# Libertarian Philosophy?



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

A number of those that post here say that they have a Libertarian view. I've always wondered if there is general agreement on what that philosophy might mean.

Are these near the mark?

Certain tasks that a federal, state, and local government can only perform. National defense, tax collection, law enforcement, regulation of financial markets to protect the public from unethical, and fraudulent practices.

Responses to natural disasters, and many other areas that seem obvious, down to issuing of drivers licenses etc. (The only entity that has been less effective than FEMA, is the American Red Cross.)

After looking at the essential government functions, careful attention to keeping governments from growing in order to expand empires, and justifying larger budgets. Education, and Energy departments come to mind, as being essentially useless. Do we still need a Dept of Indian Affairs?

In the economy, recognizing that Howzerian Law proves conclusively that 19.5% of GDP will go to government revenue, regardless of the marginal tax rate. Ergo, concentrate on keeping marginal tax rates as low as possible, and growing GDP, which results in higher revenue to the government.

Recognizing that a tax law that costs more to enforce than the revenue generated needs to be erased and replaced with a simple tax collection plan, that puts H & R Block out of business. It would be easy to develop a tax from that any individual could compute and submit on a post card. This eases the burden of compliance, and discourages tax avoidance. It worked in Russia.

In foreign policy, maintain a powerful defense posture, and demonstrate the willingness to use it in defense of our homeland. Keep % of GDP spent on military at a significant level. The most effective military is one that never engages in battle, because they are strong enough to withstand any challenge.

However, let the UN fulfill their responsibility in settling foreign entanglements. We pay about 30% of the tab at the UN (justifiably). Let the UN deal with foreign problems that don't impact our homeland. 

Keep the environmental wackos from stopping development of petroleum where we can extract it in areas such as Anwar, and offshore US. If we are going to stay out of the Middle East squabbles, we can't rely on them for all petroleum, because they will probably turn that part of the world into a scorched desert.

Keep the government out of peoples private lives, to the extent possible, as long as their behavior doesn't harm others.

If gays want to get married, so be it. If People don't have a moral compunction about abortion, let their own judgement prevail.

Abolish racial quotas, and affirmative action schemes. Turn our society back into a meritocracy that was in existence for most of our history. 

Reestablish our public education system by breaking the NEA stranglehold on enforcing mediocrity. Let Charter Schools and local school boards reestablish excellence.

What do you think?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I'll just nitpick a few things:

"Keep % of GDP spent on military at a significant level. The most effective military is one that never engages in battle, because they are strong enough to withstand any challenge."

No, military spending should be at the level where we can defend ourselves, and not much more. I don't think that would be a significant percentage or GDP. Also, the US has proven that it can ramp up pretty quickly if something nasty hits the fan.

"If gays want to get married, so be it. If People don't have a moral compunction about abortion, let their own judgement prevail."

These are more along the lines of "none of government's business" than anything else. 


"Reestablish our public education system by breaking the NEA stranglehold on enforcing mediocrity. Let Charter Schools and local school boards reestablish excellence."

Again, more along the lines of "none of government's business." At least not the federal government's. The states can do what they want. IMHO it should be left up to each individual community as to how their kids are educated -either publicly or privately.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Pretty close.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> Certain tasks that a federal, state, and local government can only perform. National defense, tax collection, law enforcement, regulation of financial markets to protect the public from unethical, and fraudulent practices.


Every Libertarian I have ever known has had a different opinion on just which tasks can only be performed by the government.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> Every Libertarian I have ever known has had a different opinion on just which tasks can only be performed by the government.


Agreed, but you would say he's in the "ballpark", right?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Most of my Libertarian friends who recognise the need for third parties to be heard, don't use the term 'environmental wackos."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Most of my Libertarian friends who recognise the need for third parties to be heard, don't use the term 'environmental wackos."


LMAO, that's cute.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Agreed, but you would say he's in the "ballpark", right?


It would have to be a pretty big ballpark. :icon_smile_big:

My experience with Libertarians, and I admit I have sometimes considered myself to be one, is that they are independent thinkers. The strength of Libertarian philosphy is the individuality of those who hold Libertarian views, but that does make it difficult to form a political movement, especially when some of the members would dispute a legitimate role for any form of government.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> It would have to be a pretty big ballpark. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> My experience with Libertarians, and I admit I have sometimes considered myself to be one, is that they are independent thinkers. The strength of Libertarian philosphy is the individuality of those who hold Libertarian views, but that does make it difficult to form a political movement, especially when some of the members would dispute a legitimate role for any form of government.


That is a great point. I have a hard time adopting anyone else's platform myself.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, I think a big part of your question is your baseline.

If you ask me, "should we have a 40% tax or a 50% tax," the libertarian answer is "40%." Does that mean that libertarians think the government is entitled to 2/5 of your income? No, of course not.

Personally, I think the government could do pretty well with about 5%. Whether it's 5% or 2% or 10%, well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

My gunsmith Kevin at the old Pony Express Sport Shop was a Libertarian. I think he enjoyed my radical environmeddler-anarchist-Will Rogers not Lenin revolutionary needling of the staff as much as my paying ahead of time in cash to get two stage mauser triggers stoned and lyman 48 peep sights installed( with the charger bridge still functional.) Kevin and I used to take quick breaks outside eating the huge burritos I brought from Carillos. We talked about a lot of stuff. Mostly we talked about wanting what most everybody wants. I think if Libertarians could be heard outside the steamed hotdog and stale bun smell of gunshows, Greens beyond vegetarian restaurants, Republicans ,Democrats et al we wouldn't be asking these dumb questions like an anthropologist sticking her head inside an Igloo asking where the toilet is.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Seems to me that Libertarianism is doomed to be one of those exhilarating adolescent ideas that excite and entice a certain minority of people who, as some have admitted above, appear to have a congenital inability to agree on terms and who bristle at the mention of "rules" that might infringe on their personal liberties. 

Plus, look around: Most people don't appear to WANT much in the way of freedom, except to shop/consume. No, freedom entails far too much responsibility. I expect the prospect would bloody well terrify most who had an appreciation for its fundamentals. 

But at least we can talk about it here, where nothing will get scratched or dented or altered in any way.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Libertarians agree on a lot more than the varied wings of the major parties, especially the Democrats, who are basically a coalition of robin-hood populists, liberal ideologues, and minorities of every sort.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Oh, right, and children. Wouldn't want to forget the children.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, I think a big part of your question is your baseline.
> 
> If you ask me, "should we have a 40% tax or a 50% tax," the libertarian answer is "40%." Does that mean that libertarians think the government is entitled to 2/5 of your income? No, of course not.
> 
> Personally, I think the government could do pretty well with about 5%. Whether it's 5% or 2% or 10%, well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.


Good point, PT. It's been proven empirically that the resulting government revenue is 19.5% of GDP, regardless of the marginal tax rate. When you look at it on a graph, it becomes crystal clear. Marginal rates at 90%, tax yield is 19.5%. Marginal tax rate at 34%, same yield of 19.5% to federal government. It is called the Howzerian theorm.

The rub comes in when you look at what high marginal rates do to GDP. High rates throttle GDP growth every time.

Unfortunately, marginal rates have been used as a tool to generate class envy. The top 55% of taxpayers pay virtually all of the taxes that are collected. Therefore it is easy to sell the idea of punishing the rich, to those that don't pay taxes anyway.

Rich people not only pay all of the taxes, but create most of the jobs in the economy.

Increasing marginal rates will probably carry the day, because it is so easy to sell the idea of punishing the rich.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Seems to me that Libertarianism is doomed to be one of those exhilarating adolescent ideas that excite and entice a certain minority of people who, as some have admitted above, appear to have a congenital inability to agree on terms and who bristle at the mention of "rules" that might infringe on their personal liberties.
> 
> Plus, look around: Most people don't appear to WANT much in the way of freedom, except to shop/consume. No, freedom entails far too much responsibility. I expect the prospect would bloody well terrify most who had an appreciation for its fundamentals.
> 
> But at least we can talk about it here, where nothing will get scratched or dented or altered in any way.


Couldn't agree with you more, Mr Wooster. We have come so far down the path of Socialism, that most people seem to actually fear a lot of freedom, and seem comforted when decisions are made by those by a centralized government.

When democracy came to the former Soviet Union, it seemed like a good idea until people realized that they had been so conditioned to state control that freedom had no real appeal.

Those of you that have a dog as a family pet realize that your dog is descended from a totally self sufficient member of the wolf family. However, after generations of being cared for, the family pet couldn't survive long on its own. That's about where we are, today.

As you say, Mr Wooster, it is intellectually stimulating to think here,of forms of government that emphasize personal freedom, with the certain knowledge that most people in our country today don't have much desire for it any more.

You know where we are when most people are happy with a 1% return on payroll taxes in the form of Social Security benefits with no personal responsibility, vs a @ 4% return, if they were able to put the same funds to work in a bond fund.

Under total state control, in the Soviet Union, the view was "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." We seem well on the way.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Yep. "Safety net."

Dealing with Russians was a real PITA. They were functionally incompetent after the Communists and the Czars. 

Someone said to me, if you put in extra work to grow an extra acre of food the Czars would take it and the Communists would burn it and put you in jail. 

Not very motivating.

My favorite quote is, "We're supposed to be scared of these people."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, the communists would put you in jail. Well, if by "burn it," you mean starve you to death, and by "jail," you mean a mass grave, then you've got it, kulak.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Libertarians agree on a lot more than the varied wings of the major parties, especially the Democrats, who are basically a coalition of robin-hood populists, liberal ideologues, and minorities of every sort.


You obviously did not watch the Libertarian Party convention on C-Span. There is a huge split between the radical and reformer (i.e. conservative) wings. The Party is split down the middle between Bob Barr's supporters (who won) and the "Ruwarchists" (who lost).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> You obviously did not watch the Libertarian Party convention on C-Span. There is a huge split between the radical and reformer (i.e. conservative) wings. The Party is split down the middle between Bob Barr's supporters (who won) and the "Ruwarchists" (who lost).


Well, the "Libertarian Party" can only claim a very small minority of libertarian and libertarian-leaning Americans, and considering how crazy some of the "Party Members" are, I'm not surprised.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, the communists would put you in jail. Well, if by "burn it," you mean starve you to death, and by "jail," you mean a mass grave, then you've got it, kulak.


I'd have to defer to your knowledge on the existence of Russian prisons as I haven't been to the Consulate regularly since '97. So, my knowledge is somewhat limited.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You want crazy? Check out Lyndon La Rouche or LTCol Bo Gritz.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, the commies didn't starve you by burning perfectly good crops. They sold them on the international market for a profit.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, the commies didn't starve you by burning perfectly good crops. They sold them on the international market for a profit.


That is because you don't own anything. The communist government owns it all, including you.

All of Europe has gone from being owned by kingdoms to being owned by each other (socializm)- they never really had personal freedom.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, the communists would put you in jail. Well, if by "burn it," you mean starve you to death, and by "jail," you mean a mass grave, then you've got it, kulak.





PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, the commies didn't starve you by burning perfectly good crops. They sold them on the international market for a profit.


Actually, what I meant by "burn" was destroy. And; what I meant by "jail" was prison. I apologize for being unclear. 

I discussed this very subject once with an ~80 year old man serving me _shashlyk_ as we stood in his village garden among tomatos and onions planted with seeds sent by my Grand Father ten years earlier.

The perception that the Russians would need or want to harvest and sell an odd half-acre or acre of un-authorized crops rather than destroy them to enforce their absolute control vastly under-estimates the true wealth and obscene extravagances of the Old Russians and their understanding of behavior modification. Those running the security forces were drawing double- and triple-script in addition to managing various "private" enterprises like jewel smuggling and gave no mind to the starving masses.

And now; I have a plane to catch.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, read english history and you find the beginnings of our democracy in the 'Danelaws' brought over by vikings.In Scandinavia even slaves carried knives, the daily need for work and self defence being recognised as universal. Try pulling out even a Swiss Army Knife to file a hangnail in public today. Ancient Athens gave us the beginnings of democracy, with all eligable males, regardless of station serving in a random rotation, though in nearby Sparta the Mentori were otherwise occupied,insuring their slaves did not have equal rights.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

agnash said:


> Every Libertarian I have ever known has had a different opinion on just which tasks can only be performed by the government.


+1 - Don't think there's a Libertarian equilivent of a rule book.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Helvetia said:


> +1 - Don't think there's a Libertarian equilivent of a rule book.


Plainly, the government needs to publish the definitive one.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

WA said:


> ...All of Europe has gone from being owned by kingdoms to being owned by each other (socializm)- they never really had personal freedom.


That is quite a statement to make. Care to expand?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Pulledpork said:


> That is quite a statement to make. Care to expand?


I think it's the difference between being a citizen and a subject-not to suggest that we're not in the same predicament as the Europeans these days.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think it's the difference between being a citizen and a subject-not to suggest that we're not in the same predicament as the Europeans these days.


OK.

What do you think the difference is between a citizen and a subject, and how does that affect any freedoms they may enjoy?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

A subject is..subject...to an authority that purports to be his master, while a citizen is possessed of, how should I put this... certain inalienable rights, and citizens, uh, institute a government that's purpose is to secure those rights, and that derives its just power from their consent. 

Oddly enough, those rights don't include the right to free **** or the right to have the government steal half your income to give free **** to other people.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> A subject is..subject...to an authority that purports to be his master, while a citizen is possessed of, how should I put this... certain inalienable rights, and citizens, uh, institute a government that's purpose is to secure those rights, and that derives its just power from their consent.
> 
> Oddly enough, those rights don't include the right to free **** or the right to have the government steal half your income to give free **** to other people.


You can be a citizen of a State. You cannot be a citizen of a government.

Elvis has left the building. We are not citizens anymore. We are subjects.


----------

