I thought it apt to take a look at some common anti-libertarian positions. Sticking to first principles, I address the fallacy that ‘limited’ or ‘no’ coercive government would fail 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.” ~ Statey McStatenstein
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 and more to a single entity is dangerous. In our case, the entity in question is not accountable or responsible for the results of its actions. Yet many folks believe in giving that same organization legal monopoly on the ability to print and circulate currency in a given geographic region. This form of thinking among enough people is only bound to cause suffering and widespread mismanagement of assets.
If the state ever needs anything from its citizenship, all it needs to do is hold a social service that they’d previously monopolized over the voter’s head and soon the requisite votes to get the bill they need passed will somehow materialize (See Obamacare).
The roughly 40% of our earnings that we lose to taxes pales in comparison to the national debt piling on the backs of our future generations. The dilution and destruction of the dollar and national (and now world) reserve currency will not likely end pretty, from where I’m standing.
Any tax debate concerns itself over a what percentage of the taxpayer’s yearly earnings is fair to steal but often fails at addressing the inevitably of the real debt being piled upon the shoulders of our unborn children. Anti-libertarians are quick to slander our positions but are rare to credit us for our compassion for those who have yet to be born.
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 when one is forced to buy a product, it’s often not usually what one would otherwise freely choose to buy, given full freedom of choice. Forced services are not worth the exchange value to the person being forced to receive the “service.”
Those who wish to debate the practical feasibility of limited, market-driven and decentralized government, see http://www.fdrurl.com/PAPDF for a possible understanding of how social services, courts and roads could all easily be offered by free individuals interacting peaceably and voluntarily without central coercive governments. All of the benefits we enjoy that are currently monopolized by government’s coercive fund-raising systems, could one day be accomplished by free markets.
You, reading this, may actually be one of the Americans myself and other liberty-minded folks are trying to get back on board with the real principles that founded this nation. The real definitions of the words “freedom” and “liberty” will not change just because the laws are written to obstruct and distort the words’ meanings. If you don’t stand for what America once was founded upon, then you must stand for what the experiment has become. You certainly can’t stand for both.
So, for those anti-libertarians who say we’re all heartless, cruel jerks who want nothing to do with “helping the poor,” my view is that coercive governments actually create more poverty than they could ever hope to prevent. The scientific data is too multi-layered and non-linear for anyone to likely ever prove or disprove my theory. In the mean time, our ‘brilliant’ Keynesian economists try to explain how printing 80 billion fake dollars every month is not devastating to a nation’s economy. Economy = prosperity. Socialize everything and we all become poor.
“Yes, America has drastically changed from its founding principles, but we changed for the better! That’s why we are the number one country in the world!” ~ State Man Jones.
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, many which can rival that of the US. The case certainly hasn’t been made as far as I can tell. 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 ascribing to a logically-consistent view of morality. Theft and killing innocents in other sovereign lands is clearly not examples of “best” behavior.
Either demand the best from everyone, whether individual or group, or admit that “the best” isn’t even relevant. Maybe you’re just a fan of tradition and culture. Without consistent and universal moral principles we, as a society, are herded as sheep to the slaughter, never to have a genuine, deep and complete thought of our own. How can a person be expected think clearly when the majority of people admired by society encourage confusion and disorder? The state = chaos. Anarchy = peace. That’s the 1984 double-speak already built into our public consciousness.