Prove the Benefits of Libertarianism

[Captain Chaos]

These are the benefits of libertarianism, and supported through the Kantian ethical framework, I hold that the protection of individual autonomy is the greatest good and cannot be sacrificed, no matter the cost. Anything that upholds individual autonomy is acceptable; anything that does not is not acceptable.

Theory is great, but how about specific examples.

We already have a reasonably free society.

Are there examples from other countries where applying the specific goals of the Libertarian Party has been tried? What were the results?

Any countries ever tried a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax?

[jsmith36]

Captain Chaos:

The problem with real world examples is that even if these examples exist, they don't really indicate anything. Even if other countries implimented a national sales tax, that doesn't mean that it can or would be sucessful.

Policy implimentation in any given country is based on a number of factors, such as population homogenity, income inequality, national normative traditions, pressure groups and subgroups, the structure of government, and the nature of the economy. If any of these factors are different, then the fact that a national sales tax worked in one country means that it is not a reliable predictor of the likely outcome of introducing it into the United States.

As to your point about having an already resonably free society, there are several examples of places where the government intervenes, the result is negative, and adopting a libertarian philosophy would end that intervention. Take for example, the regulation of obscenity on television. Like I said in my previous post, a debate like this will eventually come down to a debate on mutually exclusive values, but using my value of Kantian autnomy, or the right of the individual to be individuals and do as they wish, the government regulation of obsenity on televison robs the rights of parents to teach their children as they see fit, and robs the rights of adults to watch whatever the market provides on television.

I don't have time to catalogue all of the harmful policies of the Federal Government and prove why a libertarian philosophy would be beneficial by eliminating them, but if you are convinced by my framework argument, then the benefits necessarily follow.

I understand your desire to have specific examples, but as I outlined above, it's like comparing apples and oranges; there is simply other country that is as diverse, in population, economics, or current policies. There is no guarentee that polices in other countries will work here.

Finally, your point about a national sales tax is interesting. While this isn't a debate on a national sales tax, it is important to note that almost all economists believe that a sales tax is regressive, meaning it taxes the poor at a higher rate than the rich, as a total proportion of their incomes. I can take you through the economic proof at a later time if you like. Or you could defend regressive taxation.

Thanks,
Josh

[Captain Chaos]

Even if other countries implimented a national sales tax, that doesn't mean that it can or would be sucessful.

Nor does their failure mean that it would fail for us...

But it is a starting point. Attempts at establishing communism have been miserable failures, the world over. This doesn't mean that communism cannot work, but it does mean that real-world attempts at establishing it have been less-than-perfect, and thus there is good reason to doubt the viability of communism.

If any of these factors are different, then the fact that a national sales tax worked in one country means that it is not a reliable predictor of the likely outcome of introducing it into the United States.

But, it is a starting point. We can look at their success or failure, evaluate the details, and make a better guess as to whether it would work for us.

As to your point about having an already resonably free society, there are several examples of places where the government intervenes, the result is negative, and adopting a libertarian philosophy would end that intervention.

Yes... I really agree with this point. Compared to some countries, we have remarkable freedom. However, the current Republican attempts at social control are not pleasing.

I don't have time to catalogue all of the harmful policies of the Federal Government and prove why a libertarian philosophy would be beneficial by eliminating them, but if you are convinced by my framework argument, then the benefits necessarily follow.

I am never convinced by theory alone - I want testing. Specifically, I want small-scale testing as a starting point. For example, would could pick a U.S.-owned island, like Hawaii or Peurto Rico, and establish zero income tax and a "national" sales tax in that state - then do it for a few years and see what happens.

Yes, there would be lots of caveats, but it would be a good starting point.

Finally, your point about a national sales tax is interesting. While this isn't a debate on a national sales tax, it is important to note that almost all economists believe that a sales tax is regressive, meaning it taxes the poor at a higher rate than the rich, as a total proportion of their incomes. I can take you through the economic proof at a later time if you like. Or you could defend regressive taxation.

No thanks, I understand the concept. I was a math/econ major.

However, if a national sales tax leads to an overall increase in efficiency, that could, in principle, outweigh its regressiveness.

Futhermore, it is regressive taxation on consumer goods, but does not have to be applied to food items, health care, or housing.


You can find any two opposing experts on anything - with mountains of theory to back them up. Theory is just a starting point - I want testing to prove viability.

[brien]

You want proof, give us equal opportunity to the ballots and to all election debates, and we will show you the proof when we are elected.

As it stands now, we are being elected on a local basis and doing the best we can at the local level in places like NH.

[brien]

In theory the Libertarian Party sounds like a wise choice, but why is Libertarianism such a hard sell to the masses? How many actually vote Libertarian?
The most visible Libertarian, for me at least, is Neal Boortz...he's got a bunch of great ideas with his Fair Tax agenda and all, but why isn't this party as appealing to America as the Republican and Democratic parties?
I've gone to a couple political conferences where Republicans, Dems, and one (isn't it always just one?) Libertarian pitch their partys agenda to an attentive audience. I've agreed with what Libertarians have to say, but for some reason the support is just not there. I've actually voted for a local Libertarian candidate once and when I saw the numbers in the aftermath, I felt very ummm...small.
Why haven't you guys caught on?

Wailer: On the contrary, the LP is growing and "catching on." The more the Republicrats operate in the smae old tired corrupt politics of special interests, the more the average voter is looking for altrernatives and finding it in the LP.

Here is the home page:http://www.lp.org/

Some FAQ:

Frequently asked questions about the Libertarian Party



What is a Libertarian?



Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.



Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?



Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.



In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.



How large is the Libertarian Party?



By almost every objective measure, the Libertarian Party is the third-largest political party in America. We’re active in all 50 states and have more than 200,000 registered voters, which is more than all other third parties combined.



What kind of offices do Libertarians hold?



Around the USA there are Libertarian mayors, county executives, county council members and even a Libertarian sheriff! Libertarians also serve on school boards and in hundreds of local offices. In 2004 our candidates for U.S. earned over 1 million votes for the third time in a row, which is a feat no other third party has achieved.



These elected Libertarians are already hard at work saving you money and protecting your civil liberties. In fact, Libertarians saved Americans over $2.2 billion in 2004 alone.



What kind of people join the Libertarian Party?



People like you. People who used to be Republicans, Democrats, and independents – from all walks of life. They joined us because they realize that we’re the only political party working for their personal and economic liberty.



Another question we sometimes hear: Is political extremist Lyndon LaRouche in the Libertarian Party? No. LaRouche has never been associated in any way with us. He runs for office as a Democrat.



How can I join the party?



It is free to join the Libertarian Party. But if you donate $25, you receive a subscription to our monthly newspaper LP News and help finance our work to spread the word about the Libertarian Party. With your help, we can keep the media informed; run Internet, radio, and magazine advertisements; send information to more Americans; support Libertarian candidates in winnable races; promote pro-freedom legislation at the federal and state level; provide resources to our state organizations; and more.



Ask yourself: Is government too big or too small? Are taxes too high or too low? Does the government regulate my business too much or too little? Does the government control my personal life too much or not enough? If you agree, like most Americans, that government is too large, too expensive, and meddles too much, the Libertarian Party is for you!



Now it’s time to take action. Join the Libertarian Party today – and become part of the new choice in American politics!


Hope this answers some of your concerns.

Edit; Here is a link that will get you familiar with other "famous" Libertarians.

http://www.boogieonline.com/revoluti...cs/famous.html

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz-score/l...ib-celebs.html

[Captain Chaos]

You want proof, give us equal opportunity to the ballots and to all election debates, and we will show you the proof when we are elected.

I think perhaps current evidence would be more convincing than promises. I consider myself a libertarian sympathizer - I think they have a lot to offer.

However...

Asking for evidential support is not such a crazy thing. Are the libertarians offering nothing but theory? The communists offered theory too, and see where that got them.

[jsmith36]

Captain Chaos:

I am never convinced by theory alone - I want testing. Specifically, I want small-scale testing as a starting point. For example, would could pick a U.S.-owned island, like Hawaii or Peurto Rico, and establish zero income tax and a "national" sales tax in that state - then do it for a few years and see what happens.

I understand your point about not liking theory without practical testing, but your point about testing a sales tax experiment in Puerte Rico or Hawaii still suffers from one 'caveat' that, regardless of the outcome, still renders it useless: inductive reasoning. No matter your distaste for theory, theory underlies all practical experiements, and inductive reasoning is no different. Inductive reasoning is always flawed, and the results are no more than a guess as to the solution.

If the national sales tax is implimented, and it is a complete sucess, that doesn't give us very much information about how it would work on a national scale. The reason is because Puerte Rico or Hawaii are all non-representative samples of the country at large. The only way induction might be valid as a form of logic is if the sample used is perfectly representative of the larger popluation. You would have to find a state that mirrors the country in ethic groups, income inequality, government budget as a share of GDP, and any number of other factors. Put simply, even if the sales tax idea works perfectly as a test, it won't help us to learn anything about how it would work on a national level.

In addition, the converse is also true. Even if the sales tax fails miserably in a test location, that doesn't tell us anything about implimentation on a national scale. I am willing to bet there are a set of conditions in which a national sales tax works very well. If those conditions, for example, are close to the statistics of the nation as a whole, but not of the small test sample popluation, then the test will be essentially useless. Again, the only way this sort of inductive testing is valid is if the sample is representative of the nation as a whole.

Attempts at establishing communism have been miserable failures, the world over. This doesn't mean that communism cannot work, but it does mean that real-world attempts at establishing it have been less-than-perfect, and thus there is good reason to doubt the viability of communism.

Actually, there is no logical reason to doubt the viability of communism. I am NOT defending communism, but again you're using inductive reasoning, which is simply not valid for drawing conclusive inferences.

Here's an example: if you flip a coin ten times, and it comes up heads all ten times, the probability is still only 1/2 that it comes up tails on the next flip. It is not any more or less likely to be tails. It seems counter intuitive, but that's the way formal logic works.

Compared to some countries, we have remarkable freedom. However, the current Republican attempts at social control are not pleasing

I wholeheartedly agree. Chalk up another benefit of libertarianism.

However, if a national sales tax leads to an overall increase in efficiency, that could, in principle, outweigh its regressiveness.

Futhermore, it is regressive taxation on consumer goods, but does not have to be applied to food items, health care, or housing.

I disagree with your first point about efficency outweighing regressiveness. Libertarianism does not support the government using taxation to fix income inequalities, but I sincerly doubt they support using taxation to make income MORE inequal. Efficency is measured on a macro scale, but to claim that gains in efficency can be made on the backs of poor people would require some sort of explanation as to how/when the calculations are made. It looks like more utilitarianism, which I would reject (for reasons stated in a previous post).

As to your second point about exemptions, the items you mentioned (housing, medicine, and food) are all consumed in larger quantities and proportions by the rich. By exempting these items, you are actually making the tax MORE regressive, by exempting items that the rich consume in larger quantities and proportions. The rich are more likely to get elective surgery, own a home, and buy "luxary" food. If you're going to exempt something, a better choice would be public transportation.

Thanks,
Josh

[jsmith36]

[Edit] Oops, double post... sorry

[brien]

I think perhaps current evidence would be more convincing than promises. I consider myself a libertarian sympathizer - I think they have a lot to offer.

However...

Asking for evidential support is not such a crazy thing. Are the libertarians offering nothing but theory? The communists offered theory too, and see where that got them.

There are Libertarians in office currently in NH. I have answered your question as to theory. I am a Libertarian and I hold office where I live.

I am currently on the ZBA. I make decisions to allow people to use their land contrary to the Zoning Laws. We Liberatrians don't believe in zoning but since we are stuck with them in my town, the best place for me to be is on the ZBA so I can vote to allow people to do with their land as they see fit, not the government.

Libertarianism begins with YOU. It is up to you to turn the theories into practice.

[Captain Chaos]

Should a neighborhood be allowed to dictate what sort of business they want in their neighborhood?

In other words, if I want to open a brothel in my home, should my neighbors have any say in the matter?

[Captain Chaos]

Don't know which is better, but I know what is best!

It's best to live in a FREE STATE.
http://www.freestateproject.org/

Osborn posted the above information in a different thread...

New Hampshire is quite wealthy, has very low poverty, and has excellent schools. They also have the lowest income tax - is this evidence to support the Libertarian viewpoint? Bear in mind that correlation does not mean causation - but still, it makes you think.

[Osborn F Enready]

jsmith said:
On the income tax, the 16th Amendment says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

I say:
Because of this:
The Constitution addresses two kinds of taxation. Direct and indirect taxation. Our founders, were against any type of "direct taxation" on their labor (income tax), and what direct taxation did occur had to be apportioned by census.

So, knowing the above, move on to these facts.

1) In 1913, the 16th Amendment (the "income tax" Amendment) was fraudulently and illegally declared to be ratified by a lame-duck Secretary of State just days before leaving office;

2) There is NO LAW that requires most Americans to file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings;

3) People who file a Form 1040 "voluntarily" waive their 5th Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves;

4) The IRS routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, by failing to properly obtain warrants issued by a court upon probable cause and supported by oath and affirmation; and

5) The IRS, as standard operating procedure, routinely and grossly violates citizens' due process rights in its administrative procedures and operates far outside the boundaries of U.S. law.

http://givemeliberty.org/projects.htm#legality

There are volumes to this argument, and let it be said that eight, eight supreme court cases have found that "the 16th amendment does NOT confer any NEW taxing authority to the government."

The income tax was MEANT to be applied to corporations, and the burden was shifted from corporations, by corporate lawyers, to the people of the United States.

The very concept of a Federal Reserve, goes against everything the founders valued, and the fact that it is a private corporation, would double the insult.

jsmith said:
The Amendment is clear (and the Supreme Court has said, many times), that this allows an income tax to be collected by the Federal Government. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), and Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).

I say:
Notice that each case you listed was a corporation vs the United States?

This is the core of the "corporate personhood" argument.
Are you aware of this argument, and how the laws of incorporation have changed since our nations creation?

I am more than willing to disect and debate each part of this, and would even ask you to take this to its own thread if you would like to go piece by piece.

jsmith said:
Finally, on the Federal Reserve, I have found several arguments on the internet that claim that the Federal Reserve is dishonest, corrupt, evil, economically negligent, self serving, tied to the WTO and World Bank (with negative connotations), and is an evil scheme. However, I cannot find any logic as to why it’s "unconstitutional". If you'd care to outline that argument in full, I'd be happy to respond.

I say:
This is most certainly deserving of its own thread.

First, I would say to check out these threads, and then we can decide where this debate belongs?

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=932
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7486
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9405