Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey You Libertarians! Get Off My Blog. (302 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What do you think about policies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, David Kroning

    regarding economic parity? I have a friend who's a Ron Paul supporter and his basic philosophy is "don't mess with my stuff." Mine is "I've got a little extra, here you go."

    "Flanders, you su-diddley-uck." -Homer Simpson

    by NMDad on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM PDT

    •  I like your statement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VA Classical Liberal

      I've got a little extra, here you go.  That's a very libertarian approach, it's your choice.  Of course, the other approach is for me to decide that you've got a little extra and send the tax man to take it.

      •  Yep (6+ / 0-)

        And they have a party for that. It's called the Republicans.

        Jesus. Where are all my fellow Soak The Evil Fucking Rich people in the Dem party nowadays? Jesus. I may have to start voting Socialist if this place gets any more "libertarian".

        Remember: if it's close, they'll steal it.

        by ChurchofBruce on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:39:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  this (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kingubu, Balam, Alec82, NMDad

        leads to a debate over progressive taxation, and the implication that it somehow isn't fair to make those who benefit most from society pay most for it to keep functioning.  

        I'd rather take away someone's ability to afford a luxury if it means someone else gets to afford a necessity.  

        •  But the problem is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VA Classical Liberal

          When you shift from saying, "We should all kick-in to help out less fortunate" to "I'd rather take away someone's ability to afford a luxury", you are no longer giving of your own assets, but instead deciding you get to choose what is the proper amount of assets that someone else should retain.

          And as far as who benefits most from society, I doubt that the rich benefit hundreds of times more from the roads and fire departments than I do.  They certainly pay many many times my taxes.

          I do think proportial taxation is fair, but when it becomes so disproportional that one class of people is simply voting themselves shares of another class's assets it is no longer shared.

    •  William nailed it. (0+ / 0-)

      If you have more than you need, donate it where you think it will do the most good.  That's what I do.

      I often ask right-wing friends, "Why do you need the government to do that?"  Like in school prayer.  Why do you need the government to make your kids pray?

      Same thing here.  If people weren't taxes so heavily, they'd have more to donate to the causes they support.

      I object to the idea that we should suck a bunch of money into Washington (and lose about 40% to overhead in the process), then run it through congressional budget cycles and give it to lobbyists and then dole it back out local charities.

      It might make the politcians feel like do-gooders, but it's inefficient, prone to abuse and robs me of the opportunity to do the good I want to do.

      Results count for more than intentions do.

      by VA Classical Liberal on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:38:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you can only do good... (7+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marie, Pd, AnnCetera, slksfca, Balam, BoiseBlue, TNThorpe

        ...if you can stroke your ego in the process?

        Nice.

        The idea that you don't owe something to the state and society is gibberish. Without the state, without society, without the past contributions of both, you'd be a naked savage whining in a field of mud, not a golden Ubermensch shining on a mountaintop.

        •  What the hell are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

          Who said anything about stroke my ego?

          I do what I consider good for a lot of different reasons.

          I'm a religous platlette donnor and spend 2 hours twice a month bleeding into a machine for no more reward than the memory of a good friend and a package of Oreos.

          Please read what I wrote before you write something like that.

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:38:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But the causes they support (9+ / 0-)

        Aren't necessarily the causes that make society (and your precious markets) run smoothly. The interstate system is a perfect example. Who the hell would "give" money to the interstate system? Nobody. It would all go to save kittens or something sexy like that. But if our transportation infrastructure crumbled than we'd be up a creek without a paddle. The transportation of commodities to markets would become difficult if not impossible and all the fringe benefits from the free-flow of goods and services would be lost.

        And the idea that the rich would donate money to charity in an amount even close to what they pay in taxes is, shall we say, rather optimistic.

        •  No kidding... (8+ / 0-)

          "If you have more than you need, donate it where you think it will do the most good."

          How do you define "more than you need?"

          I know some people who are pretty darn well off, and who define themselves by their possessions, who think they don't have more than they need.

          "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker

          by AnnCetera on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:55:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why I consider myself a moderate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VA Classical Liberal

          I think we need to contribute to a common infrastructure.  But free money is a terribly addictive substance.  It's very easy to decide that you know what's best for your fellow man -- and which of your friends should get big contracts to supply it.

          I will say, that while I appreciate the concept of us all contributing -- according to our means -- to provide the common infrastructure, once you start saying "take his money and give it to me", I find less moral clarity.  Often times programs are proposed to be paid for by the top 1%.  I'm much more comfortable with all of us giving something, even with progressive rates.  The idea that we vote ourselves someone else's money doesn't sit well.

          I'm not sure of the numbers, but I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are contributing more than taxes would take.

      •  BS (6+ / 0-)

        What in the world makes you think that if people pay fewer taxes, they donate more? Linky? Evidence? Or just something that, in your mind, makes sense?

        We've had great fucking tax cuts lately. How's everyone doing?

        The vote is "Basic Democracy #1". YOU must preserve it. -edscan

        by BoiseBlue on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:03:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site