.
On Starchild’s points, I think the visibility argument fails either way you look at it. Either you agree with Paulie that it gets hidden, just as income tax gets hidden on your paystub, or you think it is visible – which has the psychological effect of making it acceptable. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, people will learn how to justify the tax to themselves as the price of freedom, or, perhaps worse, the price they pay for wanting more out of life than the bare essentials. Either way, I think if it is more visible, it will have the long-term effect of making big government feel more acceptable.
I think Paulie, though, is dead on about the prebate. When the debit card arrives in the mail, it does not create libertarians nearly as effectively as mailing in a check on April 15 would. In fact, one way to promote a more libertarian population might be doing away with withholding (thanks Friedman) and requiring people to cut a check on the 15th. The Fair Tax does close to the opposite – it makes the burden so spread out as to feel very light and acceptable.
Thank you, Starchild, for trying to make Mr. Capozzi understand what I have been unable to.
Despite using fancy words and saying essentially the same thing in many different ways, ultimately his posts consist of telling us activists that we’re on the “fringe” or that we’re “extremists”. I can only speak for myself, but I don’t care whether I’m on the fringe or I’m an extremist. What I care about is helping other people to understand what liberty is about, and that we can indeed get there in this country. Sadly, Robert doesn’t seem to get out much. If he did, he’d understand that many of us are really accomplishing something.
A good example of that was a few months ago when the topic of jury nullification came up. In the first place, I’m surprised someone professing to be libertarian would not know about this wonderful tool. Most are excited about the opportunity to keep people out of prison, if at all possible. Instead, Robert spent days looking for every single reason it might not work. Paulie is very patient with him and discussed it with him, but I don’t have that kind of patience. I know I’m mean to Robert sometimes, but I think he’s wasting valuable time.
See the previous discussions. It would probably be included in the shelf price of goods, while the “prebate” would make people think they are getting something for nothing and get almost everyone used to getting a government check every month. Seniors who saved all their lives would get double taxed when they save the money in retirement, people who don’t use SSNs would be completely screwed (pay the tax but no prebate), and much, much more. Seriously, read the previous discussions, it’s all in there and I don’t have time to write it yet again.
Paulie, I agree there are other problems, but that one seems worst to me. I do tend to think a national sales tax would tend to be marginally better than the IRS and the income tax, all else being equal*. Just not enough marginally better to make it worth making arguing for a switch a particularly good libertarian campaign issue, imho, given all the other more clear-cut issues that could be talked about instead. Especially if argued for in a way that risks getting the new tax without scrapping the current system.
*Some reasons:
• The tax would be a lot more visible, since people would pay directly every time they made an on-the-books purchase, rather than having the money secreted away via withholding
• Lots of people would evade the tax and do business under the table
• A tax on consumption is generally less harmful than a tax on production
• The switch would be disruptive to government control and it would take them time to build up new enforcement mechanisms and respond to people finding ways around the tax
Perhaps the biggest problem with advocating a national sales tax (sometimes erroneously referred to as a “fair” tax) is the possibility of getting such a tax *without* getting rid of the income tax and the IRS, and ending up with the worst of both worlds.
That’s certainly a problem, but only one of many.
Robert,
Perhaps the biggest problem with advocating a national sales tax (sometimes erroneously referred to as a “fair” tax) is the possibility of getting such a tax *without* getting rid of the income tax and the IRS, and ending up with the worst of both worlds.
I wouldn’t object to Libertarians like Gary Johnson advocating a revenue-neutral or tax-cutting shift to a national sales tax — rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic *can* make sense in some cases, for instance if it reduces the likelihood of people tripping over them in the rush to the lifeboats — IF they make it clear that a non-negotiable part of the deal is that the IRS and the income tax must be eliminated BEFORE the sales tax goes into effect. If you’re not going to advocate it in those terms, then advocacy of a national sales tax is a net negative for the cause of freedom, in my view.
I’m with Paulie on the issue of independently owned nuclear weapons. You talk about this more than anybody else I know of, inside or outside of the movement. Other than yourself, I rarely hear anyone mention it. And you’ve been doing it long enough that you should know by now that you’re not going to convince radical libertarians of your perspective, so all that you’re accomplishing by bringing it up is pointing attention to something that you claim hurts the LP and the movement when it comes to people’s attention.
Which brings to mind again something I’ve wondered about before. You claim to be more practical and realistic about promoting freedom than libertarians are who take the Non-Aggression Principle more seriously than you do. Yet I don’t recall ever hearing you talk about any actual local activism that you’re engaged in. What are you doing outside of this forum to advance the cause of freedom? When I see your posts here, more often than not I see you arguing against other libertarians, with you taking the less pro-freedom or more anti-freedom side of the argument.
Oh I know, you wrap it up in all kinds of verbiage designed to make you sound like some kind of dispassionate everyman who is libertarian-oriented without being “extremist” (a word which you’re only too happy to go along with the mainstream media in demonizing) who only wants to help other libertarians appeal to your sacred “normals”, but this is what it boils down to:
You’re spending your time arguing for less freedom, not more.
My advice to you is similar to what my advice to Wayne Allyn Root was — your time and energy is wasted in libertarian circles. Find other organizations and forums to get involved with where most people are less libertarian than you are, where your beliefs will lead you into discussions where you can argue for more freedom, not less. Otherwise you are putting your thumb on the wrong side of the scale, and hurting the libertarian cause, not helping it.
If you’re not willing to take this advice seriously, then I think either your whole thing about being practical-minded is a sham, or you aren’t really as pro-freedom even as you present yourself, and are in fact deliberately seeking to undermine the libertarian cause.
We’re cooking up some memes from this at Design for Liberty. We’ll see what if anything develops.
sorry, yes, maps, not map.
It’s actually three maps. Not sure if you scrolled all the way down.
PF, cool map, thanks! I am neutral on right-to-carry, so I see it as neither progress nor a setback. It IS helpful IMO that such matters are determined at the state level, so in that sense, I see it as very minor progress. (Thankfully, the sight of heavy artillery in tight public spaces is not commonplace.)
I generally test as neither optimist nor pessimist, but rather as a realist. While I don’t disagree that there has been some wins for the cause of lessarchy, net net I see the state as far bigger and more intrusive today than 40 years ago. My sense is we could be much further along the path of peace if the LM’s center of gravity was closer to the center.
L-ism has limped into the Public Square as a distinct approach, I’d say mostly on the strength of RP1. Hence, my enthusiasm is tempered, as that approach carries with it a reactionary (vs. a progressive) tone.
But, in the end, it will all work out as it should….
The only area where I think we’re watching a different movie is you seem more interested in cadre-building among the fringe and less interested in gathering The Normals to the lessarchist cause.
I do a fair amount of both, although my IPR comments tend to be more in the first category (inreach). The posting of articles here, my ballot access work, tabling at events as a volunteer, and so on, are more in the category of outreach. Different people are suited for different things and I believe both of the above need a lot of doing.
That, and your assessment of relative progress over say the last 2 decades: I see almost none where you seem to see a lot.
If you mean on issues, I submit http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/11/08/gays-guns-and-ganja-see-the-libertarian-ization-of-america-in-3-maps/ as a non-comprehensive example of progress we are making on several fronts.
If you mean party, I submit that our voter registration, cumulative votes, name recognition, issue support, poll numbers, average vote percentage, ballot retention and many other measures keep getting better year after year. Certainly I won’t argue that we still have a long way to go, but I believe we are getting close to critical mass. You can choose pessimism and seeing the glass as half empty if you prefer, though.
pf, excellent. You strike me as a flexible NAPsolutist, and I’ve seen no evidence of a “consistent” deontological approach in your thinking.
The only area where I think we’re watching a different movie is you seem more interested in cadre-building among the fringe and less interested in gathering The Normals to the lessarchist cause. That, and your assessment of relative progress over say the last 2 decades: I see almost none where you seem to see a lot.
And I must admit that while I’ve seen far fewer extremist eruptions from the deontological NAPsolutist community in recent years, my concern is that even though the eruptions are few, the underlying thought system still seems to hold sway over a goodly segment of the LM. It’s the thought system that I believe bears hard inquiry, as it collapses so easily upon honest examination.
I see MORE extremist eruptions coming from the RP1-inspired constitutionalist element. There use of the Constitution as a shield gives their extremism SOME cover in the Public Square.
We’re a threat to their hold on power.
Unfortunately, Senator McCain’s threat identification detector leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy.
That’s a good general rule, and also why I don’t want to spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to draw the exact lines, discussing how many logical proofs dance on the head of a pin,or obsessing over difficult/extreme/rare/highly theoretical constructs and scenarios, and figure out how I can get things to move in a less coercion/more freedom direction in the near term. I’ll take tangible gains over arguing over who can have rocket launchers any day of the week. Which I think was the general direction of this article, not arguing about private nukes, machine guns on the subway or any other things that are far removed from the actual practical debate over ideas and policy in the public square.
pf: So did the mention have any reference to the LP or libertarianism?
me: No, not in the 10 minutes I heard.
pf:It can be pointed at a city, but not at an individual, unless that individual lives in a very unusually remote location.
me: Great clarification. Perhaps you are getting at the idea that a weapon needs to be pointable within a one-foot (?) width? With such a standard, you might believe there’s a right to tote up to, say, a bazooka. Rocket launchers probably don’t make the cut, yes?
Still, this illustrates the blind alley that is the deontological approach. Not everything can be defined by a mathematical formula. There are too many variables. Judgment and wisdom are often our best guide.
So, of course, heavy-artillery weapons should not be toted around in public, and should not be possessed except for national defense purposes. Call me “leaky,” “sell out,” “statist,” etc.! 😉
I thought he cornered the market, but now Sean Hannity is trying to muscle in. Will one of them nuke the other or will it be mutual assured destruction? Stay tuned…
If private nukes are ever available, maybe I’ll buy a few. But, as it seems that RC is the only person talking about them, I’m not saving up.
So did the mention have any reference to the LP or libertarianism?
It can be pointed at a city, but not at an individual, unless that individual lives in a very unusually remote location.
There are many different ways and reasons why that is by far the most likely result. I don’t feel like going over them yet again, which is why I pointed to places where I and others already have. There’s more than enough there to make the case. I’ll leave boiling it down to someone else or maybe another time (probably not anytime soon). If anyone wants to know what the arguments are just follow the link above and read the discussions.
pf, ya know, he didn’t say one way or the other. I think he realizes it’s an untenable position, but those prone to making absolutist statements don’t seem willing or able to articulate qualifying statements. Block’s paper making the distinction being the ability to point a weapon, but even then, nukes can be pointed. Pointing precision might work as a test, but any standard would seem arbitrary.
Is there a short version of how the FAIR Tax is an increase in government? And how it’s regressive?
Oh, I didn’t know you meant Hannity was arguing in favor of private nukes, LOL. Shows you how much I know.
Chuck’s five points and much, much more is in the various discussion comment threads from that link including many arguments by myself and others as to why it would be a net increase in the size, cost, scope and intrusiveness of government.
Also, many more of my arguments and links regarding this are at https://www.facebook.com/groups/LibertarianMedia/permalink/763413070348842/ – you may have to join the group to be able to read them.
pf, my point is that SH seems to be a gun-rights absolutist, which I believe you are one as well.
As for critiques of the FAIR Tax, I’m familiar with Moulton’s five points:
1. The prebate would start a new welfare entitlement.
2. The transition would redistribute from savers to borrowers.
3. There is a danger of getting BOTH an income AND a consumption tax.
4. Advocates disingenuously quote a 23% rate when it is actually 30%.
5. Advocates use protectionist rhetoric to sway populists.
But not JK’s 2 points about regressivity and that it’s not simpler and less onerous, therefore less burdensome, on net. Perhaps JK’s referring to point 3, which is a different point.
Not so much. If anything, you are in league with him because you keep bringing up this inane issue and apparently he brings it up too, which I didn’t even know. No one I know except you talks about it, seriously.
Then you either forgot or did not pay attention. Refer to previous discussion threads:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=%22fair+tax%22
pf: Just because he mentions something at some point doesn’t automatically make it a big deal.
me: It’s not a “big deal,” no. It is one illustration of how when people take an extreme, absolutist position, they open themselves up to being mocked. In this case, you and Hannity are in league.
jk: I am not a fan of the Fair Tax, and I do not believe it represents, on net, a reduction of government. More damning, though, I find it to be dangerously regressive, as much as proponents claim it is not.
me: These are two critiques I’ve never seen before. I’d think the FAIR tax lowers compliance costs and creates both visibility and a modicum of certainty, and lessens the disincentives to work, save, and invest. Those reduce government, even if it’s revenue neutral. And I thought the pre-bate makes it far less regressive than the current regime.
Is there a source for your view?
I don’t like the FAIR tax because it’s too radical and stands virtually no chance of passage in the intermediate term, making it an energy sink, and therefore dysfunctional. Too many concentrated beneficiaries for the current system to be overthrown.
jk: That’s not the only thing we disagree on, but it’s large.
me: Prison privatization was pushed by the Reason Foundation for years. It may well not be working out, I can’t say.
My gut tells me that the big problem is not prisons, but the laws that get people in prison inappropriately. Private prisons may create additional perverse incentives, unforeseen ones.
I’m with you on that one too and sent him a link with information he requested about that.
I am not a fan of the Fair Tax, and I do not believe it represents, on net, a reduction of government. More damning, though, I find it to be dangerously regressive, as much as proponents claim it is not. I also note that it will require an enforcement mechanism, whether that is called the IRS or not – and that the usual outcome of such things is just to have both taxes.
That said, I have far more serious concerns with that particular opponent than the Fair Tax. He oversaw, and continues to defend, prison privatization in New Mexico. (I don’t consider to be ‘savaging’ him, just stating a fact.) I consider this position to be dangerous to individual liberty. That’s not the only thing we disagree on, but it’s large.
I can’t comment on what he said since I didn’t hear it. Hannity prattles on for hours a day, does he not? Has hours of airtime to fill each day? Loves the sound of his own voice? Just because he mentions something at some point doesn’t automatically make it a big deal.
There’s nothing for you to “know” or “dunno.” You either trust my reportage, or not.
I don’t watch TV or listen to radio, aside from CNBC or Morning Joe some mornings. This was a random moment when I was visiting someone listening to Hannity. I find him irritating and simplistic and venomous.
Dunno. I never listen to Hannity.
I haven’t watched TV the last several months. When I go on a TV viewing spree I am much more likely to watch MSNBC than Faux, and way more likely to watch HBO, MTV, VH1, CMT, BET, Comedy Central, BIO or Spike than any news or public affairs related broadcasting.
As for radio, I may listen to music (most often), sometimes interviews and news on public radio, every once in a while sports. I avoid blabbermouth talk shows spewing hate at immigrants, gays, Muslims etc., etc. like the plague.
PF, I had the misfortune of listening to Sean Hannity’s radio show y’day for maybe 10 minutes. He used the example of private nukes, actually, to illustrate a point. I didn’t catch his context, but I think he was taking an extreme gun rights perspective, and it’s a counter that others use to expose the absolutist perspective as non-viable.
Apparently, it’s not as rare as you seem to believe.
I thought it was because a lot of us don’t believe that it has an overall effect of shrinking the state, although unlike some others I have expressed my strong disagreement with Gary on this issue without “savaging” him or otherwise going after him personally in any sort of nasty way. I keep this issue in perspective and in the context of many other issues where we do agree.
About the only time it ever gets discussed here is when you bring it up. In fact, I might go years without hearing about private nukes or machine guns in the subway if it wasn’t for you, even with all the radical libertarians and “NAPsolutists” I hang out with online and in person.
And if anything like that ever does get discussed it’s certainly not in the context of doing outreach to the general public.
PF, right. There’s a difference in a “principle” and a “rule.” Many NAPsolutists savaged GJ for his heretical stance on taxes because the FAIR tax because, if I understand their critique, the FAIR tax violates the rule that no “good” L can ever advocate anything that increases the state even if the overall effect is to shrink the state.
(To be fair, I believe the FAIR tax is sub-optimal positioning for Ls as well, but my critique is just that: a critique, not an indictment.)
Many NAPsolutists also require rapid rollbacks of the state as the only acceptable L stance, even if those positions are all-but-impossible to enact in the near term. Thus far, I’ve not discerned a specific rule among NAPsolutists here.
I’m aware that machine gun toting in public often does not lead to mass killings. However, advocating machine gun toting in public is a sure-fire way to marginalize oneself, would be my guess. Doing so in the name of “principle” seems like poor judgment to me.
Open machine-gun toting in the subway is a way to illustrate the political non-viability of such a “principled” stance.
Muddy as ever and then some.
Not sure what toting machine guns in the subway has to do with it, seems like a non-sequitur. I would prefer private subways that get to set their own rules on that. And carrying dangerous weapons openly is hardly unprecedented; I recall a 60 minutes report on Peshawar which showed how it was common for men and even children there to walk around with machine guns and even rocket launchers, and how crime was extremely low, practically unheard of. I don’t think they have subways there, but then I did ride the subway in NY many years ago with a fully automatic/semi-automatic switch pistol (granted it was concealed) quite a few times, and nothing bad happened. I know others who have done the same. Nothing happened to them either.
But regardless of that particular diversion I have yet to understand how the fact that people who take the non-initiation of force principle seriously don’t always agree on everything, with abortion being an example, leads to the conclusion that principle should be discarded as worthless. People who claim to be religious don’t agree on every detail of theology, people who claim to be art or music enthusiasts don’t agree on particulars of what is good art or music, scientists have arguments over particular problems, and so on. Using the same type of approach as you seem to take towards “NAPsolutism,” we should by extension discard all religion, music, art, science, philosophy, etc., just because their adherents and practitioners don’t always agree on everything. Help me understand how I am misreading you, if that’s what’s happening.
The way I look at it is sort of like this: two scientists can argue over, say, tectonic plate theory, much like two “NAPsolutists” could argue over abortion. Then you come along and say, look, that just proves scientists have no idea what they are talking about, we may as well split chicken bones and do a rain dance to understand how the world works. Two music lovers argue over the relative merits of Bach and Beethoven, so you conclude that you would do just as well letting some monkeys loose in an orchestra room. Art critics disagree over expressionists vs. impressionists, so you say that letting toddlers play with paint or attaching paint brushes to the tails of slugs would be equally good.
Whether the non-aggression principle is valuable isn’t dependent on whether it leads everyone to all the same conclusions all the time, as far as I can tell.
PF, no, the point is that, as a matter of practice, NAPsolutists very frequently take the position that they are correct, and others are wrong.
Back in the day, the term that was used was that there was such a thing as the “correct position.” The other term one still hears is “in a L society.”
You, as I recall, take the position there is a right to tote machine guns in the subway. I don’t take the view that your position is “incorrect,” but rather that that is an unworkable view, near as I can tell. I may be incorrect; such toting could happen with great frequency and few — possibly even no one — would bat an eyelash at such a social phenomenon. I just find that to be a far-fetched set-up.
Hope that clears things up.
Wait, so if “NAPsolutism” leaves room for people to disagree about anything whatsoever it’s inherently faulty? We’d all be marching in complete lockstep if it had any validity? Is that your final answer?
Article: “Libertarians on both sides of the debate continually engage with the other side. But not because they are looking to win the debate. They are looking to discover the truth.”
Me: I wish this were so. Absolutists — especially in a matter of morals — would proceed from the perspective that they are “right.” “Truth” has already BEEN discovered, from the absolutist perspective.
In the case of abortion, I would say most Ls recognize that NAPsolutism can lead to at least 2 answers, probably more. And yet there’s not sense that perhaps the fault is in NAPsolutism itself!
” One thing on which Democrats and Republicans agree is that libertarians represent a threat.”
It’s not a threat, it’s a promise 🙂
just came across this tonight…thank you for posting the article, and thank you for the kind words. keep up the good fight.
james r. harrigan
Thanks, Kennon! I’m glad you liked the article. I was amazed that someone in the media understand us as well as they did.
Hi Jill!
I come to IPR every so often. I responded to this interesting article and hope this is useful. Keep up the great work.
–Kennon
“Mr. Davies and Mr. Harrigan have done their jobs as journalists and are very right: The Libertarian pledge was based on the first UN Right of equal freedom ( and basis of natural law), and modern Libertarianism was created by my father who co-ordinates the LIO or Libertarian International Organization at http://www.libertarianinternational.org with 8 million people registered worldwide, most in Asia.
The rest of the Libertarian standard platform in civics follows voluntary applications developed by my father of the remaining subsidiary 29 UN rights themselves first outlined by my grandfather and great grandfather with H.G.Wells (then League chief advisor and who led a world brainstorm on the subject). There is considerable leeway in designing local versions, so we indeed say ‘all else is commentary’…
The main civic goals are clear and there is no disagreement: Participative rights-based and secular democracy, federalism with fair elections within, and legalization of highly tolerant model LIO/Libertarian-based local eco-community therein starting with non-abusive autonomous families and co-housing. Libertarian fans adopted this worldwide as their permanent civic mission in 1985/6 curated by LIO. They also are urged focus on the range of voluntary solutions available so the user can decide, not just one solution they like, something called the Dallas Presentation Accord.
Modern Libertarians have since inception in 1969 indeed helped people do these things worldwide: Put in democracy, more local autonomy, and worked for tolerance such as LGBT, and experimentation with voluntary economic systems from pure free enterprise to designed communities/condomina paving the way for eventual Lib model communities. Both major parties in the US have adopted many Libertarian-based suggestions. In Florida where I live, thanks to Libertarians we have direct democracy, county autonomy and many governance functions are handled down to the condo. This has allowed many improvements from keeping no income tax, budget balancing, reducing real estate tax, improving many services with privatization choice, a fair treatment initiative for 3rd parties, legalizing a lottery that funds bright college students, and a medical marihuana initiative underway.
FYI: When he formed the modern Libertarian movement/honor society with the eventual assent of the old Liberal-Libertarian League things were formatted as follows: small-l designates appliers or users, large-L pledged advocates registered with LIO ( and by agreement handled by the USLP which has a less contrictive pledge as a libertarian-direction group among others) and there is another grade of auditors –people with IQ’s over 170–trained by and directly responsible to our family.
Think computers: users, enthusiast programmers, and people trained in the science.
In the US most l/Libertarians work in all parties or as independents. Most large-L Libertarians interact with LIO, not the LP. The LIO Libertarian civic project intends to reformalize this at a later date when other things come to pass, but this will do for now.
Three last points: First, as a past teen Libertarian in local public office, I’ve had no scorn from other parties–quite the reverse. Second, Libertarians are in complete agreement on abortion: non-destructive removal of pre-borns as promptly as technology allows but without stautory interference. I suspect in the US about half of the Libertarians are working on keeping elective abortion legal, the other half promoting technologies from contraceptives to easier adoptions to snowflake babies.
Finally, the Greens were also created by my father and others to promote libertarian local eco-socialism, and ARE the broad Libertarians in many countries, especially the former Communist ones. Recently, l/Libertarians in China have helped the country move away from MANDATED abortions, will be closing penal camps, and the government has committed long-term to a federal ‘US of China’ while growing democracy.
Thanks again for the article.”
But my attorney has four kids in private school and college and three ex-wives collecting alimony, plus his yacht needs major repairs and his Dauphin Island vacation house needs a new boat ramp. So please understand, I have to sue you…more for his sake than mine.
Yes, I know, I know! I shouldn’t have posted this article because it’s about small ‘l’ libertarians (meaning the philosophy) as opposed to big ‘L’ (meaning the political party) and this blog is for third-party stuff, but it’s such a darn good article, I’ve made an exception. So, sue me!!!
(Please dont–)