Flawed Libertarianism

If you bothered to read the stated position of the Libertarian Party, which pretty closely reflects the general attitude of most libertarians, then you would see that the opposite is true. It appears the part you are hung up on is that the libertarian position is that each person has the right to the fruits of her or his own efforts. So what?
Again this is merely your opinion and is not based on anything else. Please quote a factual issue so that it can be properly addressed.

Please state the information you used to form this personal opinion.

Absolutely false. You would have to actually read and be able to comprehend the libertarian position on taxes in order to properly understand it, but here is the official position rgarding taxes:
"ll persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes."
From the Libertarian Party platform found at the link above. Keep in mind that the Libertarian Party is not the final word regarding libertarianism, as it is a political organization, however, it is a good quick reference point for people who are unwilling or unable to read up on this sort of issue in any competent manner.

Grow up.

You mean like it is now?
**

Given that under the current system, the common people pay out about 55% of what they earn in one form of tax or another, who is carrying your sack of potatoes?
http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html
http://www.gold-eagle.com/article/how-many-taxes-do-you-really-pay
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html

Innuendo to support your arguments?
So, how about some facts from you to support your claims for once?

 

It has? How do we know this?

 

But I already have previously. There would be little or no funds at the federal level for welfare. The libertarian view is that help should be available at the local levels, and preferably through NGO non-profits, churches, etc. and families. As I remember it being explained to me, the more liberty one gets, the more they have to rely on themselves. Right or wrong depending on ones point of view, that is the libertarian view.
Also, as I remember it being explained to me, it is not like all the programs libertarians espouse would happen over night. Obviously if they kicked the huge amount of people already in social programs off to fend for themselves, there would be a huge uprising, and rightly so. I think it would take decades to wean people off them, just as it has taken decades to build them up.

My opinion closely follows the libertarian view on this matter. People are proving over and over again today that these types of support systems are not that difficult to put together. Look at intentional communities. In a lot of them, the people in them live as they do for just the reason we are talking about here, helping each other to exist. Granted, some of them are just money making schemes, but not many that I have found, and I have looked into it for years, as this was one of our goals, to get one going with other people who wanted to work together for mutual support. Some of them, the ones in existence for a while, like Twin Oaks, have their own health insurance programs.

 

@MeAgain:

Some of this will have to come from memory since most of my old notes are packed away. I can only give you the short versions, and some links for further reading if anyone is interested. There is only so much that can come through a forum like this, without overloading that system. What has to be remembered here is that a libertarian government would have to adhere to the constitution, just like our various other administrations are supposed to be doing themselves. The laws in it pertain to the federal government, and is what it is supposed to operate under. It tells the government what it is allowed to do, and limits certain aspects of government. What the libertarians propose is to work under and within constitutional limits and downsize all government programs, or privatize them. Privatization is preferred.
A libertarian government would be expected to carry on the duties described in that document in accordance with the manner set forth in it.

Also, I will try to answer the questions presented here the best I can, with data to back them up if I am able. I do have a life though and much of this information is available for anyone wanting to look at it and I don't have a lot of time right now as we are getting the farm ready for winter.

No one said there will not be government and laws. There would be limited government and limited laws. As I remember it, what was discussed would be a much streamlined judicial system, and the changes in laws would revolve around the abrogation of another individuals rights. The use of private arbitrators fits in there somehow. Also, if I remember correctly, the government courts would act more in a reviewing capacity/appeals/final arbiter sort of thing. How exactly that system would be implemented I have no idea. The constitution provides for the establishment of courts, and it would have to be done in accordance with it.
This link: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp
Explains it much better than I ever could.
This one: http://duncanwhitmore.com/2014/07/12/libertarian-law-and-legal-systems-part-five-property-rights-trusts-unjust-enrichment-and-other-considerations/
Also provides some insights.

From memory again:
The constitution provides for “duties, imposts, and excises” all taxes pertaining to trade activities. You would only pay a tax if you bought something. The more you buy, the more you pay, obviously. There would be no income tax or other similar tax that is not in accordance with the taxing mandates in the constitution.

Memory again: Police forces are not authorized in the constitution in regards to the federal government, and are left to the states to administer those areas. The quote refers to the “initiation of physical force against others” and refers to the libertarian non aggression principle which states: states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.
In regards to your question, as I remember this issue, there would still be police, operating under state or local laws as now, but tighter restrictions would be put on them regarding the use of force against others. I have no quotes on this issue, but I will try to find what I have in my notes. No public official would be allowed to initiate force against another, and so police officers could only use it in the course of restraining a violent person, that being considered as a defensive act for the protection of others.

The quote and your question are actually two different things. Libertarians do not oppose the military, just how it is used. Military secrets necessary for the actual defense of the nation would not be available to persons having no need of them, as in the general public. The quote refers to the right of individuals to freedom of speech, etc., and government censorship. The conversations I remember having in regards to those issues were along the lines of:
“If the there is no censorship, then people can put up all the obscene material they want and no one could do anything about it.”
That would really not be true, since most property would be privately owned the owner would have recourse to the legal system to stop that activity, if they wanted to. Keep in mind that the libertarian legal system would be concerned with actual harm, and the plaintiff would have to show how he was harmed by the graffiti and convince the court of it. Not really different from the way it is now.

n regards to highway systems, the proposal is thus:
“Libertarians will progressively privatize streets and highways. Acknowledging that state law often restricts private ownership of roads, Libertarians urge that a policy of selling streets and highways be adopted where possible. For communities large and small this can at first mean merely extending the routine process of street "abandonments" (conversions to private use) to cover petitions for ownership by private individuals and neighborhood associations. Lanes of major urban roadways can be sold, even if the entire highway is not; bus companies might purchase exclusive lanes for express transit. To encourage the process, tax cuts should be made available to those who assume maintenance of their own roads. Local governments should insist that roadways in new subdivisions remain the responsibility of subdivision owners, with tax cuts applying here, too. Rural townships can start paring at the edges of their road networks by speeding the process of abandonment to farmers and other landowners. Where government easements are maintained, they can be auctioned or sold directly to the landowners involved.
How paratransit, bus, rail, and the private automobile will ultimately sort out their comparative advantages in consumers' eyes is highly dependent upon what local government does about the last crucial element in community transportation: roads. If private use of public streets is deregulated, but streets themselves remain subsidized by tax revenues (either general or coercively-imposed "user charges"), then the modes which use roads more efficiently will probably continue to operate at less than full potential. Autos and paratransit would tend to carry traffic which would be attracted to buses were road users to pay direct prices; buses will be denying rail transit ridership which rail might attract were highway usage directly priced.
We should expect the actual total costs of providing highways and streets to decline as political costs are factored out by private ownership. Thus we would look for driving, overall, to increase as it became less expensive--and this might occur. But privatization will not necessarily result in greater highway usage, particularly if highway users pay highway costs in direct prices rather than in general, "hidden" tax levies. It is because the perceived cost of highway use is so low that drivers presently crowd urban highways to the breaking point.
We need not assume, however, that toll booths will be the norm on free market roads. Other viable road-pricing technologies from meters to electronic sensors to colored license plates have been demonstrated.28 And one may question the assumption that driving activity will be priced at all, everywhere. It is the State--not individuals on the free market--which insists that everyone must pay for every benefit he or she receives. Do shopping centers and hotel complexes, for instance, charge prices for the privilege of strolling through air-conditioned, carpeted malls? Do they even inquire of passersby whether or not they are there to shop? No. Use of shopping mall thoroughfares is given away free in the hope that attractive, convenient access will improve the fortunes of the businessmen who line the indoor "street." (A Fort Worth, Texas department store even provides a trolley subway from a fringe parking lot to its downtown location. The ride is provided free to all, be they shoppers or commuters.29) Similarly, commercial and neighborhood associations can own and maintain their streets for their own benefit, as is done with residential streets in St. Louis.30 Private road entrepreneurs could
sell driveway access to property owners fronting on a road. Whether such revenue sources will prove sufficient to maintain roads in the fashion desired by the market is an open question, but in general we may conclude that where the costs of pricing drivers directly exceed the revenues of such activity, driving will be "free."
Community transportation is inextricably bound up with the complexities of land use, energy, technology, time values, and other socioeconomic factors. It is more than merely presumptuous to suggest, as a top regional transportation planner recently did, that "there will be no more new ideas."31 Government can embalm the technology of 1888 and 1914, but a free market in community transportation promises dramatic innovation and progress. Ultimately it is inadequate to describe free market benefits in terms of present technology alone, though much beneficial innovation in community transportation is already in sight.”
Found here:http://www.amatecon.com/etext/lpls/lpls-ch7.html
I think it is a fair representation of the libertarian proposal.
Another view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads

No, there would be no eminent domain. Libertarians consider this a taking of someones property, regardless of whether compensation is given or not.
A little info on that and property issues can be found here:https://alibertarianperspective.wordpress.com/tag/eminent-domain/
The rest of your questions here are in regard to damage to one individual by another, and so would be a question for a court to answer, as in if there was actual damage. Pollution would be a damage to another persons property, complaints about how someone else is using their property in relation to theirs would result in a damage claim and the plaintiff would have to prove the damage in courts. Dams and the like would be private endeavors, the land they are located on would have to be bought. Those downstream may sue in court to stop it if they feel it would damage their land in some way.
Flood control projects would be a state issue, and if the state was a libertarian one, would probably take shape as an association of individuals or similar.
That last bit is my own opinion as I have not come across any info in direct relation to it, or had any conversations with others on it.

ree Markets. To survive and to flourish, individuals need to engage in economic activity. The right to property entails the right to exchange property by mutual agreement. Free markets are the economic system of free individuals, and they are necessary to create wealth. Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people’s economic choices is minimized.
(The above found here: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism )
The thought is that there would be no need of any government regulation as the transactions would be between two private parties. If one of them think he was damaged in some manner by the other party then his recourse is the same as it is now, the court system.
These kind of activities happen regardless of regulation or not, so regulation is no hindrance to them. The private parties could make up any sort of rules they want to deal with others by, and the other party can agree to it or not. There would be no government regulations.

 

@MeAgain

I don't know what my wanting facts has to do with the rest of your statement here, but to answer this I can only say that it does not work very well right now either. As I have stated many times, we are talking about things that do not exist, and so we have no way of knowing if they would work or not. In this case, the way the governments deal with the poor right now does not work. Libertarians are offering a different idea that may work. We can know what doesn't work, but while ideas are still in the idea stage, it is all just speculation. In my opinion, it would be a better system than the bloated system we have now. I have always wondered how much is spent on the system, and how much actually makes it to the needy, but have little time to pursue it.

Trying to remember past conversations of 15 years or so ago, the process would be something like keeping the existing welfare system going, implement some sort of "back to work program" to try to get as many people working as possible, and slowly dissolve the welfare system.
There is no good answer to eliminate poverty, obviously, since so much of it depends on an individuals situation. There is also no good way to describe what causes poverty, since the mechanisms that bring different people to it are not the same in all cases. I, personally have no ideas myself, being mostly concerned with my own immediate family. In regards to poverty, our approach in our family is to take care of each other. I realize that only works if you have a family, and not all families could do the same.
In regards to disabled people unable to work, the only libertarian view on that point returns to the non-profit and local government scenario. If there is any specific libertarian explanations of how to do that, I don't remember anything specific, but if I find something while going through my old notes I will pass it on through this thread.

Twin Oaks Community: http://www.twinoakscommunity.org/

One point I want to make in regards to poverty, and I touched on it briefly in another post, but the poverty line is not necessarily indicative of a persons ability to have a comfortable and decent living. It is a line created by the government and I believe is nothing more than a tool that can be used to raise or lower income for various government programs. The current level amounts to 1310.83 per month. Taking into account how we live, my wife and I have proven to ourselves that we can get by on 900.00 per month, which is well below the current poverty level, and not change our current lifestyle at all. The thing is, it does involves work, which some may not be able to do.

How many of those people are showing their income as below poverty level, yet have other family members or friends living with them, contributing to the common welfare, but don't show that as household income? It would make a big difference if it was known in regards to the data. Some peoples prefer to have multiple family members living with them, but only one member or family puts their name on the lease, pays the bills, etc., and only show their income when applying for aid, which is then shared with the others through the communal living arrangements.
This type of scenario is a valid concern, as it scams the system and diverts those funds that could go to someone really needing them. This is also a way to reduce the number of people on assistance. Not too long ago, rural families shared and worked land for most of their support, it is possible to do that in a lot of cases. I really don't understand why more don't, as I have always seen it as a sensible way to insure the whole family against monetary troubles, health troubles, accidents, etc. Intentional communities, like Twin Oaks but not necessarily a commune like they are, are a great way to reduce poverty. It is hard at the startup what with building costs and all, but with all the people working together, it would make it much easier on each individual. If I remember correctly, the work day at Twin Oaks and their affiliates is only 6 hours and I don't think they are lacking in much, if anything they may want.

 

A twisted take on the issue, but if that is how you interpret it. I did actually comment on the court issue: "Also, if I remember correctly, the government courts would act more in a reviewing capacity/appeals/final arbiter sort of thing."
Sorry, if you were thinking I was going to lay out some great plan in fine detail, you were mistaken. I made a point of stating that some of my info comes from old notes.
If you are looking for something more, try some research on your own.

 

Taxes have to be in the form of duties, excises, and imposts. The so called income tax is not a tax on the actual income, but a tax on the activity that produces it.

U.S. Supreme Court

EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

252 U.S. 189 ​

EISNER, Internal Revenue Collector,
v.
MACOMBER.
No. 318.

Argued April 16, 1919 ​

"The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted."
"As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 , 112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 , 173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432. "
"In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."
"
After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).
Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. "


U.S. Supreme Court

DAWSON v. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES & WAREHOUSE CO, 255 U.S. 288 (1921)

255 U.S. 288 ​

DAWSON, Atty. Gen. of Kentucky, et al.
v.
KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES & WAREHOUSE CO. ​

SAME
v.
J. & A. FREIBERG CO., Inc. ​

Nos. 439 and 582.
Argued Jan. 6, 1920.
Decided Feb. 28, 1921. ​

"The name by which the tax is described in the statute is, of course, immaterial. Its character must be determined by its incidents;"


U.S. Supreme Court

FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

220 U.S. 107 ​

​

It is unnecessary to enter upon an extended consideration of the technical meaning of the term 'excise.' It has [220 U.S. 107, 151] been the subject-matter of considerable discussion,-the terms duties, imposts, and excises are generally treated as embracing the indirect forms of taxation contemplated by the Constitution. As Mr. Chief Justice Fuller said in the Pollock Case, supra:
'Although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included under the words 'duties, imposts, and excises,' such a tax for more than one hundred years of national existence has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue.' [ 157 U.S. 557 .]
And in the same connection the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, in speaking of the words 'duties,' 'imposts,' and 'excises,' said:
'We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.'
Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680.

Yes, the constitution can be changed, but only in the proper manner, via a constitutional convention and not through legislation. And not willy nilly as so many people seem to think. The 16th amendment did not authorize any new tax, as the courts have stated, it only affected the manner in which duties, imposts, and excises, all indirect taxes laid on the activity of conducting various business activities were administered, and INCOME was to be the MEASURE of the indirect tax on the ACTIVITY of conducting business. The libertarians believe the current tax collection system in regards to the IRS is too bloated, improperly administered, and the list goes on. Suffice it to say that libertarians are not pushing for no taxes, as so many uninformed people seem to think.

This is what I stated in regards to your questions about taxation:
"From memory again:
The constitution provides for “duties, imposts, and excises” all taxes pertaining to trade activities. You would only pay a tax if you bought something. The more you buy, the more you pay, obviously. There would be no income tax or other similar tax that is not in accordance with the taxing mandates in the constitution."

I did not say I believed the income tax was unconstitutional. Please do not try to twist my words into something I have not said.

 

@meagain

As you clearly understand the issue about no national police force there is no need to pursue that with you. As for the National Guard, you never addressed that issue in your prior questions and, since that issue has twists and turns in interpretations of the law and the constitution, I am not interested in pursuing it here.

I would assume in the same manner as they are now, by superior officers, legislative edict, you know, the laws in the state that gives them their authority, just like now.

Speaking for myself, taking a hostage is a violent act, and the use of force to end the situation is most definitely a good idea. In regards to preemptive action, I have no specific data for police, but in regards to military action, a preemptive strike is not out of the question when over whelming evidence indicates an attack is imminent, so I would think the same reasoning would apply in police situations.
However, much as happens now, anytime police use force, especially deadly force, the officer using it would come under review to assure the actions taken were in accordance with the laws of the state. Just like now. Since the initiation of violence is an issue with libertarians, any review would probably include a fairly intense look to make sure the action was warranted in the circumstances, probably more intense than now, where the conservative-liberal law makers allow police some pretty free reign to do as they please.

Yes, we do. As I have also stated, I doubt there would be a huge change in how things are being done now, other than to bring the various operations into the libertarian perspective of things. The only thing the average Joe might see is a more mellow police presence.

 

Hard to say at this point since it is all speculation, right? At least the parents or agents of the child would be able to take immediate action without having to wait for a prosecuting attorney to decide if the case has merit or not, like has to happen now. In that instance, the prosecutors office budget has to be taken into account, and if there are not enough funds available to take on a questionable case, or the prosecutor for whatever reasons turns down the case, then the family and the victim are kicked to the curb, with no other recourse but to take the law into their hands, at their peril.
At least in the libertarian system immediate action could be taken, and if the victim won, then whatever assets the perp had could be taken to compensate the victim. It does not help the damage done after the fact, but at least it is something. In the current system, the perp goes to jail, and the victim gets to go home and try to cope with what happened to them.

 

What am I, a free legal reference service?
There are many instances of successful private roads on a small scale. Private developments generally keep control over their own roads, and the costs for upkeep are either spread around the land owners, in the case of homeowners, or added to the cost of business, in the case of business access roads.
Parking lots and the like are similar, they are private property owned by the business owner and you pay for the upkeep every time you buy something from them. So the idea is not without precedence. How it would work on a larger scale remains to be seen.

I don't know how current Nevada law works, but under the libertarian system you could do exactly what you describe, so long as you did not damage another in the process. Whether or not people would use it depends on the need, the cost, and how well you kept the road up for their use.

I am not aware of any laws that prohibit it, and they are all around us in the form of those private land owner associations, etc. I mentioned earlier, you just aren't really aware of them. City streets are really public property, you just pay for them through taxes, local improvement district assessments, and the like. The libertarians believe the same thing can be done through private ownership, and that the roads would be better as people would not use them if they were shitty. Whether this aspect of libertarianism would work or not, I have no idea, but it does seem to work on a small scale. I remember one residential development I worked in, we were driving an excavator with street pads on the paved road, which was private and owned by the homeowner association, and one gal came out and gave us a dressing down got her homeowners book out and showed us where their rules stated that no metal drive system where the metal touched the pavement was allowed, and we had to get a trailer and move the machine that way. It is common to drive them down most streets, but they were pretty serious about their roads.

I don't think there is anything holding you back other than current government regulations. By the time you got done with SEPA reviews, the permitting process, and all the other stumbling blocks, I am sure you would drop the whole thing. I doubt you would be able to build it over a public access, owned by a public agency, but maybe, if you wanted to go through with it.