It’s such a convoluted philosophy it’s impossible to even say what it is because it means ten different things for ten different countries. In my country they are weird amalgamation of monarchists, conservatives and ultra-capitalist catholics but in Russia they like fight for lgbt rights.
It’s such a meaningless term it’s impossible to even say what it is
Big “what even IS a racist?” energy 🙄
Idk why you thought throwing racism here is a bright idea tbh
Because it’s the most common word that people falsely call meaningless.
I didn’t intend to imply that you’re a racist, though if you were a right-libertarian (which It would seem you aren’t), there’d be a lot of overlap there lol
I don’t think that’s exactly fair, the term did get coopted by right wing anarcho-capitalists, so its had a pretty significant semantic shift from its left wing social anarchist origins.
There’s still left-libertarians in the world. You just have to specify now that anarcho-capitalists have appropriated the term, rather than pretend that no elaboration can possibly apply.
Having to be more specific when referring to other kinds of libertarians because of definition drift is annoying, sure, but it hardly makes the term meaningless.
I agree, but I think its also fair to expect some confusion around the matter.
Absolutely. I’m a left libertarian. But I would never say I’m libertarian in America. That means something completely different.
No. Actually the philosophy is quite clear. The man who coined the term and was the first libertarian was a revolutionary in the French Revolution. The problem is so many people apply the noun to things that clash with the ideology.
Libertarians are not libertarian. Ideologically Libertarians often tend to be fascistic. But are so hyper self-centered. They do not buy into and will not participate in embracing any group identity.
I wish people stayed true to the original definition of words. Politics would be much easier to navigate. But alas who doesn’t do social manipulation these days: We are freedom fighters except we hate lgbt and are pro Catholicism and some even want return of monarchy vote for us!
The definition hasn’t changed. Soviet Russia a Marxist leninist Nation had a party called the Communist party. They were not communist. At least not outside of aspirationally. They were still Marxist leninist. But they rely on people easily being confused between nouns and adjectives
Effectively it changes because we live in post truth society. It doesn’t matter anymore what was the original meaning of the word except to some few nerds that no one listens to anyway. That have phd in politics or something equally useless and cringe.
Truth and definitions still exist in a post truth society. A post-truth society simply prioritizes perception over reality.
i guess i gotta help people now. and that’s doubly altruistic because of all the children I’m going to save indirectly.
To clarify, I think it’s when you help other people without expectation of reward.
A libertarian cop would happily save your life from an angry grizzly bear if you paid them for the cost of bullets used, services rendered, and the bear disposal fee.
I’d even go so far as to say “help an unknown person out financially without expectation of reward.”
People focus on the bears thing, and not that most of the libertarians who joined the Free Town Project were men (wonder why women didn’t feel safe joining; it’s a mystery), and many (surprise surprise) turned out to be sexual predators or even murderers. They also quickly (and deliberately) bankrupted the town through budget cuts and spurious lawsuits, making life worse for everyone who lived there. The whole thing was a shitshow. Who knew that a philosophy of self-centeredness would attract the worst sort of people?
Libertarianism. Not even once.
We focus on the bears thing because that’s the unexpected, humorous part, as humor is about subverting expectations. The rest of it—sexual predators, budget cuts/bankruptcy, antisocial behavior, declining quality of life—is exactly what most people expect from a libertarian town experiment. It’s the bears that turn a depressing shitshow into a hilarious shitshow.
But is it really help if it is necessarily transactional? I wouldn’t say my mechanic helped by fixing my car because I paid him. If my neighbor fixed my car, I’d say he helped me.
I think the concept of “hired help” is a thing, at least. They’re not helping you out of the goodness of their heart, but they are helping you because they’re being paid to. If my mechanic is able to solve a car issue that I struggled with for a while on my own, I’d still call that a help even when the relationship is entirely transactional.
I think what you’re describing with the neighbor is more like doing a favor, if I were to put words to it.
Plus it’s a psychological trick “Hey, if you help me out with this, I can help you with this”. That tells the person you want their help, and you are willing to help them. That’s a transaction as well, and improves relationships
100%. Humans are social animals primarily because we’ve been conditioned into behavior where helping someone means you are more likely to be helped in turn later on.
If other members of a social unit are dependent on you, that is a transactional relationship, but providing a service for the social unit helps improve everyone’s overall quality of life, even if that service is transactional.
Equivocation.
Don’t need a bear disposal fee so long as you have RFK Jr. around.
Obligatory Libertarian Police Department
spoiler
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”
“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”
“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”
The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”
“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”
“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”
He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”
I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.
“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.
“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”
It didn’t seem like they did.
“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”
Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.
I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.
“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.
“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.
I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”
He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.
“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”
“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
“Because I was afraid.”
“Afraid?”
“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”
I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.
“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”
He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me.
Why Penn Jillette though? Is he for some reason popular with libertarians?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette#Politics
Jillette has previously identified as a libertarian, and stated in 2003 that he may consider himself an anarcho-capitalist. He was a fellow at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.
AnCaps are among the most extreme libertarians. Lots of more moderate libertarians think of them as kooks, similar to how leftists think of tankies.
I myself believe in altruism, mutual aid, but also smaller and more effective government. I view large governments and large corporations with skepticism: concentrations of unchecked power are prone to abuse.
I just think humans work better in smaller groups overall. That’s where empathy and personal relationships actually work. When everything turns into statistics we lose our humanity.
AnCap here. Unfortunately in our world there is no possible way to create an AnCap society, so you live within the bounds of what you have.
I’m of the mind that all of the forms of anarchism are utopian. They assume people will behave in certain ways which are contrary to reality. When people don’t behave in those expected ways the whole system breaks.
Game theory helps, as does training in computer security for similar reasons. Basically the idea is that you need to always assume people will try to break the system somehow if they think they can benefit from it.
That’s one of the reasons AnCaps believe in voluntary communities, that way those who didn’t advise but whatever the community’s rules are they can a) be punished based on the rules of the given community, or expelled.
There have been anarchist communities out there before. (Anarchist proper, not ancaps.) Most (though not all) of them have been destroyed by states who… well, not to put too fine a point on it but: states who hate freedom. I don’t necessarily know what people mean by “utopian”, i think anarchism is quite practical in a lot of cases but i think it also faces a number of significant obstacles.
Huh. Thanks. I didn’t even know he was a libertarian, only knew him as an atheist skeptic guy (besides the illusionists part). And according to Wikipedia, seems he’s no longer a libertarian:
In a 2024 interview, he said he renounced his libertarianism […] adding “Many times when I identified as Libertarian, people said to me, ‘It’s just rich white guys that don’t want to be told what to do,’ and I had a zillion answers to that — and now that seems 100 percent accurate.”
Wow. He has completely changed. Good on him for seeing the errors of his ways. Also, I’m going to paste a bit before what you pasted to add context, because I think it’s worth adding.
In a 2024 interview, he said he renounced his libertarianism as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic after a libertarian group asked him to speak at an anti-mask rally. “The fact they sent me this email is something I need to be very ashamed of, and I need to change”
In 2020, Jillette distanced himself from aspects of libertarianism, particularly surrounding COVID-19. In an interview with Big Think, he stated, “[A] lot of the illusions that I held dear, rugged individualism, individual freedoms, are coming back to bite us in the ass.” He went on to elaborate, “[I]t seems like getting rid of the gatekeepers gave us Trump as president, and in the same breath, in the same wind, gave us not wearing masks, and maybe gave us a huge unpleasant amount of overt racism.”[53]
I just didn’t want to make it bulky, so tried to bring in the core statement. My thought was that for more details, the Wikipedia link is right there.
I understand the sentiment, but so many people never click on the link.
What a great read, thanks!
Big L, not little l. Big L is the party, little l can vary wildly, even starting out along the lines of anti-state socialists / social anarchists.
Like so many things, the modern right in the US has polluted the meaning.
For example, left libertarians will support redistribution of resources, support of green policies, and is strongly anti-war.
The Libertarian Party is just maga that… Well some of them think smoking weed is fine. And they dont want to pay taxes.
Universal healthcare, universal education to a collegiate level, and UBI replacing most/all welfare results in much less government interference/involvement and results in the greatest individual freedom via geographical/socioeconomic/employment mobility.
It’s also not incompatible with capitalism, and in fact the increased mobility will spur more entrepreneurialism.
I asked a CA Libertarian senate candidate where she stands on us left libertarians?
she said left libertarians don’t exist.
US is doomed.
So taxes?
Well, under a Libertarian model, t*xes are a dirty word.
It’s “unfair” that you should have to help support public services that you might need someday, so it’s better to push the full burden of cost on the specific people who need it at any given moment.
Insurance is fine though, which is basically privatized taxes. There’d probably be cop and bear insurance plans available in a perfect Libertarian world, so those with good foresight and the means to afford them wouldn’t have to worry about having to pay to have their life saved.
As long as, you know, the situation also doesn’t include the following criteria:
-
Only 1-3 bullets are covered by the plan, after which the policy holder is responsible for the full cost of any subsequent bullets used.
-
The policy covers the services of [1] officer at standard working rate. Additional cost due to surge pricing rates will be covered by the policy holder. One additional officer will be covered by the policy at a rate of 50%, with the remaining 50% covered by the policy holder. Any additional officer fees are the full responsibility of the policy holder to cover.
-
Bear disposal is covered in full by the policy, for bears up to 200kg. For bears greater than 200kg, the policy will pay 20% per additional pound up to 50lbs, after which the policy holder pays a flat rate of $50 per additional stone of bear.
-
The policy does not cover bear- or officer-related damages to your person.
The criticism of taxes is based on the idea that you, an individual should not be expected to pay taxes by force. Corporations, trade goods, products should be taxed and enforced, but tell a person "you have no choice and no option and there are serious legal troubles (fines, garnishments, jail time, etc…) is not just because you’re given no other option. The individual person is being forced to pay taxes because they were born in a certain region of the world?
Now let’s be pragmatic; it would take a lot of work, time, and money to change a taxing standard. However it is not right to force each head in a country to pay taxes.
Edit: Also even as a libertarian, I think most insurance is bullshit lol
The individual person is being forced to pay taxes because they were born in a certain region of the world?
I’m actually not seeing what’s weird about it. They are using and benefiting from the infrastructure that is paid for by those taxes, and pooling the resources this way allows the whole community you benefit in ways that can’t be done otherwise. The extension of this is that if you are able to pitch in but don’t then you’re essentially “stealing” from the rest of the population.
I’m not well versed in the subtleties of a libertarian system; in a libertarian community, what’s done with people who try to benefit from what others are doing without pitching in?
I’m not well versed in the subtleties of a libertarian system
That’s because no such system has ever worked for more than a few months. In the few attempts that have occurred, there’s no way to prevent tragedy of the commons type situations and everything quickly goes to shit. They either end up reinventing taxes or getting overrun with bears.
I’m having an “akshually” moment here. For what it’s worth, the Tragedy of the Commons refers to over-exploitation of material resources that are held in common by a community, like public grazing land in Hardin’s famous essay. That can’t happen in a libertarian system, because there wouldn’t be any commons; all of the land would be privately-owned.
The closely-related concept that plagues libertarian systems is the Free-Rider Problem, which refers to people not paying the cost of a public good, which is defined as one that is non-excludable (can’t stop people from using it), and non-rivalrous (use or benefit by one person doesn’t prevent use or benefit to anybody else). A classic example of a public good is a lighthouse. Any ship can use a lighthouse, even those that don’t help pay for its maintenance. The incentive is not to pay, so public goods are the things that every successful society has to re-invent taxes to pay for.
“Akshually” away! That was well written and informative. :)
Well, under a Libertarian model, t*xes are a dirty word.
I identify as some sort of a libertarian. My idea of the ideology is that taxes are gathered to fund essential services that cannot be resourced in better ways. Just about everybody who’s not insane or an asshole agrees that police, military, judicial system, assistance for less fortunate, some infrastructure (edit: + emergency services like fire brigades and I’m sure I forgot something else too) are part of that, while schooling, healthcare and certain natural monopolies are sometimes debated depending on how strict of a libertarian you are. Personally, I side on thinking that schools and natural monopolies should be publically owned and funded, whereas for healthcare I would model the system based on Switzerland’s, which is mostly privatized but works a lot better than USA’s.
Debt can be used to fund profitable investments (usually infrastructure and other one-time up-front investments like school buildings), not for upkeeping existing financial structures.
Things beyond those sectors probably should not be funded by taxes. Funding for housing, culture, private sector tax breaks/direct support, and sports (outside of youth sports possibly) are examples of some of such things. In fact, if you do fund other things by taxes, you’re essentially stealing resources from those essential services. Sometimes I wonder why so many people don’t seem to realize this.
Housing and healthcare are essential for survival. If anyone doesn’t get those things because they can’t afford them, while others have far more than they need, that’s cruel and unjust. You should include both of them under “assistance for less fortunate”.
Schools have more benefits than I can list here. It’s absurd to not fund them.
Culture attracts people to spend money in your city, which benefits business owners and many laborers, and generates a lot of tax revenue. Usually that brings in a lot more money than it costs, and that turns into extra money for essential services, instead of taking away from them. Sports can fall into this category as well, but those have gotten out of hand lately and sort of turned into a dick measuring contest between different cities.
I’m mostly with you on tax breaks, though. They’re supposed to incentivise corporations to create jobs in your city instead of somewhere else, which should have a good ROI, but in practice it’s almost inherently corrupt.
-
Every time you help another person, a demon jabs Milton Friedman with a pitchfork.
Causing him to take a massive shit into Ayn Rand’s forced-open mouth.
Libertarians help people. They just want to do it consciously by their own volition.
Yes, that’s how helping people works.
Not sure where the controversy here is.
The controversy begins with Ayn Rand saying altruism is evil and ends with people like you who think help is something that can be forced and that it’s still help when it’s forced.
It’s like I’m happier when the people around me are happy. If you don’t tread on me, I won’t tread on you.
People often are not happy if they live in poverty. The libertarian solution to that is essentially “stop being poor.”
And it works! It does require not shitting on the education systems and getting many other things right. But directly helping poor people clearly doesn’t work in any real way in making them not poor.
Except it doesn’t because you can’t just “stop being poor” and if you’re living in poverty, you don’t have the bootstraps to pull yourself up with.
Which is why almost all of the richest people in America grew up at least middle class. Most grew up wealthy.
I’m pretty sure studies have shown that just giving people money is very effective at ending poverty.
My common sense and Milton Friedman liturgies also say that basic income/negative tax would work, but then there are results like this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-basic-income-study-results-2024-7
I wonder if all or most studies show that basic income works or just that some selected ones did? But I don’t mind being wrong about this, I like basic income as an idea. I just had the understanding that it doesn’t work in practice.
That study looks like it had positive outcomes
Archive link https://archive.is/xfCMm
Recipients had greater agency to make decisions that worked best for their lives and to prepare for the future, from moving neighborhoods to expressing interest in new business ventures," the report’s authors said.
OK this one startled an actual Eda Krabappel-style “Ha!” out of me, thank you
I hate to nitpick but technically libertarians (especially small l, but even big L, which are different, and you used small l), are fine with helping people and mutual aid and altruism. What they have problems with is that being compulsory. They think that if you want to go help say the homeless or single mothers or animals or whatever your prerogative is, you should willingly donate your money to the cause if you have the money to spare and the will to share, but you should not be able to use the government to point a gun at some other guy to force him donate to your pet cause (i.e their view of taxes.)
I mean, there are certainly things to be said about that as well, some people believe helping others should be compulsory for example, and some things become a lot harder to organize without taxes, but it’s helpful to at least understand the actual argument of your opponent and argue against it coherently instead of pushing strawmen that make it seem as if you don’t entirely grasp their argument. A better example would be “any time taxes help someone a libertarian dies” for instance in this case.
So a three year old who crosses their arms, yells no, and falls to the floor.
I’ve never met anyone who called themselves a libertarian and also acted altruistically.
Just my anecdote.
I don’t get why people are so afraid of Libertarians when it comes to social philosophies. Leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone. You want me to do something I don’t want to do, pay me. Weird how Libertarians get criticized for that when literally everyone has had that mindset with one thing or another in their life
Because Libertarians only ideology is selfishness. They refuse to understand basic concepts that even anarchists and libertarians well understand and acknowledge. Like the fact that sometimes systems need exist. But no matter how well a system it’s designed. It cannot be perfectly equitable, and still requires intervention. Or that the non-aggression principle is nothing but a thought terminating cliche
I think you meant “non-libertarians” in that second sentence, and how is that any different from the systems in place now?
No there was a difference. It’s subtle. But it is there. Libertarians with the capital L is a noun. Whereas libertarian with a lowercase l is an adjective. Nouns and adjectives are different. Nouns can be applied to places things and people. Whereas adjectives are generally descriptive of those places things and people.
So it is entirely possible for someone to call themselves Libertarian but not be libertarian. If I named my dog Communism, would my dog be communist? Libertarians rely on this ambiguation as a cover for their true beliefs. And to hear and destroy the reputation of their enemies. People who are actually libertarian.
You used libertarians as a noun, though.
Nouns are capitalized wherever they appear in a sentence. I used it as an adjective applied to a group of people who espouse actual libertarian values.
I meant your sentence “…even anarchists and libertarians well understand and acknowledge.”
That’s using it as a noun. Not all nouns are capitalized in English.
Unless you’re German or several hundred years old, no, nouns are not capitalized. If you wanna use grammar as part of a political debate, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to begin with, at least make sure to know what you’re talking about.
I did detect a bit of sarcasm due to my misunderstanding of context. So my bad, but let’s try to refrain from that. I’m not going to be sarcastic with you, but I digress…
Do you have an argument for what else I said?
No, no sarcasm intended. My apologies if it came off that way.
Like anarchists, libertarian minded people believe in equity. And will fight for everyone to have it. Not just themselves. Libertarians will claim they value equity. But wouldn’t lift a finger to ensure others had it.
I’m probably a bad libertarian then, but libertarian none-the-less
Realistically gate keeping libertarianism is very anti libertarian. Just as belonging to a group such as the Libertarian party. With the goal of forcing your ideals onto others is also very anti libertarian. But if you support ensuring equity for all. Even if you disagree on how. You can still be libertarian.
I suspect they’re making a distinction between big L Libertarians (i.e. an-caps) and small l libertarians (i.e. mid-19th century left wing libertarians).
Indubitably
Thank you. It did take them explaining it to me since context is difficult in text
I would have a lot more respect for Libertarians if they took fascism as seriously as the left does. They should be MORE passionately anti-Republican.
In my experience most of them don’t care about personal rights if it doesn’t impact them personally.
Libertarians in my experience are those particular conservatives that are unable to form social bonds with other humans.
I’ll be honest, most of the Libertarians I’ve met have a twinge of morality. So they call themselves Libertarians so they can support Republicans while not feeling guilty about it (since they disagree with both sides).
They also do tend to be the cliche inexperienced college kid of the Republican party that is overconfident in their niche political views.
This tracks my brother lol
I totally feel you, friend. Right-libertarians are typically the ones that are rich and try to play the game so they can get richer. Left-libertarians do support social systems and will participate in said systems. However, (and I have no ulterior motives using these words) left-libertarians just want the freedom and independence to choose and not have it forced on them
I do understand that the concept of financial Libertarianism is funding social programs through choice (charity) instead of by force (policy). National security, bare necessities, nothing else. I disagree with it, but I understand it.
Aside from that though, I’ve seen a lot of regulation policy that Libertarians should be for. Like in regards to climate change. Destroying the environment should upset Libertarians, since it’s hurting others.
In my red state, we had a real Libertarian running for governor and their positions were nearly identical to the Dem. Progressives and Libertarians should be making their voice heard in the primaries and then doing everything they can to stop Republicans (assuming they share values with the rest of the party). I don’t respect either if they don’t at least do that.
The biggest issue I see with the party itself is the divide between left and right leaning. The party itself can’t agree on how the party should respond which means that the party won’t be taken seriously by Republicans or Democrats
The big difference is economic, not social. The left has a larger overlap with Libertarian social liberties than the right. It’s the concept of economic responsibility to support the most vulnerable members of society that really differentiates the left from Libertarians.
deleted by creator
Trust me. I hate rich Libertarians. They’re the problem with it. However, I do believe there’s also been political propaganda against Libertariansm
Leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone.
Translator: Please go starve elsewhere
Weird how Libertarians get criticized for that when literally everyone has had that mindset with one thing or another in their life
Just because we’ve all been selfish and shortsighted doesn’t make it ok for adults to act like spoiled children every time they have to pay their fair share for living in a civilized society.
people are so afraid of Libertarians when it comes to social philosophies
It’s not fear, it’s exasperation.
It’s really sad that you think. How many Libertarians have you ever spoken to in person?
It’s really sad that you think.
Yeah, libertarians tend to be against that sort of thing 😄
How many Libertarians have you ever spoken to in person?
Too many.
I meant to say “It’s sad you think that.” I didn’t mean to make it seem like you don’t think. I’m sure you’re a very intelligent person. Sorry about that. And not being sarcastic
I know. I was being a deliberately glib smartass. For which I refuse to apologize 😁
Fair enough
Their policies lead to bad outcomes. “We don’t need a fire department and I’m not paying for it” -> “oh shit our houses all burned down”.
It also tends to come off as deeply anti social, and not everyone is that way.
Your anti social statement is very fair lol.
However what I was trying to say is not necessarily “we don’t need a fire department” but moreso "the individual citizen shouldn’t be paying for the fire department with their income. Nearly 55% of US citizens make less than $50k a year and the average income per household (in the previous percentage) is around $35k. So why should the individual spend their little bit of hard earned money on taxes when everything else is getting taxed as well?
That sounds like you change the existing progressive taxation system so the first chunk of income isn’t taxed at all. That’s not really a huge change
https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
I think there should be more, harsher, brackets as you go up.
I also think we should probably tax unrealized gains. Or do something about like “I get a loan against untaxed assets” stuff that let the rich enjoy their wealth without paying for it.
But even all of that aside: People should pay their taxes because they benefit from it! Everyone benefits from functional fire departments! And libraries, and roads, and buses, and so on! And since taxes are percentage, the poor people are typically paying less already. (The part where some rich don’t technically have “income” should be patched)
I have a little more sympathy for people who are making 50k/year that feel like their tax burden is too high. But people making $200k/year can fuck off about that.
(Also I think a lot of the squeeze now is from rent and food costs being unchecked)
I don’t think you’re wrong. I think how the taxes are allocated is wrong. If anything has been learned by the recent history is pennies are going to infrastructure and social systems including the VA and education. But instead, that money is used to grease hands, line pockets, corporate bailouts, make guns for other countries, the dod, and instigating conflicts. Why should the individual citizen pay for those things? There’s 650,000 people experiencing homelessness a night, but the government can afford a $2 trillion defense budget. Each congress member gets an income of $174,000, governors get $150,000, and the president gets $400,000 and gets to rent the most popular house in the country for 4-8 years depending on how nice they talk to us.
So yes. The individual US citizen shouldn’t have to pay for that shit
I mean, there’s definitely inefficiencies and outright corruption, but I don’t think they justify a switch to full on libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism or whatever. Those policies definitely will not invest in public infrastructure or education.
In an unchecked anarcho-capitalist market, the economically disadvantaged are even more fucked. No social safety nets, no regulation on companies price fixing, monopolizing, etc. So using taxes as some scary Boogeyman just doesn’t make any sense. A strong welfare state is so much better for the little guy.
