Fair Tax

Surely, you’ve heard of the fair tax.  It’s big in libertarian circles and in many conservative ones as well.  It is an initiative to replace federal income tax with a federal sales tax.  Proponents say that it taxes wealth, that it is progressive on consumption.  A “prebate” would be paid up to the poverty level to compensate the poor.

I have a few problems with it however.

On the surface, it sounds like a great idea.  Think about it, you get a check to pay for the tax up to the poverty level, and if you spend more, you pay more tax.  Buy a Kia, and you pay Kia tax, buy a Bugatti and you pay Bugatti tax.  But it’s not really progressive on consumption is it?   A progressive tax is one that is greater on greater amounts of money.  A properly instituted progressive tax is the only truly “fair” tax.  The “Fair Tax” is a constant 33% tax, and no matter how much you spend, a regressive tax (one that is more advantageous to the wealthy because they have a much greater amount of money to pay it) still is inequitably applied to those less able to afford it.

Let’s take a few minutes to understand the differences between progressive and regressive taxes.  Let’s make up a few people, some hypothetical circumstances, and use them to understand this issue.  They will all live in Oregon so there aren’t additional sales taxes to bother with calculating.

Person A, we’ll call him Abe, is a low wage earner.  He graduated high school but was unable to attend college and now works delivering Xerox copy machine supplies for 25,000 a year.  Scrimping and saving and being a good steward of his money, he is able to fully fund his Roth IRA with $5000 every year.  The current federal poverty level is $11,000 and under the “Fair Tax” plan, he would receive a prebate for the tax he spent on buying stuff with that money.  He spends $5000 per year on rent and various non-taxed payments and spends the remaining money on what he needs to survive.  The money he has to pay taxes in is thus $4000.  With the “Fair Tax” he will spend $23 out of every $100 spent on sales tax and will be paying $920 in taxes.  That figures to be 3.7% of his income.

Person B we will call Bill.  He is an engineer and makes $100,000 a year.  He fully funds his Roth IRA, spends $25,000 on his house which he is buying and will own and on other non-taxed stuff.  He is also able to invest $10,000 which yields a return of 10%.  Like Abe, he doesn’t have to pay taxes on that $11,000 and so he has to pay taxes on $49,000.  Thus he pays a total of $11,270 in tax, 11.3% of his income.

Person C, Cal does pretty well.  He is a CEO of a company and makes 1,000,000.  He lives reasonably and invests 500,000 at a rate of 10% return.  He spends another $200,000 on things that aren’t taxed leaving $300,000 in taxed expenditures.  He will pay $69000 in tax, 6.9% of his income.

Person D, Don does really well.  He is one of those Wall Street CEO’s you hear about and he makes 50,000,000 a year.  He is able to live on about 10% of that a year and the rest is reinvested at a rate of 10%.  He pays tax on that 10% of his income that is spent and will pay $1,150,000 in tax, 2.3% of his income.  As you can see, if Don chose to, he could stop working altogether and live on the returns from his investments at his current level of comfort.

Finally I will tell you about Person E, Ed.  He founded a software company that went huge and he now makes a sh!t ton of money.  He makes 10,000,000,000 but he only lives on $100,000,000 of it in lavish opulent wealth.  He pays 23,000,000 in tax, 0.23% of his income.  Because he is able to invest so much, he gets $900,000,000 from the investments he made last year, increasing his income to 10,900,000,000, and his actual tax rate is 0.21%.

Do you see where this is going?  The more you make, the less of it you need to live on.  I could make a billion dollars a year and still live in my same house and drive my same motorcycle.  I could not do that when I was working for Xerox.  Yes, the poor get a better deal under the “Fair Tax” because they make less, but the poor currently pay virtually no tax, and in truth often get Earned Income Tax Credits.  The “Fair Tax” wants to tax them.  It places a burden upon them they already can’t carry.  I know I didn’t include it, but the rich guys still get the prebates like everyone else!

Regressive taxes work that way.  As you may have picked up in this analysis, high earners can also afford to invest a large amount of their money and through that earn even more.  I can’t do that, I have to spend a quite large fraction of my family income on a house and cars to get to work and school and food, and speaking of school, I have tens of thousands of dollars in student loans still out there.  By the time I graduate, I’m basically going to be a house and a half in debt.

With a single sales tax rate, you can’t make this tax progressive in the long run.  Even if you jacked the “poverty level” up to $100,000, it would still be a boon for the ultra-rich.  Consider this also:  the “Fair Tax” is supposed to increase the rate of investment.  Who benefits the most from increased rates of investment?  A related question: Who would benefit the most from the privatization of Social Security?  The Wall Street people benefit, the ones who already have vast amounts of money and like to play with it in ways detrimental to all of us.  Either way, they win, commoners lose, the middle class pays more money and bears the burden.  Just like today, the tax rate for capital gains is only 15%.  Who makes the most in capital gains but the ones who have capital, the wealthy.  It’s another system, a gift of the Bush Tax Cuts, which empowers the rich to concentrate wealth and allow them to get out the door without paying their tab.  It truly is “redistribution of wealth”.  But the wealth is going upward.

A properly instituted progressive income tax is the only logical solution.  Consider the great age of our country.  The greatest time for the advancement of civil rights, the greatest time for the advancement of workers rights, the creation of social security, Medicare, the EPA and all of that good stuff.  During that time, the top marginal tax rate was between 70-90%!

Libertarian ideas work in a window.  I’ve said that before.  And you must realize, this is a libertarian idea, and it does work, but only in a small window.  That window reaches up to a million dollars or so and down to a few tens of thousand.  But like other libertarian ideas, if you’re on the low end of the hill, the system works against you, and if you are on the top of the hill, the system works in favor of you.  A properly balanced system will work FOR you.

Be concerned about who pushes ideas.  This is not a bi-partisan idea.  This is a conservative libertarian republican idea.  It benefits the insanely wealthy the most, and the commoner the least.  Most right wing ideas do.

Finally, I’m not gonna tear down an idea without offering one in its place.  It’s a modern version of what we had in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. 

The amount of tax on the amount of money made below the state poverty level is tax free. 

The money made between that and 40,000 is taxed at 10%.  The amount made between 40k and 60k is taxed at 15%. 

The amount made between 60k and 80k is taxed at 20%. 

The amount between $80k and 100k is taxed at 25%. 

The amount between $100,000 and $250,000 is taxed at 30%. 

Between 250k and $1M is taxed at 50 %. 

Between $1million and $2 million is taxed at 60 %.  Between $2 million and 100 million is taxed at 75%. 

Finally, the amount above $1 billion is taxed at 90%. 

Additionally, there is no distinction made between earned income and capital gains.  It counts for total income, anything that you get during the year that you didn’t have at the beginning of the year.

This plan represents a pretty decent tax break for anyone making less than $250,000 which is in line with Obama’s current plans, and sets a truly progressive tax system which will make our system work again like the libertarians want it to work now.  It’s not that I think they are lying and want to destroy our economy, I really think they have the best interests of the country at heart, they are simply fundamentally mistaken about the results of their plans.

Now don’t take this as gospel truth, I definitely plan on revising this in the future and making and spreadsheet and all that, but this is just something to show you in which direction we should be going, and how to get to a place where you really can rise above if you put your mind to it.  

Remember, it is far better to make a billion dollars at 90% tax than it is to make 100,000 at 10%.  Higher taxes on the rich is not punishing them for making more money, it’s requiring them to pay for their footprint in the world. 

Equal is regressive.  Equitable is progressive.  The “Fair Tax” is not fair.

WiredForStereo

Libertarians Abandon Free Market Democracy in Favor of Despotism and other stuff that is completely hypocritical.

I very recently had the following conversation on Facebook with a couple of people who are staunch libertarians.  For years, I have heard that true democracy is evil because the majority will do what ever makes sense for them at the peril of the minority.  But I want to know, when has this happened?  I know the rhetoric by heart, but where’s the evidence?

If you can answer the question, I really want to hear it, and I’m not just trying to prove a point, I really want to know!  I can’t find a single case.  Everything I find shows the most evil despotic regimes and rulers coming to power through some sort of uprising or coup.

I’ve replaced the names with descriptions if you couldn’t tell.

______________________________________________

Host Republic vs. Democracy. I still want to know how laws are created in a Republic. Majority rule? Minority rule? Common sense? WHO gets to make the decision what laws are created? If it's rule by the people, it's Democracy. But Democracy turns into an evil force of plunder and oppression. What are your thoughts on this?

[YouTube video link which didn’t come through.]

Our system of government was never intended to be a democracy. Although many believe that we live in one, they have never been asked to vote on the decisions made by said government. Yet they believe that they are empowered just the same. We are not.

[At this point, there are a couple of posts that have been deleted.  I asked if someone (I knew there are always libertarians lurking around) could give me an example of a democracy that turned evil like they often talk about.  The Host made a sarcastic comment to the effect that the USA was such a country.]

Me I was looking for was an answer. Do you have one? Sarcasm about a country that is by your own account not a democracy does not count.

Host Ok, Rome fell when it morphed from a Republic to a Democracy.

Host And, you're missing the point of my post.

Me Rome fell when it went from a democracy to a monarchy. And you're not answering the question adequately.

Other Guy The point is that the will of the majority is not always just. There has to be a check against that power to protect the individual. IN our system, that is the constitution and the judiciary. No system is perfect however. Our constitution was as close as it comes in my opinion. Unfrotunately it's completely ignored most of the time.

Other Guy When the ballot box fails, there is always the bullet box.

[Notice here, the immediate abandonment of democracy and straight to bullying and violence when not in the position of power]

Other Guy Case in point, slavery (as pointed out by Host). The ballot box wasn't an option. The bullet box solved the problem.

[Actually, if you read history, the “bullet box” in this case was first checked by what we now understand (in many contexts) as the losing side.]

Me Show me the evil democracy you guys always tell me about.

Other Guy Do you read anything anyone writes?

Me The name of a country please.

Other Guy Naaaa, I'm not wasting my time. I was planning to get drug naked through a parking lot full of ground glass into a pond filled with alcohol. I wouldn't miss that just to argue with you.

[And that was the first inclination of when I knew I would never get an answer because the other side was in a losing argument and was not going down with any honor.]

Me I'm not arguing, I'm asking a question about a point I hear all the time and getting no answer.

Other Guy You've got plenty of answers, you just ignore them.

Host I want to know what's the difference between a Democracy and a Republic REALLY. A Republic is "rule by law"- but whose law? Who decides. I believe I said that in the original post. This is a "working out an internal conflict" post.

Me

If you'd like to give me an answer to the question I actually asked, I'd be happy to consider it thoughtfully.

"But Democracy turns into an evil force of plunder and oppression." This was part of the post. I would just like to see a legitimate example of this statement.

Host In a 56 word post, you are obsessed with these 11. 9 sentences, 5 of which were questions. Thanks for reading the whole context and sticking with it.

Me I would be happy to consider your questions if I could just have a little clarification on your statement. The answer to my question will necessarily father the answer to your question.

Other Guy Clarification: democracy is mob rule. What do you not understand?

Host What if it was a repetition of what I hear others say in an attempt to challenge them to answer MY FRIGGIN' questions in their responses?

Other Guy Hey I will say something for WiredForStereo. AT least he hasn't called us racist yet.

[I’m not sure exactly to what this is referring.]

Me What I mean is, there are over 190 countries on earth. What I'm asking is, which one of these fits your definition of the evil of democracy? And if there is not one in existence now, which one in the past typifies your statement?

Host ‎23 comments. 23 comments and still no feedback on a deeply troubling question. If I'd asked for proof that Jesus was the son of God because I just don't get it, I probably would have been able to get THAT question answered.

Me I give you my word that I will comment on your question as soon as I get the clarification I'm looking for.

As for Jesus, what sort of proof would be acceptable to you?

[This is an important question.  What kind of proof would be accepted by people who won't even answer a question that exposes the fundamental absurdity of their position?]

Host What if it was a repetition of what I hear others say in an attempt to challenge them to answer MY FRIGGIN' questions in their responses? I swear I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Me You know...so do I. I would absolutely love to answer your question, and believe me, it's a subject I am dying to weigh in on as soon as some one will give me an example of the statement in the post.

Other Guy You are talking to a wall Host. It's cheap entertainment. Remember the eternal wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions".

[An interesting point, but the unintelligible proposition is one that here cannot, no, will not be backed up by any sort of evidence.]

Me Show me some ridicule, some name calling, some sarcasm, anything. I'm asking a question and no one will answer it.

Second Guy Evil democracy - Haiti... Pre-WWI Germany... Pakistan... Iran... United Nations (quasi-democracy)... Lebanon... China. FUTURE evil democracies - Iraq... Afghanistan.

[Finally, after hours, someone actually tries to give some evidence.]

Host Let me get this straight. I ask 5 questions, and you ask 1 in response to my 5. Then, you refuse to answer any of my 5 until I answer your one. Your one question, which I've said, not once, but twice, was a half way sarcastic remark to get people to think before they answer my 5 questions and not necessarily a direct position statement.

Other Guy Don't get your hopes up Second Guy. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. LOL

Me

I completely disagree Host. Every question I've asked has been completely serious.

Second Guy, excellent post, I'll get back to you, but off hand I know that Iraq, China, Iran, and Afghanistan are republics. The UN is not a country and as we all know is relatively impotent, but I will research and get back to you in a few minutes.

Host You really DO refuse to read anything I've written tonight, don't you? Where did I say what YOU'VE written wasn't serious?

Second Guy ‎"The People's Republic of China" is as much a republic as "The People's Republic of North Korea." You can call a turd a rose, but it's still a turd.

Me The Republic of Haiti, The Weimar Republic, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Lebanon, all republics. You'll remember that Hitler was placed in power by the previous old guy and not voted in per se.

Second Guy As much as I would love to continue this banter.I have a long drive to our LPAR BBQ tomorrow at Mt. Nebo. See you there Host. Wish you were coming, Jason. If you change your mind, we will be there all day and night tomorrow, leaving out Sunday,

Me I define sarcasm as not being serious, at least in part. I've not been sarcastic.

Me I'm asking a question, and Second Guy was the only one who even bothered to try to answer it.

Host I see. You're superior to me. And your questions mean much more on this earth than mine do. That's rather misogynistic, don't you think?

[And now it’s personal.  This is the sum total of the devolution of discussion and debate.  The name calling begins, but I won’t have any of it.]

Me I don't have any idea what you’re talking about, and I'm not going to start tossing around five syllable insults. I told you Host, I'm not going to be doing that any more. If you don't want to answer, then don't. If you do, then do. Don't stoop to that level. I'm not going to be doing it either.

A TeaParty Person

Host. America is a "Democratic Republic". This means that we elect representatives (that's the domocratic part) who in turn represents us in running the government (Republic). The Founders set it up that way because at that time, they believed that few citizens truly understood how to run a government but felt strongly that "The People" had to be able to particpate in their government. America is NOT a democracy as it is classically defined. There has been no true democracy that survived throughout history and a total republic is very close to a socialistic society. By combining both types of government - something that had never been done before - the Founders basically invented a new type of government. Ultimately, this form of government became the greatest society the world has ever seen.

We must protect our government as defined in our Constitution. Allowing ANYONE to "fundamentally change America" is criminal and falls outside the US Constitution. We hope this helps.See More

A Girl

I agree that our founding fathers were inspired in creating the Constitution. I'm not sure what they set up is a simple republic. As I understand it the difference between a democracy and a republic is that the people select leaders to make the laws rather than make laws directly (well, referendums seem to circumvent this a bit).

And I think originally it was another degree separated (I'm not a political history buff). The people voted to select electors who then used their judgment to select the people they considered best suited. Public popularity votes were optional early on, though, I think they somehow crippled the electors so that they had to vote the way public vote at some point. Not sure if that's good or bad, but it does take a lot of power away from that level of decision making.

So, to get back to your original question... ...the laws are made not by 'the people' but by an ever changing group of people who 'the people' have vested their trust in.

So what does this do to the laws then? Well, this group of people is selected from the pool of 'the people' and have a lot of the various flaws and good points. So sort of the laws might be said to be 'of the people' though not quite of the majority nor really of any minority either. It's really 'of this group of individuals,' so it'd be a oligarchy if the group didn't change up. With a lot of leaders taking direction (as least that's what they claim) from what they feel the people who voted for them would choose, it shifts the decision process closer to a democracy. Theoretically the leaders of a republic should be using their best judgment to choose the best route (most moral, even handed, etc) whether the people who voted for them would agree or not.

The flaw of democracy is that it's unstable. Our self serving inclinations get out of hand and we start choosing only those things with personal short term benefits, despite the cost to the future or to non-majority groups. I think the republic set up is intended to put a bit of distance there so that the government would respond to the ideals of the time, hopefully to the best ideals, and yet exert enough 'self control' that, as a nation, we could make ourselves take the harder path with better long term outlook. To swallow the bitter medicine if the nation got sick. ...I wish I could be more certain that this is how the current administration functions...

Oh, and can't you delete notes from other people on your own page? I hope so. Deleting off topic comments is valid moderation technique. It's not like the comments can't be written on their own wall if they want to discuss something else.

*Which I agree with as well. I think it takes a fair bit of education and/or natural aptitude for that level of management and tracing side effects laws. I'm not sure that all of our current leaders are qualified. The 'lets vote yes on this so we can find out what's in it' comment boggles my mind. But I sure wouldn't want running the country put in my personal hands. Even if I could manage not to be the puppet of more experienced people, I'd still wreak havoc with inexperience.

[Now here’s something, but despite the continual tirade against democracy, there’s still no evidence offered as to an example of how democracy is evil.  We all know why, the reasons, the justifications, but where’s proof?]

A TeaParty Person Girl. You gave an excellent description. I guess the future generation of leaders is not yet a lost cause. Thanks.

A Girl Oh silly me. I deleted the sentence that needed the foot note. Oops. It was in reference to the comment on whether the founding fathers didn't trust just everyone to know how to run a country.

Me

‎"The flaw of democracy is that it's unstable. Our self serving inclinations get out of hand and we start choosing only those things with personal short term benefits, despite the cost to the future or to non-majority groups."

I'd like to see an example of this.

 A Girl D.a., that does sound interesting. If I get enough mental space to give it some attention could I ask for a similar synopsis?

A Girl Oh, no worries and thanks Red. I'd assumed it would just be too long to fit in a comment. Which is also why I'll need to find a moment and block out some mental space to digest such a synopsis. Otherwise I'd just skim it and probably end up confused.

Host Thanks Girl, Red, and whichever fine lady from TeaParty helped shed some light on the original questions.

Me But my question remains in the dark.

[]And that was the end of it.  I realize not all of this is pertinent to the thesis, but I had to post all of the convo because in case someone finds this and identifies themselves (it happened with Laurie Masterson recently even though the internet visitor who claims to be Laurie was on a computer located in the wrong city).  I want there to be complete transparency, well except for the names.  I don’t want to take anyone out of context.  I don’t know who deleted the first couple of posts, but it wasn’t me.

The point here is that from what I’ve seen, democracy is getting further and further from a primary goal of our society as constructed by libertarians and republicans and conservatives, and it’s being done naturally by the people who would take control at gunpoint if they can’t figure out how to get a majority in an election.  They consistently talk about the tyranny of the majority while logically pushing a tyranny of a minority.  It just all depends on where you are and if your side has more votes.  Remember when Bush II got caught with his pants down in Iraq when there turned out to be no WMD’s and suddenly, our mission was to bring democracy to Iraq?  Yeah, that’s sick.

We can never allow a movement to take power that believes it should be in power even if most people won’t vote for it. 

The constitution is there to maintain the equitable distribution of protection to the minority, not give it power to rule.

Furthermore, because I need to interject Jesus into everything, I need to point out that Jesus never ever advocated taking power by force, no matter the circumstances, and given the chance to do just that at the highest point in his popularity, he refused.  I mention Jesus often in these types of posts because conservatives (not the libertarians in this post specifically) are most often Christians.  And yet, despite what the man they believe is their God said, they are the ones hinting at a second civil war.  They like to call it a second American Revolution, but anyone who has the ability to think about it will realize quite quickly that it’s a civil war. 

We really didn’t do well in the last civil war, we lost.

WiredForStereo

Another Jab at Libertarians

I especially like the Denial-ican.  That's to all those people who have voted Republican in every election and think that Republicans and Conservatives aren't the same thing.

WiredForStereo

The Great Facebook Experiment

A few months ago, I had grown tired of the environment Facebook was creating.  So I decided to have a little fun with it.  I decided to play the fool as it were, to play all the parts that people dislike the most on Facebook and to gauge people's reactions.  I called it a little "Social Experiment."  I could not however lower myself to the point where I actually posted song lyrics.  I just couldn't bring myself to do that.

So I did just that.  I made a nuisance of myself. 

I posted horribly mundane status updates.  I posted an update every few minutes for nearly an hour.  I got excessively political, starting fires in political threads, and who could resist with all the politically charged things that have happened lately.  I posted personal information.  I started my own fan club.  I made fun of Glenn Beck (got a great response there.)  I posted about bodily functions.  I posted links, videos, and pictures that had very little to do with me.  I carried on pointless arguments about things I don't really care about.  I picked fights with conservatives and libertarians.  I posted status updates which were descriptions of stereotypical status updates except that they contained no actual information.  I went so far as to impel someone to "unfriend" me.  I did all of this and more, and I made regular announcements about what I was doing, but I included the caveat that just in case someone took offense, it was actually directed toward them personally, which if you think about it, is completely ludicrous.

So, what did I learn?

I learned that many people are simply unable to control themselves when they see something that gets on their nerves.  Even though I made it clear that I was doing an experiment, there were still quite a few people who could not help but to take the bait.  Despite my repeated assertions that what I was saying was not serious, several people were simply unable to comprehend that there was no reason to debunk or politically correct what I was saying.  I found myself saying that there's no reason to agree to disagree or compromise or mature because the whole thing was an experiment.  And still people didn't seem to get it.  It seems to me that there is a distinct inability among a group of people today that is entirely unable to comprehend duplicity.  It seems to me, that is where guys like Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity reside.  They take up residence in a cohort that cannot tell when they are lying, or simply are unable to suspect it.

On the other hand, there are many who can get it and love to play along.  These people are the most fun, because it challenges you to come up with ever more creative and provocative statements, posts, and links to try and draw them in, and sometimes you can succeed when they forget that you are yanking their chain.  Some are quite entertained by it.  On the other hand, there are those who start calling names and eventually unfriend you because they just don't get it.

I also had a flameout involving global climate deterioration as well.  One of the posts immediately below is in regards to that one.  I was having a friendly (or not) discussion about the subject (which I happen to be neutral on) and people were getting pretty heated.  Then my friend's mom comes on and posts that bunch of nonsense you see below.  This is the kind of thing that really tells me what I have ahead of me as a progressive follower of Jesus, but this wasn't the forum for it, so I ignored it.  Now that the experiment is over, I may have to actually go back to working on the things that are important to me, like the environment and conservation and things like that.

As I mentioned before, I posted a lot of posts close to one another several times.  I posted a lot of statuses, most of which were very funny if I do say so myself, and I linked my Facebook account to my Discus account so that whenever I left comments on a blog or website with Discus, they would also show up on my Facebook account.  I heard from several people that they thought about ignoring me, but didn't.

I suggested nudism to a few women that I know, didn't get many reactions to that.  And don't misunderstand, it was not in a crude way, I am a proponent of Christian Naturism, I just haven't had the opportunity to practice it myself.

But it was those older people who couldn't understand what I was doing that made me decide to end the project.  I left a status update similar to the Onion News Network story about being sorry that it wasn't Glenn Beck who had died tragically in some accident.  Nobody got it.  My mentor, my wife's grandfather, they were not happy at all.  They thought I was inciting violence.  My wife's grandfather pulled the old "I'm older, so that means I know better than you" argument which is about the first thing that will make me lose all respect for anyone. 

So I had to quit it.

It was kinda cool though that several people expressed the sentiment that they enjoyed watching what I was doing because it was entertaining.  These were most of the same ones who had played along earlier, and even at times added to the project.

My conclusion is that Americans need much more to be critical (the good kind) of everything, especially the things they hold most dear.  Never accept any information without a challenge to the ruler of truth.  Understand that people can and do lie regularly.  Everyone, especially those who claim to believe in truth or have the truth or want to tell  you something they say is the truth.  Like Jack Sparrow said, "it's the honest ones you have to worry about mate."  You just did the voice in your head didn't you, so did I.  Don't accept something as fair and balanced just because the one who told you said it was.  Doubt everything.  Doubt motives, doubt unproven or unprovable facts, doubt everything someone who is paid to have an opinion says. 

The truth is out there, but you have to go find it yourself, don't trust ANYONE to bring it to you, even me.
WiredForStereo

Libertarianism in One Lesson by Mike Huben

Libertarianism in One Lesson by Mike Huben

One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".

This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!

Philosophy

* In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
* Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
* We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
* Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.
* Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.
* Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
* Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
* Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
* Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!
* The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.

Government

* Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
* Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
* Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.
* Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally burnt.
* Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an illusion.
* Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders of Statism".
* Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
* Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.
* Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.

Regulation

* The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
* Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
* All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.
* If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?
* Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.

Libertarian Party

* The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other important officials after 25 years of effort.
* The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"
* Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned arguments, which is why so many libertarians are in important government positions.
* It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.
* Libertarianism "rules" Internet political debate the same way US Communism "ruled" pamphleteering.
* No compromise from the "Party of Principle". Justice, happiness, liberty, guns, and other good stuff come only from rigidly adhering to inflexible dogmas.
* Minimal government is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
* Government is "moving steadily in a libertarian direction" with every change libertarians approve of; no matter if it takes one step forward and two steps backwards.
* Yes, the symbol of the Libertarian Party is a Big Government Statue. It's not supposed to be funny or ironic!

Political Debate Strategy

* Count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of government.
* Five of a factoid beats a full argument.
* All historical examples are tainted by statism, except when they favor libertarian claims.
* Spiritually baptize the deceased as libertarians because they cannot protest the anachronism: Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Spooner, etc.
* The most heavily armed libertarian has the biggest dick and thus the best argument.
* The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism. It's only a matter of degree.
* Inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. Those without property have the freedom to try to acquire it. If they can't, let them find somebody else's property to complain on.
* Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.
* Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.
* Only libertarian economists' Nobel Prizes count: the other economists and Nobel Prize Committee are mistaken.
* Any exceptional case of private production proves that government ought not to be involved.
.........................................................

Yes, I know this is completely pejorative, but that's kind of the point. How can we properly criticize anything without a little bit of laughing at it? I know some libertarians, and I like most of them, but I'm not one. These were some funny reasons hidden in a bit of sarcasm, so don't get on my case too much, if you are a libertarian, attack the charge, not the messenger.

WiredForStereo