h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Good article, but I have a question for any clued-up Libertarians out there.

If the Libertarian philosophy opposes all forms of taxation in favour of a 'usage fee', how would it propose to fund a national army? Since very few people would consider that they ever 'use' the army, any form of levied revenue collection to pay for the training, equipping and employment of either a full-time army or a national militia (not to mention the other defence costs such as military R&D, intellignece and so forth) would necessarily be taxation by whatever name you gave it.

Is there a proposed Libertarian solution to this question, or would the defence budget be considered a form of 'regretable but necessary' taxation?

The Prophet.

The latter. Libertarians will general tell you they want to "greatly reduce" taxes. Eliminating them altogether would be impractical.

Also, there are many other ways for a government to collect money. One possibility I heard mentioned during the 2000 US Libertarian Party Convention was "Contract Insurance," for example. Under this plan, if any party who has voluntarily entered into a contract fails to complete his or her (or its) end of the deal, the government may be retained to enforce the contract for a certain percentage of the value of the contract at the expense of the party at fault. In the case of corporations where contracts may handle millions or even billions of dollars, this percentage can add up. It wouldn't approach the amount of money that the government can collect through taxes, but it wouldn't be insignificant, either. (Speaking of Ayn Rand, I believe that this may have been one of her ideas, but I'm far from certain about that) In addition, heavier monetary fines for crimes could be levied as part of Libertarians' Crime stance.

Oh, and Libertarians employ the consumerist definition of "usage," not the common one. According to most Libertarians, all people "use" such services as the military and the police in the same sense that you "use" the roof on your house. It may not be an active use like when you use a toaster oven, and you may not think about it every day, but you would definitely notice it if it were gone. Therefore it provides benefit to all individuals, and all individuals should help pay for it.

Actually, the hardcore libertarians do preach the complete elimination of taxes, foremost among them being Harry Browne, the US Libertarian Party's presidential candidate for the last few elections. The idea is to return to the early days, when the government was funded almost entirely by trade tariffs... that included the armed forces. Of course, that is at odds with the stance on trade tariffs, so I don't think Browne shares that particular piece of the platform.

So, effectively it becomes a poll tax?

Browne basically wants to replace taxes with various sundry things that look and act like taxes, but are not technically *called* taxes. For some reason, this seems to make him feel much better about the situation.

Browne generally wants to tax corporations rather than individuals. The fact that this is then passed on to individuals in the higher price of goods doesn't generally bother him. And no, his stance isn't the same as that of the general Libertarian party. This is similar to the way Bush's policies don't exactly mimic those of the Republican party.

Where do people get the idea that big business is bad, or more accurately in some people's minds "evil"? So someone has a good idea and markets it well. So that person becomes rich because of his good idea. Why does that make him evil? Why is it so important to protect people from Big Business? Bill Gates donates 22 million USD a week to charities. I don't think that sunk in. Twenty-two, million, dollars... every week. But everybody hates him because he's rich.


...sorry, but I just get fired up by tree-huggin hippie liberals and libertarians.

Actually, I hate Bill Gates because he's a visible target representing a company - and indeed, an industry and a generalised commercial ethic - that makes it policy to distribute products containing huge numbers of faults because they make more money if they release first and then release interminable bug fixes.

And wouldn't libertarians be anti-charity anyway? The helping hand isn't a big part of enlightened self-interest.

The Prophet.

Liobertarians would be pro-charity. Charities involve people organizing on their own to help out their fellow man. The alternative is to supply a government program to deal with the situation. Libs HATE government programs. And libs are not necessarily selfish... that's one of the main differences with your average libertarian and your objectivist. My personal stance is "Everyone needs a helping hand once in a while, but don't make a habit of it." Government programs are habit-forming.

I hate Bill Gates because he used strong-arm tactics to drive companies who made better products out of the market. And because of all the bugs. He realizes he's been a tyrant, so he gives that money as a PR move. But where did he get the money in the first place?

Taxing corporations vs. taxing the people: What is the difference? Either way, everyone loses. If you tax the people, then they have less money to spend, which reduces corporate profits, which kills jobs and suppresses wages. If you tax the corporations, you reduce corporate profits, which kills jobs and suppresses wages. Everyone loses. But if you start culling the government, the tax burden gets so much lighter. Do we really need a government program which pays people to not grow food? Do we really need to shell out millions in corporate welfare so a ping-pong paddle manufacturer can stay in business? Do we really need to force corporations to drop a hammer hundreds of times from a helicopter before the government will buy it from them? Every time you regulate something, you have to create a regulatory body. By deregulating things, you eliminate the resources wasted by the regulatory body. Everybody's taxes go down, and everybody wins.

Yeah, Libertarians are definitely pro-charity. One of the more abstract characteristics of Libertarianism (and therefore more arguable, so feel free to ) is a belief that human beings are fundamentally both rational and, generally, more good than bad. In the grand tradition of Adam Smith and the Scottish Enlightenment, Libertarians hold that market forces combined with people's reasonableness and more-good-than-bad-ness can encourage private charity, and that this is better than a government forcing money out of people's pockets and redistributing it however it sees fit. I wish I could say more about this use of market forces, but I'm not an economist. Any Libertarian Economists out there?

Interestingly enough most of those ideas were part of the supply-side economic trends of the Reagan 80's in the USA... lowering taxes(personal and corporate), deregulations, etc... hope no libertarians are offended by being so ruthlessly associated with conservative ideas...

The Reagan 80's that were also responsible for the incredible increase in debt burden for future generations to struggle with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for these economic ideas.
The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't contain two things: 1) A system of checks to keep the strong from screwing the weak
2) I was going to say a method for allowing people born into poverty to get out, but I guess that's just part of #1

So when we live in a perfect world, I'll buy into the whole doctrine. Until then, I think only parts of the ideology are justifiable.

The Reagan 80's that were also responsible for the incredible increase in debt burden for future generations to struggle with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for these economic ideas.
The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't contain two things: 1) A system of checks to keep the strong from screwing the weak
2) I was going to say a method for allowing people born into poverty to get out, but I guess that's just part of #1

So when we live in a perfect world, I'll buy into the whole doctrine. Until then, I think only parts of the ideology are justifiable.

The Reagan 80's that were also responsible for the incredible increase in debt burden for future generations to struggle with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for these economic ideas.
The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't contain two things: 1) A system of checks to keep the strong from screwing the weak
2) I was going to say a method for allowing people born into poverty to get out, but I guess that's just part of #1

So when we live in a perfect world, I'll buy into the whole doctrine. Until then, I think only parts of the ideology are justifiable.

The Reagan 80's that were also responsible for the incredible increase in debt burden for future generations to struggle with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for these economic ideas.
The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't contain two things: 1) A system of checks to keep the strong from screwing the weak
2) I was going to say a method for allowing people born into poverty to get out, but I guess that's just part of #1

So when we live in a perfect world, I'll buy into the whole doctrine. Until then, I think only parts of the ideology are justifiable.

The Reagan 80's that were also responsible for the incredible increase in debt burden for future generations to struggle with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for these economic ideas.
The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't contain two things: 1) A system of checks to keep the strong from screwing the weak
2) I was going to say a method for allowing people born into poverty to get out, but I guess that's just part of #1

So when we live in a perfect world, I'll buy into the whole doctrine. Until then, I think only parts of the ideology are justifiable.

The Reagan 80's that were also responsible for the incredible increase in debt burden for future generations to struggle with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for these economic ideas.
The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't contain two things: 1) A system of checks to keep the strong from screwing the weak
2) I was going to say a method for allowing people born into poverty to get out, but I guess that's just part of #1

So when we live in a perfect world, I'll buy into the whole doctrine. Until then, I think only parts of the ideology are justifiable.

My connection got screwed... sorry about the repeats

It's OK . If I have to be compared with any Republican, I'd rather it be Reagan than most of the others I can think of. (cough*georgew*cough)