by RJ Parker on October 22nd, 2013
I thought it apt to take a look at some common affronts to libertarian principles and the notion of limited or no coercive government to regulate society.
“The Taxes that we pay as citizens, pay for the programs that the government supports like welfare, ect. If government didn’t exist, poor people would go hungry and starve. Therefore, taxes are justified by their ends.”
Actually the taxes received federally are barely keeping up with the interest from the national debt. Giving a legal monopoly on aggression, law writing, social services, healthcare and many other markets to a single entity who is not accountable or responsible for the results of their actions can be dangerous. Then, to give that same organization legal monopoly on the ability to create, print and circulate currency in a given geographic region is logically only going to cause suffering and mismanagement of assets.
If the state ever needs anything from it’s citizenship, all it needs to do is hold a social service that they’d monopolized over the voter’s head and they’ll get the bill they need passed (See Obamacare). The 40% of our earnings that we lose to taxes pale in comparison to the national debt being loaded on the backs of our children and grandchildren along with the absolute dilution and destruction of the dollar and national (and now world) reserve currency. Esentially, it’s important to point out that we’re debating a percentage of our yearly earning and not even addressing the debt piled upon unborn children. Some will say that we’re supposed to feel proud about freely donating our hard-earned resources to an organization that forces us to comply and allows no competition? Something smells fishy about that. Typically products that someone is forced to buy are not ones that they would otherwise freely choose to buy (aka. they’re not worth the exchange to the person receiving the “service”). Those who debate the practical implications of limited government, see http://www.fdrurl.com/PAPDF for an understanding how social services and courts and roads and all of the benefits we enjoy that are currently monopolized by government coercive fund-raising systems could otherwise easily be offered by free individuals interacting peaceably and voluntarily. You may be one of the Americans me and other liberty-minded folks are trying to get on board with the real principles that founded this nation. The real definitions of the words “freedom” and “liberty” will not change as the laws are written to obstruct those essential founding principles. If you don’t stand for what America was founded upon, then you just stand for what the experiment has become. You certainly can’t support the founding principles and the empirical reality of right now.
To sum up my response to the “helping the poor” argument, my view is that most coercive governments, if not all, create far more poor people and poverty than they prevent. Nobody can prove or disprove this statement outside of theory but some pretty brilliant economists can explain with some pretty fancy words why printing 80 billions of fake dollars every month is devastating to a nation’s economy. Economy = prosperity. Socialize everything and we all become poor.
“Yes, America has drastically changed from it’s founding principles, but we changed for the better! That’s why we are the number one country in the world!”
Just nationalistic fanfare. Based on what metrics? Based on what standard is America the best nation in the world and in what categories? There are so many other sovereign states in the world with various economies, social systems, laws and so forth. The case certainly hasn’t been made to me. If you’re conflating “the best” with “the easiest for a citizen to get by in” then you might have an argument. For me, “best” includes morality. Theft and killing innocents in other sovereign lands is not “best” behavior. Either demand the best from everyone, individual or group, or admit that “the best” isn’t even relevant and that you are just in favor of tradition and culture. Without consistent and universal moral principles we as a society are herded as sheep (pardon the cliche) with the flock, never to have a genuine, deep and complete thought of our own. How can a person think when the people admired in society encourage confusion and disorder. The state = anarchy. Anarchy = peace. That’s the 1984 double-speak already built into our public consciousness.