- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 297
- Location
- Down in the holler
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That's an exaggeration. It's more accurate to say that we see taxes as a necessary evil, and that we should minimize the evil. Anarchists believe that taxes are an unnecessary evil.
Milton Friedman on Tax ReformYou think that's an exaggeration? Can you cite any libertarians scholar who doesn't think it is wrong to take money owned by other people in order to distribute it to the less fortunate?
That's an exaggeration. It's more accurate to say that we see taxes as a necessary evil, and that we should minimize the evil. Anarchists believe that taxes are an unnecessary evil.
Yep, and furthermore, he was for the negative income tax. If that is not redistribution, I don't know what is.
I totally forgot about that monster of a **** up by Friedman.
While I don't entirely agree, some people say that a libertarian is a liberal who understands economics.
Friedman? Okay whatever. It's my fault for saying, "Libertarians think..." I would never in a million years included Friedman to be a libertarian. I'll have to be more careful to remember that libertarian means a lot of things to a lot of different people. Next time, "Many libertarians think..."
Personally, I'm not big on many of his policies but I'm curious as to why you call him a monster?
While I don't entirely agree, some people say that a libertarian is a liberal who understands economics.
Yeah, I find it pretty odd that a libertarian would think Friedman was one. Sure, he said he was, but his views surely didn't reflect it.
I called the negative income tax a monster, not Friedman. Friedman was just an idiot that enabled and helped put in place big government policies while claiming to be fighting against them.
I guess it just goes to show you that libertarianism means different things to different people.
Friedman claimed to be a libertarian following the classical liberal tradition. Classical liberals however support separating the government from almost everything and would never support the federal reserve, income taxes, welfare, the withholding system, the federal reserve, the negative income tax, all of which Friedman supported and helped become what it is today. He apparently didn't know what classical liberals support. :/
We are talking about people that find their origins in the idea of government that would do nothing except protect the rights of people. Under their system there would be no standing army, no central bank, the government would have no control over currency, there would be no such thing as economic polices whatsoever. There is really no argument to be made that he was a classical liberal.
Correct, under your system there would be no standing army. Try to eliminate our military. That should be interesting.
It would be a good idea no doubt. Almost all war only occurs because the state has the power to send off their men and now their women to die for the states causes. Remove that power and you eliminate a great deal of suffering and death.
It would be a good idea no doubt. Almost all war only occurs because the state has the power to send off their men and now their women to die for the states causes. Remove that power and you eliminate a great deal of suffering and death.
War is the health of the state.
Hey, I don't entirely disagree with you, but isn't it a little bit too late? In reality we have caused a lot of wars and made a lot of enemies so now if we took our military away, wouldn't we be sitting ducks?
There is also the fact that once you make allies you will naturally make enemies. It's folly to believe you can create allegiances and not make enemies of those parties your allies are at odds with. Interventionism might be a great way for the state to spread it's influence if you are into that kind of thing(not saying you are), but it's also a great way to increase tensions and cause more death. For some reason of all the actions the state makes people think making allies is a way to make the world a peaceful place, and in reality, the state uses it as a way to get more firepower against their enemies. Look at Iraq and what happened there and you will see that my argument has a good amount of merit. How many countries joined us in our act of aggression against Iraq?
The first thing we need to do is step away from the world stage and eliminate the draft, but conservatives won't have it, and liberals are too scared to really consider it as a choice, but if that ever happens we are a step closer to the goal of eliminating the military complex. Stepping away from the world stage will allow tensions to cool off, while eliminating the draft will cut off the life line of the military complex if voluntary agreement to sign up lags behind the states need. The next thing we need to do is start cutting back the military complex in both funding and amount of personal and supplies. You will never eliminate the danger of militaries from around the world, but in my opinion at least we don't need to have one of them of our own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?