Libertarian here means adherence to the nonaggression principle as a legal framework and an Austrian style (zero tax) economy. I don't mean to refer to the political party that loosely associates with the name.
Defenders of tax/inflation based economies never seem to try to justify the moral position of their aggressive policies. They assert that governments provide the maximum possible utility through the process of taxing civilians and spending that money on "public" goods on their behalf. Democracy (also called socialism or communism), they say, is the arbiter that keeps the system in balance and removes corruption.
Libertarians (also called anarchocapitalists or voluntaryists) do not claim that aggression is acceptable, even if there was a democratic vote backing the aggression. They assert that there are both direct and indirect economic damages caused by taxation and inflation. The free market (also called capitalism), we say, is the arbiter that keeps the system in balance and removes corruption.
A question for anyone defending tax/inflation based economies with democratic governments: Why are you paying for things you don't want?
Because I live in the real world where wealth is enabled by having enforceable contracts and the economic infrastructure that enables an economy to flourish.
Governments are essential to the above.
Taxes are essential to funding government.
Just because governments are almost always imperfect does not render them unnecessary.
Just as humans are almost always imperfect does not render them unnecessary.
Does it count as "defending tax/inflation based economies" if I am too chicken to stop paying taxes?
I agree with you that taxes are a scam, but recognizing that governments are thugs, I am not willing to stick my neck out so they can beat me. So I keep on paying their extortion.
Why am I paying for things I don't want? Because I have no illusions that I am able to effectively resist the violence of the state given my current skills and tools.
There is a secret third position on the far right of the chart, a post-libertarian strategy that I synthesized from @petertodd :
I will try to steelman Peter's argument: Civilians who are paying taxes to aggressive governments are justifiable targets of military action. Since they are able to defect or flee, anyone who remains economically useful to the supply chains of invading forces are accomplices (even if they are merely tax hostages of the same aggressor).
While it seems grim to slay the enemy's hostages, avenging friendly hostages that the aggressor has already slain and preventing them from slaying more friendly hostages in the future is the cost that is weighed against that.
After all, the worst violence the "rebel liberators" can threaten taxpayer hostages with is the same violence that the "national homeland" already threatens them with if they don't pay taxes.
The death of a prolific taxpayer will immediately trigger the imposition of an estate tax on their assets, which will result in the state collecting even more tax revenue than if the taxpayer had remained alive.
Also, it seems you've already dismissed this, but it must be said: killing hostages bad.
Death is inevitable. Cutting off the production of future tax revenue now is always preferable to cutting off the production of future tax revenue later.
I agree. Everything about war is bad, and it's even worse if you lose.
The big flip will occur when the burden of proof switches.
We currently, and erroneously, are required to demonstrate how everything would still work without initiatory violence before people accept that we can do without it.
Obviously, the burden should be on the violent interventionist to prove how their violent intervention will make everything better, before we permit it.
Show us an example of Libertarian ideology providing improved wealth ad security to any population anywhere in time and space.
S I L E N C E
It is a fantasy - nothing more - ignores reality of history and HUMAN NATURE.
The relationship between economic freedom and prosperity/quality of life is absurdly strong.
Just look at this map and think about how people live in the green places compared to the red ones.
Look at the most productive economy on the planet - China - it is highly autocratic but extremely successful in economic and power projection terms.
China has the refined rare earths- USA 'the land of the free' goes not.
Yet USA 'the land of the free' is responsible for most of the wars and deaths via state led aggression in the last 80 years.
The delusion of economic freedom in USA is built upon the oppression, coercion and imperialist subjugation of the most of the rest of the world.
Americans wealth and freedoms are built upon the subjugation and theft of people across the rest of the world. See history for the evidence.
I'm definitely low IQ, and believe taxes are a scam. With that being said, I think seeing all the government waste over the years both with my own eyes, and what I've read and watched - I can't look at the government the same way again.
Agreed with almost everything, taxes and inflation are theft, democracy doesn't make it moral, the NAP is a solid foundation... but the free market doesn't eliminate corruption, markets get captured, monopolies form, and corporate power can be as coercive as state power. That's why I'm a bitcoiner, I want to build an exit so I don't have to depend on anyone
How could a monopoly form in a free market?
The market doesn't tend toward competition, it tends toward power, no state needed.
Try to compete with network effects, economies of scale, lock-in, vertical integration, buying rivals, barriers to entry, regulatory capture, control of essential resources, first-mover advantage, cartels, predatory dumping, brand loyalty, control of distribution channels, proprietary standards, monopsony, talent absorption....
Once formed, a monopoly doesn't need an army, it just needs you to have nowhere to go
The historical basis for these claims is pretty weak and the equilibrium conditions of even mainstream economic models don't really support it either.
Monopolies have almost always been government granted arrangements and cartels are notoriously difficult to maintain. All the incentives are towards finding ways to enter these markets with elevated profits.
Many monopolies have been state-granted, but "almost always" doesn't hold up.
The state is one source of monopoly, not the only one, the market doesn't self-regulate, it concentrates.
So, not even the cherry-picked examples form the pattern you describe. I maintain my "almost always" position. Monopolies are hard to maintain because they create the conditions for their own demise: elevated profits. That is the self-correcting mechanism that you say doesn't exist.
You want unregulated nuclear power plants?
Electricity distribution along with railways and roads and online markets like Ebay are all natural monopolies or duopolies. They tend by their nature to favour the established player/s as the cost of entry is high or intrinsically limited.
The most efficient provision of roads, power distribution and rail lines is via one network within any geography. They do not allow easy entry to new competitors. Established players have an automatic advantage and can and do tend to squeeze out intending competitors due to scales of economy and market dynamics.
Also, regulatory capture and most barriers to entry are not market phenomena (at least not currently).
There are countervailing factors to scale, such that gains to increased scale are not always greater than the costs of increasing scale. Large corporations currently use the state to be larger than they otherwise could be.
The state isn't irrelevant, but it's not the origin of everything. The market concentrates power on its own, and when that power is big enough, it captures the state to consolidate. Your own argument confirms it: if big corporations use thestate to grow bigger, it's because they were already big before they used it
I rather prefere an-archy
Really not that many.
Uncomfortable truth is that most people are/become/collapse into libertarian beliefs when scratched
Says the welfare beneficiary from Iceland.
You can't even take care of and provide for yourself- you instead rely upon the violence and theft of the state to fund your existence.
Libertarians are Big talk No walk hypocrites.
Says the welfare beneficiary from Iceland.
You can't even take care of and provide for yourself- you instead rely upon the violence and theft of the state to fund your existence.
Libertarians are Big talk No walk hypocrites.
I happily pay taxes because they support my wealth and security.
They fund a liberal democratic government and rule of law, property rights and enforceable contracts which have been the building blocks of a civilised society and wealth and prosperity for as long as humans have formed groups.
Libertarians should all be airlifted immediately to Gaza and experience how lacking the embrace of a well funded, secure and capable government feels.
Let the first Libertarian practical trials be started immediately in Gaza.
Genghis Khan doesn't care about your non aggression principle
Nor does Genghis Khan care about your democracy.
I agree.
I pay taxes because they support my wealth and security.
They fund a liberal democratic government and rule of law, property rights and enforceable contracts which have been the building blocks of a civilised society and wealth and prosperity for as long as humans have formed groups.
Libertarians should all be airlifted immediately to Gaza and experience how lacking the embrace of a well funded, secure and capable government feels.
Let the first Libertarian practical trials be started immediately in Gaza.
Why are there no Libertarian governments/nations anywhere?
Because it is an absurdly naive ideology that does not work in the real world.
Most people believe in maximising individual freedoms where possible but most people also want the maximum possible wealth and security and Libertarian ideology cannot deliver that.
Humans are highly competitive apex predators who seek to extract the maximum wealth and resources from their own territory and that of others- this is literally the history of humanity.
Why are Libertarians almost completely fucking SILENT on the US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran?
Because Libertarians cannot deal with the reality of human nature and economies!