How I Became a Libertarian(cato.org)
cato.org
How I Became a Libertarian
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/march/april-2021/how-i-became-libertarian
8 comments
I personally don't agree with most of the things the article says and that's exactly why I shared it on Hacker News. I was hoping that some smart people with good insights on the topic could respond with rebuttals and I could learn from them. But I guess even on Hacker News people are intolerant towards ideas that they don't "like."
How can we stop all the flag killing on HN? It's 90% censorship.
Much of the time, the flagging filters obvious advertising and flamebait.
It's the tendency to flag ideas that challenge the orthodoxy that raises ire.
It's the tendency to flag ideas that challenge the orthodoxy that raises ire.
Someone should write an updated book on Socialism for the rich, Corporate Socialism, regulatory capture, funding of politicians to get government benefits, the political funding cycle and revolving door, politicians cashing in after leaving office, and the DC gravy train of the military industrial complex.
It is sending taxpayers money to the rich through multiple mechanisms like tax subsidies for mortgages, bank bail outs, government guarantees of different financial instruments (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc..) etc....
A classic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calculus_of_Consent
—
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
It is sending taxpayers money to the rich through multiple mechanisms like tax subsidies for mortgages, bank bail outs, government guarantees of different financial instruments (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc..) etc....
A classic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calculus_of_Consent
—
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
> Someone should write an updated book on Socialism for the rich
This article is from the Cato Institute, who have had a major focus on corporate welfare for many years. Here are 309 results from them on that topic:
https://www.cato.org/corporate-welfare
Here's their review of a six year old book about it:
https://www.cato.org/blog/corporate-welfare-james-t-bennett
Spoiler: They don't think it's a good idea.
This article is from the Cato Institute, who have had a major focus on corporate welfare for many years. Here are 309 results from them on that topic:
https://www.cato.org/corporate-welfare
Here's their review of a six year old book about it:
https://www.cato.org/blog/corporate-welfare-james-t-bennett
Spoiler: They don't think it's a good idea.
Not that he's wrong about some of the principles highlighted but calling taxation straight up predation seems quite the stretch.
Why? Taxation is taking money from people and companies with the threat of voilence.
Because you get some basic services back, like roads.
Imagine the mess that are ISP peering agreements but for private transit. Jesus this community truly lives in a bubble.
Imagine the mess that are ISP peering agreements but for private transit. Jesus this community truly lives in a bubble.
Hello, neighbor. I dropped off a bag of groceries for you (food being essential for life). That'll be $500, by the way.
If for some reason you refuse to pay for these basic services, I will then be forced to destroy your livelihood and possibly imprison you.
If for some reason you refuse to pay for these basic services, I will then be forced to destroy your livelihood and possibly imprison you.
Your neighbor is not the government and has no qualities of what a government has.
Taxation is a necessary form of funding to the entities that are responsible for managing negative externalities.The fact that they have a monopoly on violence is also a boon to society.
Taxation and the state as the primary power are fundamental components to the modern social contract. The onus is on naysayers to rovide proof that a system that lacks these components is better.
Taxation is a necessary form of funding to the entities that are responsible for managing negative externalities.The fact that they have a monopoly on violence is also a boon to society.
Taxation and the state as the primary power are fundamental components to the modern social contract. The onus is on naysayers to rovide proof that a system that lacks these components is better.
> The onus is on naysayers to rovide proof that a system that lacks these components is better.
This is true only if they are arguing another system is better.
I would argue that our current system - including taxation - is immoral. Whether or not it’s “better” by whatever standard you choose to apply has no bearing on that argument.
This is the difference between the deontological and utilitarian perspectives.
This is true only if they are arguing another system is better.
I would argue that our current system - including taxation - is immoral. Whether or not it’s “better” by whatever standard you choose to apply has no bearing on that argument.
This is the difference between the deontological and utilitarian perspectives.
lol, that exactly how taxation works. You are forced to pay something which you did not ask for.
Ofcourse the pro-taxation crowd simply does does not understand this - they argue that you did indeed make use of the bag of groceries. Huh? chicken-and-egg really....
Ofcourse the pro-taxation crowd simply does does not understand this - they argue that you did indeed make use of the bag of groceries. Huh? chicken-and-egg really....
I'd rather have police than private militia, but I'm not living in the us so I understand if you rather have the former.
And if you did, i and a bunch of other would pool our money together to order hits on strike breakers. World would be fun again until ww3
And if you did, i and a bunch of other would pool our money together to order hits on strike breakers. World would be fun again until ww3
libertarianism is an interesting & coherent political philosophy, but I notice that it keeps losing
my understanding is that, from a political perspective, the idea is to win
my understanding is that, from a political perspective, the idea is to win
This is an excellent point. And I _think_ that the answer is that government is inherently about control. Both sides seek to gain power and then use it to control and manipulate people into behaving a certain way. Politics itself is essentially at odds with libertarianism.
Perhaps libertarianism itself and alone is less than sufficient as a political system.
Libertarians are pretty smart.
But apolitical people with no real ideology who just limit themselves to bet (financially and socially) who will win, they are even smarter
But apolitical people with no real ideology who just limit themselves to bet (financially and socially) who will win, they are even smarter
>>> People with no real ideology who just limit themselves to bet (financially and socially)...
AKA Agorists / AnCaps
Ps: The smatest people in the room get lined up against the wall or loaded in the box cars 1st.
AKA Agorists / AnCaps
Ps: The smatest people in the room get lined up against the wall or loaded in the box cars 1st.
Not really. I mean those who bet on proper lines and on financial markets that Republicans will win after 8 years of Democrats and vice versa
Also those who automatically assume the political leaning of the person they are interacting with.
If I am with a hot college girl who is a Bernie supporter, you bet I'd be strongly and passionately arguing for the redistribution of wealth and a 95% income tax because that creates empathy and increases my chances.
If I am pitching to a VC in Texas, you bet I'll be strongly pro-Trump and pro 2nd amendment, because it creates empathy and increases my chances.
Politics is a tool to improve your quality of life, and I mean by acquiring friends and allies while talking about it, the trick is to not have a political opinion and polish your acting skills and suddenly the sky is the limit
Also those who automatically assume the political leaning of the person they are interacting with.
If I am with a hot college girl who is a Bernie supporter, you bet I'd be strongly and passionately arguing for the redistribution of wealth and a 95% income tax because that creates empathy and increases my chances.
If I am pitching to a VC in Texas, you bet I'll be strongly pro-Trump and pro 2nd amendment, because it creates empathy and increases my chances.
Politics is a tool to improve your quality of life, and I mean by acquiring friends and allies while talking about it, the trick is to not have a political opinion and polish your acting skills and suddenly the sky is the limit
At the risk of sounding rude, that all seems kind of sociopathic?
How so? You are telling people what they want to hear, you make them relaxed and chill.
I kind of get what You are trying to say but it is dishonest, deceitful and generally antisocial behavior to pretend that you believe in something that You really don't just to get what You want from others.
That is also a trait of most Sociapaths, Politicians, Date Rapists and Internet Trolls.
That is also a trait of most Sociapaths, Politicians, Date Rapists and Internet Trolls.
Doesn’t seem to be that bad of a thing. The OP is just being honest and taking things a bit further out loud for things people do any way. Especially in other ways. Replace politics with how people are nicer and more fluid with people of their own class (studies back this). We don’t have people spending time trying to correct this behavior that can have bad consequences. And have had bad consequences. Keeping the status quo in tact is awful. Most people are a part of that. Yet OP being honest about being opportunistic without actually oppressing any one is the sociopathic behavior?
Don’t forget this site is filled with people making six figures who spend how much time worrying and helping fix the world’s plights?
I don’t readily condemn them for not doing whatever enough would be. Just like I see no reason to condemn someone for using social opportunities that our society has allowed to be beneficial so easily.
Don’t forget this site is filled with people making six figures who spend how much time worrying and helping fix the world’s plights?
I don’t readily condemn them for not doing whatever enough would be. Just like I see no reason to condemn someone for using social opportunities that our society has allowed to be beneficial so easily.
Not all relationships have to be transactional, in fact the best ones are not :)
Yes. I was not arguing against that being the case :)
I stopped reading when I saw their definition of socialism - if they couldn't be bothered to research to ensure they got that correct then why spend time with anything else they have to say? Straw-man arguments may be fun, but they're not constructive.
Are there any examples of current or past successful libertarian governments?
Economically some are like Hong Kong and to a lesser extent Switzerland.
The USA was founded on the idea of limited government. It was very successful!
Government only gets bigger over time. Even early 20th century America had a tiny fraction of our budget and regulations today.
Government only gets bigger over time. Even early 20th century America had a tiny fraction of our budget and regulations today.
It would be helpful to see solid counter-arguments instead of flagging.