Some interesting things happened in the last couple of weeks, but I wasn't really able to comment on them greatly due to having been in Mexico. I'm back now, and I've got two topics in the pipeline I'm going to discuss:
1) The new Libertarian Party Presidential ticket, and
2) A recent rubbish statement by Mike Huckabee in this entry on the Huffington Post. I'm sure you'll be able to find which one I'm referring to.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Stand up to George Bush: Elect a Republican to Congress!
What in the world could bring me, a self-identified libertarian Democrat, to the point of advocating electing a Republican to Congress?
Two things.
First, a Republican like North Carolina's BJ Lawson.
For those who don't know Lawson already, he is arguably one of the most dynamic and exciting libertarian Republican candidates this year. With Jim Forsythe out of the race in New Hampshire, the list of Republican congressional candidates representing a new generation of libertarian politics is lead by BJ Lawson and Virginia's Amit Singh.
Second, there needs to be a Democratic incumbent who is failing to stand up for the district he is elected to represent. In North Carolina's 4th District, we have such a problem.
Ironically, a front page story at the liberal blog Daily Kos helps make the case.
The Associated Press has the details on a plan to move the nation's leading center for research into animal diseases from Plum Island to the heartland of America:
One of the five likely sites of the research facility is the town of Butner in Granville County, just outside of the 4th District and the Durham metropolitan area.
Here is where the incumbent in the race stands:
Here is BJ Lawson's view:
The AP article outlines a government simulations of a simulated foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Kansas:
Stand up to George Bush and his Department of Homeland Security, elect Republican BJ Lawson.
Two things.
First, a Republican like North Carolina's BJ Lawson.
For those who don't know Lawson already, he is arguably one of the most dynamic and exciting libertarian Republican candidates this year. With Jim Forsythe out of the race in New Hampshire, the list of Republican congressional candidates representing a new generation of libertarian politics is lead by BJ Lawson and Virginia's Amit Singh.
Second, there needs to be a Democratic incumbent who is failing to stand up for the district he is elected to represent. In North Carolina's 4th District, we have such a problem.
Ironically, a front page story at the liberal blog Daily Kos helps make the case.
The great minds in Bush's Homeland Security department came up with a doozie this year: let's move the facility where we study the most infectious and dangerous disease among livestock from the isolated island it's now on (accessible only by ferry or helicopter) and put it where there are lots of livestock operations. Brilliant!
The Associated Press has the details on a plan to move the nation's leading center for research into animal diseases from Plum Island to the heartland of America:
The only U.S. facility allowed to research the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease experienced several accidents with the feared virus, the Bush administration acknowledged Friday.
A 1978 release of the virus into cattle holding pens on Plum Island, N.Y., triggered new safety procedures. While that incident was previously known, the Homeland Security Department told a House committee there were other accidents inside the government's laboratory.
The accidents are significant because the administration is likely to move foot-and-mouth research from the remote island to one of five sites on the U.S. mainland near livestock herds. This has raised concerns about the risks of a catastrophic outbreak of the disease, which does not sicken humans but can devastate the livestock industry.
One of the five likely sites of the research facility is the town of Butner in Granville County, just outside of the 4th District and the Durham metropolitan area.
Here is where the incumbent in the race stands:
My current assessment is that the Granville County site would be a good location for the NBAF, and that our region of North Carolina would reap many economic and agricultural benefits from such a facility.
Here is BJ Lawson's view:
As a citizen, physician, and father, I strongly oppose NBAF in our backyard. Join me in opposing David Price, and opposing NBAF. As your Congressman, I will work for the people of the Fourth District by seeking to make our federal government smaller, not larger. I will work to preserve private property rights, and not encourage unaccountable environmental hazards in our backyards.
The AP article outlines a government simulations of a simulated foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Kansas:
A simulated outbreak of the disease in 2002 — part of an earlier U.S. government exercise called "Crimson Sky" — ended with fictional riots in the streets after the simulation's National Guardsmen were ordered to kill tens of millions of farm animals, so many that troops ran out of bullets. In the exercise, the government said it would have been forced to dig a ditch in Kansas 25 miles long to bury carcasses. In the simulation, protests broke out in some cities amid food shortages.
Stand up to George Bush and his Department of Homeland Security, elect Republican BJ Lawson.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Rhetorical genocide
Statists have managed to do one thing exceptionally well, much better than freedom fighters: public relations. Those who advocate annihilation of individual liberty have done an excellent job of convincing countless individuals that they are incapable of running their own lives, and thus need a benevolent overlord, the state, to accomplish the task for them.
The reason statists have done so well on the PR front has all to do with how they package their particular brand of state-slavery. When you boil down the rhetoric, the statist believes simply in enslaving the individual, subjecting him to the arbitrary whim of "majority rules," sacrificing him on the altar of democracy. The statist believes in forcing you - at the point of a gun - to live for everyone else, thereby sacrificing your individuality, talent and ability for the unearned, undeserved benefit of others.
Of course, few realize this, precisely because of the rhetoric itself. Statists have done such a great job of corrupting the English language that to question their Orwellian doublespeak is to invite ridicule and political reproach. Below, I've assembled some of my favorite leftist-statist terms and phrases, as well as some terms whose meanings have been completely changed by modern politics:
Fairness
Statists constantly push for "fair" legislation, especially in the realm of economics. We need to make the rich pay their "fair share" (which fairness, of course, is always in the form of more, not fewer, taxes), says the liberal. Prices should be set, by government, at a "fair" level for the consumer. The list goes on.
The word "fair" is not objective. It is purely subjective. What is fair to one man is injustice to another. But of course, the politician has in mind but one concept of fairness: his own. The politician can't get away with saying, "my way or the highway," but that is precisely what he means when he deems something fair (or unfair).
I personally believe that no taxation is fair, because taxation is inherently a violation of property rights. Therefore, any tax rate is, to me, unfair. On the opposite side, the totalitarian believes 100% taxation is fair - that the state should own everything, all property, all money, all means of production and labor. And there is every imaginable position in between (good example: the "Fair" Tax!). Who is to say whose definition should be used? Why, the politician, of course.
Let's say that politician proposes a 35% income tax rate on the rich. He calls that variation of legalized theft "fair." But why is 35% fairer than, say, 36%? Or 34%? Or 34.5732628%? It doesn't matter, because the ultimate figure, regardless, is arbitrary. It simply measures the degree to which we individuals are property of the state, and nothing more.
The only "fair" tax is no tax, because no man owes any other man a living.
Capitalism
The term "capitalism" has been especially corrupted. It is probably the greatest casualty of the rhetorical genocide employed by statists.
Let's be clear: America is NOT a capitalist country; it is a mixed-economy country. Ayn Rand properly defined "capitalism" as being inherently laissez-faire: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
Note that Rand defined capitalism as a "social" system. This is valid because Rand recognized the interdependency of rights and the economy. One cannot have a free economy if one is not free, and one cannot be free if his rights are not protected 100%.
Capitalism must be laissez-faire, because any infringement, even a minor one, conveys that man is subject (to how small a degree, it matters not) to the dictates of the state. If you're only robbed of 1% of your freedom, you are still robbed, and such suggests that you can be robbed of 5%, 10%, etc. (see above discussion on "fairness"). Once you concede that some of your rights may be destroyed, there is nothing to prevent all of them from being destroyed.
What we have in America is an unholy alliance between government and business, in the form of corporate welfare, subsidies, preferential tax treatment for corporations, privileges, and so forth. Government should neither aid nor inhibit businesses. A complete separation of economy and state would render our society capitalist. Until then, it is, as Rand eloquently put it, a mixture of freedom and controls.
Government "asking you" to do something
During the presidential primary this year, many Democratic candidates spoke of "asking" the American people to do a number of things, especially to pay more in taxes. This is statist-speak: phrasing force as request.
The government doesn't "ask" us to do anything, especially when it comes to paying taxes. If you don't believe me, try turning down that request. "Nah, I'd rather not pay taxes, but thanks for asking!" See how far that gets you.
The truth is, if you don't pay your taxes, you are arrested; and if you resist arrest, you are killed. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force!" said George Washington. A very succinct definition of the state, indeed.
Again, there is more than what meets the eye (or ear) when you hear a statist speak in terms of asking you to do something. The statist is not asking you for anything, for he will not take "no" for an answer, and could care less about your disagreement. It matters not that you can vote him out of office; someone else will merely "ask" you to pay up. What the statist really means is that you WILL do whatever he is "asking" of you, and he will see to it by initiating force to compel you to do so.
"Will of the people"
There is no such thing as a "will of the people" in America. Democracy is not so structured. Democracy means simply that a majority of people get to tell a minority of people how to live their lives. That's it. When someone proclaims "the will of the people," he means simply the will of a majority of people.
But majoritarianism (basically, democracy) is not only not a value of this country ("democracy" appears nowhere in the Constitution and our Founding Fathers ridiculed it), it is completely invalid. "Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." So said Rand when speaking of the mythical "public interest" allegedly embodied in democracy.
Democracy basically means that your rights and values are subject to a popular vote. It is mob rule, a lot of people telling a few people how to live their lives. But truth and values are not subject to a popular vote. It didn't matter that chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and Nazism were popularly supported regimes. From a democratic standpoint, they were just, because "majority wins!" But from a moral standpoint, they were violations of human rights.
"Progressive"/"Liberal"
We commonly associate these two terms with the statist. Somehow, statism, an ancient concept, is said to be "modern" and "progressive." Meanwhile, the relatively young notion that man should be free from his government is considered regressive, reactionary, and outmoded.
Equally absurd is how the word "liberal" has lost its meaning. Many libertarians identify themselves as "classical liberals" to distinguish themselves from statist liberals. Although "liberal" should mean something in the neighborhood of liberty, today it certainly does not. The liberal agenda is based almost entirely on destroying individual rights.
-----
There are many more terms and phrases, too many to identify here, which are misleading, fradulent, and corrupted. The point of all this is that it's important to always think about what someone is actually saying - cut through the pleasantries and rhetoric and get to the root of what someone really means. After all, ideas have consequences, especially when it's a politician's ideas. And odds are, whenever a politician is speaking, he already has designs on your liberty.
The reason statists have done so well on the PR front has all to do with how they package their particular brand of state-slavery. When you boil down the rhetoric, the statist believes simply in enslaving the individual, subjecting him to the arbitrary whim of "majority rules," sacrificing him on the altar of democracy. The statist believes in forcing you - at the point of a gun - to live for everyone else, thereby sacrificing your individuality, talent and ability for the unearned, undeserved benefit of others.
Of course, few realize this, precisely because of the rhetoric itself. Statists have done such a great job of corrupting the English language that to question their Orwellian doublespeak is to invite ridicule and political reproach. Below, I've assembled some of my favorite leftist-statist terms and phrases, as well as some terms whose meanings have been completely changed by modern politics:
Fairness
Statists constantly push for "fair" legislation, especially in the realm of economics. We need to make the rich pay their "fair share" (which fairness, of course, is always in the form of more, not fewer, taxes), says the liberal. Prices should be set, by government, at a "fair" level for the consumer. The list goes on.
The word "fair" is not objective. It is purely subjective. What is fair to one man is injustice to another. But of course, the politician has in mind but one concept of fairness: his own. The politician can't get away with saying, "my way or the highway," but that is precisely what he means when he deems something fair (or unfair).
I personally believe that no taxation is fair, because taxation is inherently a violation of property rights. Therefore, any tax rate is, to me, unfair. On the opposite side, the totalitarian believes 100% taxation is fair - that the state should own everything, all property, all money, all means of production and labor. And there is every imaginable position in between (good example: the "Fair" Tax!). Who is to say whose definition should be used? Why, the politician, of course.
Let's say that politician proposes a 35% income tax rate on the rich. He calls that variation of legalized theft "fair." But why is 35% fairer than, say, 36%? Or 34%? Or 34.5732628%? It doesn't matter, because the ultimate figure, regardless, is arbitrary. It simply measures the degree to which we individuals are property of the state, and nothing more.
The only "fair" tax is no tax, because no man owes any other man a living.
Capitalism
The term "capitalism" has been especially corrupted. It is probably the greatest casualty of the rhetorical genocide employed by statists.
Let's be clear: America is NOT a capitalist country; it is a mixed-economy country. Ayn Rand properly defined "capitalism" as being inherently laissez-faire: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
Note that Rand defined capitalism as a "social" system. This is valid because Rand recognized the interdependency of rights and the economy. One cannot have a free economy if one is not free, and one cannot be free if his rights are not protected 100%.
Capitalism must be laissez-faire, because any infringement, even a minor one, conveys that man is subject (to how small a degree, it matters not) to the dictates of the state. If you're only robbed of 1% of your freedom, you are still robbed, and such suggests that you can be robbed of 5%, 10%, etc. (see above discussion on "fairness"). Once you concede that some of your rights may be destroyed, there is nothing to prevent all of them from being destroyed.
What we have in America is an unholy alliance between government and business, in the form of corporate welfare, subsidies, preferential tax treatment for corporations, privileges, and so forth. Government should neither aid nor inhibit businesses. A complete separation of economy and state would render our society capitalist. Until then, it is, as Rand eloquently put it, a mixture of freedom and controls.
Government "asking you" to do something
During the presidential primary this year, many Democratic candidates spoke of "asking" the American people to do a number of things, especially to pay more in taxes. This is statist-speak: phrasing force as request.
The government doesn't "ask" us to do anything, especially when it comes to paying taxes. If you don't believe me, try turning down that request. "Nah, I'd rather not pay taxes, but thanks for asking!" See how far that gets you.
The truth is, if you don't pay your taxes, you are arrested; and if you resist arrest, you are killed. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force!" said George Washington. A very succinct definition of the state, indeed.
Again, there is more than what meets the eye (or ear) when you hear a statist speak in terms of asking you to do something. The statist is not asking you for anything, for he will not take "no" for an answer, and could care less about your disagreement. It matters not that you can vote him out of office; someone else will merely "ask" you to pay up. What the statist really means is that you WILL do whatever he is "asking" of you, and he will see to it by initiating force to compel you to do so.
"Will of the people"
There is no such thing as a "will of the people" in America. Democracy is not so structured. Democracy means simply that a majority of people get to tell a minority of people how to live their lives. That's it. When someone proclaims "the will of the people," he means simply the will of a majority of people.
But majoritarianism (basically, democracy) is not only not a value of this country ("democracy" appears nowhere in the Constitution and our Founding Fathers ridiculed it), it is completely invalid. "Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." So said Rand when speaking of the mythical "public interest" allegedly embodied in democracy.
Democracy basically means that your rights and values are subject to a popular vote. It is mob rule, a lot of people telling a few people how to live their lives. But truth and values are not subject to a popular vote. It didn't matter that chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and Nazism were popularly supported regimes. From a democratic standpoint, they were just, because "majority wins!" But from a moral standpoint, they were violations of human rights.
"Progressive"/"Liberal"
We commonly associate these two terms with the statist. Somehow, statism, an ancient concept, is said to be "modern" and "progressive." Meanwhile, the relatively young notion that man should be free from his government is considered regressive, reactionary, and outmoded.
Equally absurd is how the word "liberal" has lost its meaning. Many libertarians identify themselves as "classical liberals" to distinguish themselves from statist liberals. Although "liberal" should mean something in the neighborhood of liberty, today it certainly does not. The liberal agenda is based almost entirely on destroying individual rights.
-----
There are many more terms and phrases, too many to identify here, which are misleading, fradulent, and corrupted. The point of all this is that it's important to always think about what someone is actually saying - cut through the pleasantries and rhetoric and get to the root of what someone really means. After all, ideas have consequences, especially when it's a politician's ideas. And odds are, whenever a politician is speaking, he already has designs on your liberty.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Barack Obama: Enemy of Freedom
This quote should scare every single person in the U.S., particularly libertarians:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.This is, obviously, code for, "Individual liberty doesn't mean shit to me. If I have my way, I'm going to regulate and micromanage your daily lives and take away your liberty you have, and I'm so much better and smarter than you that I have the right to do so."After reading this, I have lost every single bit of respect I have ever had for this man. Screw him.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Crap like this really makes me want to leave the GOP at times.
After reading this piece of slime from the RNC website on Obama's position on marijuana. Where to begin?
1) The idea that taking a federalist position is somehow failing to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" is absolutely asinine. The Constitution gives no explicit power to the federal government to regulate marijuana; nothing in Article I even remotely gives Congress this power. The Gonzales v. Raich decision is "based" on the interstate commerce clause, which is an utterly bullshit argument because the interstate commerce clause deals with INTERSTATE transactions, not INTRASTATE transactions as Gonzales v. Raich and the RNC cockamamie post seem to think. Which brings us to ...
2) I thought that the GOP was the Party AGAINST judicial activism? Apparently it's not the case if judicial activism seeks to impose a cultural dictate on everyone (which is interesting, because these same people oppose "judicial activism" on issues like abortion and gay marriage). This whole "take the GOP back to the principle of limited government" thing is going to be a lot harder than I thought.
3) Why in the world would the GOP use the interstate commerce clause as a justification for RESTRICTION? The conservative position has always been that the interstate commerce clause is around for the purpose of ensuring MORE freedom, not less. (As some states may pass laws restricting the flow of goods or people across states, in absence of the ICC. The interstate commerce clause serves more as an establishment of jurisdiction than a justification for restrictions.)
4) Is this seriously the best that the neocon power base of the GOP can do to co-opt Ron Paul's message? Do they really think they can do it by making an argument that is completely fallacious and contradictory to Ron Paul's principles?
5) What is this hostility to the idea of individual liberty, which entails that everybody has the liberty to choose what is best for themselves and their own bodies?
6) Why is the GOP citing a State Department document when discussing content of Article 2 of the Constitution? Why can't they just look to the damned thing itself and cite it directly? Perhaps because the leadership doesn't really read it on a regular basis (it does, after all, have seven articles and 27 amendments; who has time to read all of that shit?), which is probably why a post like this went out as an official representation of GOP principles.
1) The idea that taking a federalist position is somehow failing to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" is absolutely asinine. The Constitution gives no explicit power to the federal government to regulate marijuana; nothing in Article I even remotely gives Congress this power. The Gonzales v. Raich decision is "based" on the interstate commerce clause, which is an utterly bullshit argument because the interstate commerce clause deals with INTERSTATE transactions, not INTRASTATE transactions as Gonzales v. Raich and the RNC cockamamie post seem to think. Which brings us to ...
2) I thought that the GOP was the Party AGAINST judicial activism? Apparently it's not the case if judicial activism seeks to impose a cultural dictate on everyone (which is interesting, because these same people oppose "judicial activism" on issues like abortion and gay marriage). This whole "take the GOP back to the principle of limited government" thing is going to be a lot harder than I thought.
3) Why in the world would the GOP use the interstate commerce clause as a justification for RESTRICTION? The conservative position has always been that the interstate commerce clause is around for the purpose of ensuring MORE freedom, not less. (As some states may pass laws restricting the flow of goods or people across states, in absence of the ICC. The interstate commerce clause serves more as an establishment of jurisdiction than a justification for restrictions.)
4) Is this seriously the best that the neocon power base of the GOP can do to co-opt Ron Paul's message? Do they really think they can do it by making an argument that is completely fallacious and contradictory to Ron Paul's principles?
5) What is this hostility to the idea of individual liberty, which entails that everybody has the liberty to choose what is best for themselves and their own bodies?
6) Why is the GOP citing a State Department document when discussing content of Article 2 of the Constitution? Why can't they just look to the damned thing itself and cite it directly? Perhaps because the leadership doesn't really read it on a regular basis (it does, after all, have seven articles and 27 amendments; who has time to read all of that shit?), which is probably why a post like this went out as an official representation of GOP principles.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Barack Obama: Corporate and Special Interest Tool, and a Fiscally Irresponsible One At That
While he's not the only one, it seems that Barack Obama rather likes wealthy farmers. In fact, he likes them so much, that he supports the recent incarnation of the Farm Bill, which is projected to cost $300 billion over the next five years. In this statement, he asserts:
Farm subsidies are grossly inefficient. Sullum cites an economists' estimate that Farm Subsidies cost $25 billion in taxpayer funding and $12 billion in higher food prices. A CATO study found that the opportunity cost of farm subsidies over the last two decades is $1.7 trillion (with a t). Meanwhile, we are protecting U.S. agriculture against foreign competition, ensuring that lower-middle income consumers are saddled with even higher food costs than would otherwise be the case.
It's one thing for Obama to support a policy as stupid and corporatist as the Farm Bill. It's quite another for him to assert that supporting it somehow is an "affront" to special interests, when it clearly isn't. How in the world anyone could consider this to be indicative of "change" is beyond me.
"To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the Farm Bill immediately. And while we're at it, let's strengthen the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Food Stamp Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Programs and launch additional anti-hunger initiatives to help ensure that no American goes hungry."Jacob Sullum in this article lists the litany of special interest boondoggles aboard this gravy train. They include a $170 million earmark for the salmon industry, special tax breaks for racehorse owners (of all people), and "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers. Sure, the bill denies subsidies to " individual farmers earning more than $750,000 a year and couples earning more than $1.5 million." But as Richard Posner notes, the vast majority of the subsidies will go to the 10 largest farm enterprises, which are (I assume) incorporated.
Farm subsidies are grossly inefficient. Sullum cites an economists' estimate that Farm Subsidies cost $25 billion in taxpayer funding and $12 billion in higher food prices. A CATO study found that the opportunity cost of farm subsidies over the last two decades is $1.7 trillion (with a t). Meanwhile, we are protecting U.S. agriculture against foreign competition, ensuring that lower-middle income consumers are saddled with even higher food costs than would otherwise be the case.
It's one thing for Obama to support a policy as stupid and corporatist as the Farm Bill. It's quite another for him to assert that supporting it somehow is an "affront" to special interests, when it clearly isn't. How in the world anyone could consider this to be indicative of "change" is beyond me.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Democrats: We like quality, accessible education, unless private schools provide it.
The hypocrisy of politicians can absolutely astound me at times. One of the themes that the Democratic Party likes to tout is their support for making college more affordable and accessible to lower-middle income families. Apparently, Democratic Massachusetts State Rep. State Rep. Paul Kujawski didn't get the memo.
This is, quite simply, a stupid idea. Universities with large endowments get those usually because they are either very good universities or because they have very rich alumni (which is probably because they are very good universities). Taxing large endowments will have a number of negative impacts. It will take away a significant incentive for universities to improve, which would generate more endowment donations and increase their ability to compete with the likes of Harvard for top students. (Of course, a tax this small will be a drop in the bucket for Harvard; it's really going to affect universities with endowments much smaller and closer to the floor threshold for the tax.) It will discourage financial aid initiatives like the previously mentioned on by Harvard as well as capital investments. For universities under the $1 billion endowment, the tax could lead to them increasing tuition in order to fund projects rather than accept gifts/donations in order to remain below the $1 billion cut off to avoid tax liability. From a more macro perspective, it could even lead to some liquidation of assets held by these endowments, which, considering the sizable holdings in some of these funds, could have a real adverse effect.
One wonders why there would even be need for such a tax. If there is a deficit in Massachusetts that needs closing, there are plenty of other taxes they could raise or impose. (Since it is, after all, the People's Republic of Massachusetts, I will assume that spending cuts are completely off the table.) In my humble opinion, the opening sentence of the cited excerpt reveals that perhaps this idea is coming to the forefront for no need at all.
Hat tip to Free Exchange for this one. Greg Mankiw, a Harvard employee, also has a post about this.
This, while Harvard is unveiling a new financial aid regimes stipulating that families earning less than $60,000 a year pay NO tuition, and families earning less than $180,000 a year pay no more than 10% of their income.Massachusetts legislators, demonstrating a growing resentment against the wealth of elite universities in tight economic times, are studying a plan to levy a 2.5% annual tax on the portion of college endowments that exceed $1 billion.
The effort takes aim at one of the primary economic engines of the state, which is home to nine universities with endowments that surpass the $1 billion level, led by Harvard University's $35 billion cache, the nation's largest.
The Massachusetts House recently approved sending the proposal to the Department of Revenue for further study. The inquiry is expected to take months and few in the education field expect it to yield changes in the tax law.
Supporters said the proposal would raise $1.4 billion a year. Based on the most recent size of Harvard's endowment, the university would have to shell out more than $840 million annually.
This is, quite simply, a stupid idea. Universities with large endowments get those usually because they are either very good universities or because they have very rich alumni (which is probably because they are very good universities). Taxing large endowments will have a number of negative impacts. It will take away a significant incentive for universities to improve, which would generate more endowment donations and increase their ability to compete with the likes of Harvard for top students. (Of course, a tax this small will be a drop in the bucket for Harvard; it's really going to affect universities with endowments much smaller and closer to the floor threshold for the tax.) It will discourage financial aid initiatives like the previously mentioned on by Harvard as well as capital investments. For universities under the $1 billion endowment, the tax could lead to them increasing tuition in order to fund projects rather than accept gifts/donations in order to remain below the $1 billion cut off to avoid tax liability. From a more macro perspective, it could even lead to some liquidation of assets held by these endowments, which, considering the sizable holdings in some of these funds, could have a real adverse effect.
One wonders why there would even be need for such a tax. If there is a deficit in Massachusetts that needs closing, there are plenty of other taxes they could raise or impose. (Since it is, after all, the People's Republic of Massachusetts, I will assume that spending cuts are completely off the table.) In my humble opinion, the opening sentence of the cited excerpt reveals that perhaps this idea is coming to the forefront for no need at all.
Hat tip to Free Exchange for this one. Greg Mankiw, a Harvard employee, also has a post about this.
McCain to libertarians and small-government conservatives: (Insert Bird Finger)
That's the message he would send if he chose this guy to be his Veep. As NewsMax reports, he is apparently at the top of the list.
I've seen this coming for a long time. In the Fox News debate in September, Huck made a clearly conscious effort to single-out McCain's service in the military. McCain and Huck were the only two candidates on the Republican side who did not attack each other (except Ron Paul, who attacked no one, of course). If you think about it, these two authoritarians are a pretty good match for each other in terms of appealing to the authoritarian wings of the Party: McCain brings cred with the "I"m going to bomb the fuck out of those Arabs" wing, and Huckabee brings cred with the "The government must be our nanny and somehow protect us from our evil, sinning selves" wing. Furthermore, Huckabee's ability as a campaigner and speaker who can connect provides a good match for McCain's often cold demeanor.
What a tragedy this ticket will be for the Party and the country. Unfortunately, I think it's probable.
I've seen this coming for a long time. In the Fox News debate in September, Huck made a clearly conscious effort to single-out McCain's service in the military. McCain and Huck were the only two candidates on the Republican side who did not attack each other (except Ron Paul, who attacked no one, of course). If you think about it, these two authoritarians are a pretty good match for each other in terms of appealing to the authoritarian wings of the Party: McCain brings cred with the "I"m going to bomb the fuck out of those Arabs" wing, and Huckabee brings cred with the "The government must be our nanny and somehow protect us from our evil, sinning selves" wing. Furthermore, Huckabee's ability as a campaigner and speaker who can connect provides a good match for McCain's often cold demeanor.
What a tragedy this ticket will be for the Party and the country. Unfortunately, I think it's probable.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
NC Republican Primary: Thoughts
Going race by race, I now analyze the results from the 2008 North Carolina Republican Primaries of interest:
U.S. Congress, District 4
It will be very difficult for me to give an uncolored analysis of this race, being that I work for B.J. Lawson. In any event, this was a very exciting outcome. It is a demonstration of what a intelligent, well-spoken candidate who runs a positive campaign with a strong message of individual liberty and committed and impassioned volunteers can do in the Republican Party. The who's who of the power base in the District 4 GOP were campaigning hard and very against B.J., putting out negative mailers, t.v. ads, emails, and phone calls to GOP activists and voters. Clearly, it was not enough, as B.J. defeated Augustus Cho (whose entire campaign was deeply negative and unsubstantive) by a count of 71% to 29%. It received massive praise on the blog of The American Conservative magazine, and Dave Weigel at Reason Magazine's Hit and Run blog has made numerous postings on it over the last few days. (This, in addition to the mentions on other libertarian-oriented blogs.)
This has already had repercussions for the local GOP. Durham County GOP Melodie Parrish, who actively supported Cho and worked for his campaign, resigned from her position essentially in protest of the victory. Martha Jenkins, the District 4 GOP Chair who also actively supported Cho and worked for the campaign, is getting requests for her resignation. Obviously, this campaign has torched Cho's career with the Party, as his effectiveness is certainly questionable and has had his reputation damaged by his failure to answer basic questions.
We have not seen the end of the fallout of this Primary. This victory represents an important milestone in the quest of liberty-minded Republicans to take back the Party, Congress, and the Presidency. With a party stacked completely against him, B.J. won with flying colors. He has provided a proven blueprint for other candidates around the country to follow in winning GOP nominations. This is a very important first step. It will be quite hard for us to defeat David Price in November, but with proper funding and a maintenance of the energy I saw on the ground, it is doable in a year when voters around the country want change.
U.S. Congress, 3rd District
Representative Walter Jones defeated Onslow County Commissioner Joe McGlaughlin by a healthy margin, 59% to 41%. This is a very welcome outcome. Representative Jones isn't perfect along libertarian lines, but he is a good and honest man and is a strong ally for anti-Iraq War Republicans. A primary loss for Jones would have been an absolute tragedy for this movement and for Washington.
North Carolina Governor
Pat McCrory took the Republican Nomination by a healthy margin, 46% to 37% over Fred Smith, the closest challenger. Liberty Republicans-endorsed candidate, former NC Supremre Court and State Court of Appeals Justice Bob Orr, unfortunately did not fare as well as other endorsed candidates, garnering 7% of the vote. Justice Orr is the best candidate for NC Governor I have seen in my lifetime (the Winston Salem Journal agreed) and would have made a fabulous governor. He is brilliant and intellectually interested, and he won me over with his principled stance against the corporate weflare/recruitment incentives policy of the state, which he correctly justified on Constitutional and free market grounds. But alas he was just too honest and principled of a player for the power brokers of the Party to back. I have been told by a friend in the campaign that this will be Bob's last run for office, which I hope is not at all true.
I have mixed feelings about Pat McCrory. On the one hand, I do believe he can be an effective executive; he was such as the Mayor of Charlotte. I definitely don't think he is either a libertarian or a limited government conservative. However, I would easily have taken him over Fred Smith, who is the epitome of a corporate puppet, authoritarian, social reactionary and no friend to liberty-minded Republicans. (In addition to being thoroughly unimpressive intellectually, an impression I personally garnered after an interaction with him.)
North Carolina Lt. Governor
Bob Pittenger cruised to an easy victory, winning 59% of the vote. Liberty Republicans-endorsed Greg Dority won 10%, finishing last. However, he and the rest of the candidates were running as huge longshots. Pittenger was the establishment's choice from the get-go. This is highly unfortunate, as he is both a douchebag and an ignoramus. I saw him when he came to speak to the UNC College Republicans a few months ago. After making a snide comment to me when I came in late, I was obviously turned off by him on a personal level from the beginning. However, he made a comment that is simply unforgivably stupid for any public official to make. I shit you not, he said this in his speech, word for word:
"I don't know how George Bush could have funded his war without cutting taxes."
Umm.... Bob, have you ever heard of borrowing? He then had the audacity (or perhaps ignorance, which would be quite believable) to identify the aforementioned policy as "fiscally conservative."
I have no idea what I will do in November in this race. I do know what I absolutely will not do, and that is vote for Bob Pittenger. I don't care how libertarian/conservative he may be (I don't think he is in the slightest either); as a voter and North Carolina citizen, I simply cannot reward this kind of incompetence with my vote. And I don't see how it advances the cause of the Republican Party in any state, let alone North Carolina, to be running candidates who are dumber than Dan Quayle.
North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction
Richard Morgan won the nomination easily, with 51% of the vote. Liberty Republicans-endorsed (at least before election night, when I found out something I didn't know before announcing the endorsement) Eric Smith finished in second, receiving 25% of the vote. Morgan has ruffled the feathers of many Republicans in the state, after his power-sharing deal with the Democrats earlier this decade when the North Carolina House of Representatives was split. I'm not sure what I'm going to do in this race in November.
U.S. Congress, District 4
It will be very difficult for me to give an uncolored analysis of this race, being that I work for B.J. Lawson. In any event, this was a very exciting outcome. It is a demonstration of what a intelligent, well-spoken candidate who runs a positive campaign with a strong message of individual liberty and committed and impassioned volunteers can do in the Republican Party. The who's who of the power base in the District 4 GOP were campaigning hard and very against B.J., putting out negative mailers, t.v. ads, emails, and phone calls to GOP activists and voters. Clearly, it was not enough, as B.J. defeated Augustus Cho (whose entire campaign was deeply negative and unsubstantive) by a count of 71% to 29%. It received massive praise on the blog of The American Conservative magazine, and Dave Weigel at Reason Magazine's Hit and Run blog has made numerous postings on it over the last few days. (This, in addition to the mentions on other libertarian-oriented blogs.)
This has already had repercussions for the local GOP. Durham County GOP Melodie Parrish, who actively supported Cho and worked for his campaign, resigned from her position essentially in protest of the victory. Martha Jenkins, the District 4 GOP Chair who also actively supported Cho and worked for the campaign, is getting requests for her resignation. Obviously, this campaign has torched Cho's career with the Party, as his effectiveness is certainly questionable and has had his reputation damaged by his failure to answer basic questions.
We have not seen the end of the fallout of this Primary. This victory represents an important milestone in the quest of liberty-minded Republicans to take back the Party, Congress, and the Presidency. With a party stacked completely against him, B.J. won with flying colors. He has provided a proven blueprint for other candidates around the country to follow in winning GOP nominations. This is a very important first step. It will be quite hard for us to defeat David Price in November, but with proper funding and a maintenance of the energy I saw on the ground, it is doable in a year when voters around the country want change.
U.S. Congress, 3rd District
Representative Walter Jones defeated Onslow County Commissioner Joe McGlaughlin by a healthy margin, 59% to 41%. This is a very welcome outcome. Representative Jones isn't perfect along libertarian lines, but he is a good and honest man and is a strong ally for anti-Iraq War Republicans. A primary loss for Jones would have been an absolute tragedy for this movement and for Washington.
North Carolina Governor
Pat McCrory took the Republican Nomination by a healthy margin, 46% to 37% over Fred Smith, the closest challenger. Liberty Republicans-endorsed candidate, former NC Supremre Court and State Court of Appeals Justice Bob Orr, unfortunately did not fare as well as other endorsed candidates, garnering 7% of the vote. Justice Orr is the best candidate for NC Governor I have seen in my lifetime (the Winston Salem Journal agreed) and would have made a fabulous governor. He is brilliant and intellectually interested, and he won me over with his principled stance against the corporate weflare/recruitment incentives policy of the state, which he correctly justified on Constitutional and free market grounds. But alas he was just too honest and principled of a player for the power brokers of the Party to back. I have been told by a friend in the campaign that this will be Bob's last run for office, which I hope is not at all true.
I have mixed feelings about Pat McCrory. On the one hand, I do believe he can be an effective executive; he was such as the Mayor of Charlotte. I definitely don't think he is either a libertarian or a limited government conservative. However, I would easily have taken him over Fred Smith, who is the epitome of a corporate puppet, authoritarian, social reactionary and no friend to liberty-minded Republicans. (In addition to being thoroughly unimpressive intellectually, an impression I personally garnered after an interaction with him.)
North Carolina Lt. Governor
Bob Pittenger cruised to an easy victory, winning 59% of the vote. Liberty Republicans-endorsed Greg Dority won 10%, finishing last. However, he and the rest of the candidates were running as huge longshots. Pittenger was the establishment's choice from the get-go. This is highly unfortunate, as he is both a douchebag and an ignoramus. I saw him when he came to speak to the UNC College Republicans a few months ago. After making a snide comment to me when I came in late, I was obviously turned off by him on a personal level from the beginning. However, he made a comment that is simply unforgivably stupid for any public official to make. I shit you not, he said this in his speech, word for word:
"I don't know how George Bush could have funded his war without cutting taxes."
Umm.... Bob, have you ever heard of borrowing? He then had the audacity (or perhaps ignorance, which would be quite believable) to identify the aforementioned policy as "fiscally conservative."
I have no idea what I will do in November in this race. I do know what I absolutely will not do, and that is vote for Bob Pittenger. I don't care how libertarian/conservative he may be (I don't think he is in the slightest either); as a voter and North Carolina citizen, I simply cannot reward this kind of incompetence with my vote. And I don't see how it advances the cause of the Republican Party in any state, let alone North Carolina, to be running candidates who are dumber than Dan Quayle.
North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction
Richard Morgan won the nomination easily, with 51% of the vote. Liberty Republicans-endorsed (at least before election night, when I found out something I didn't know before announcing the endorsement) Eric Smith finished in second, receiving 25% of the vote. Morgan has ruffled the feathers of many Republicans in the state, after his power-sharing deal with the Democrats earlier this decade when the North Carolina House of Representatives was split. I'm not sure what I'm going to do in this race in November.
Hopefully, this is about to become a daily thing.
Now that I'm off school for the summer, I will have more time to post on the blog. I plan to make postings every day.
I'll be posting an analysis of the North Carolina Republican primary in about an hour. Stay tuned.
I'll be posting an analysis of the North Carolina Republican primary in about an hour. Stay tuned.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
What tax is justifiable?
One of the characteristics distinguishing libertarians from market anarchists is that libertarians accept the presence of the state as a mechanism to protect individual liberty from coercion and enforce private property rights and contracts, whereas anarchists reject the existence of the state all together. This naturally entails the existence of law enforcement, courts of justices, the military, and (for those who accept the existence of the nation state) border enforcement. Some libertarians with more consequentialist concerns (such as myself) may advocate the state's provision of services that serve either as preconditions to the maintenance of liberty, that enhance the functioning and bolster the consequences of a system of liberty, or both. Such services would/may include public transportation infrastructure, public education, and/or border enforcement.
A conundrum for libertarians arises, however. Many libertarians adhere to the idea that taxation is inherently coercion, as it compels agents to submit a certain proportion of assets acquired or value traded in a transaction or face consquences for failure to do so. The income tax, for instance, is considered theft: enforced at gunpoint, one must either submit property acquired or face the consequence of jail time and loss of liberty. A broad-based consumption tax, such as a sales tax, does not entail the same level of compulsion for consumers, as individuals may affect the level of tax paid by changing their consumption behaviors (and, in cases where a consumption tax only applies to new goods, by purchasing old goods). However, it still establishes the fundamental idea that a consumer (or a producer, who is usually responsible for collection and submission of consumption taxes, and in the case of a value-added tax, is the party directly responsible for payment) must transfer a proportion of their existing assets to a third party in order to undertake an activity that they already have a right to pursue without precondition established by others. Excise taxes also suffer from this fundamental problem; however, because, the amount of coercion relative to the broad-based consumption tax is much lower, as the tax applies to far few goods and there is much greater ability of agents to avoid the tax.
Thus, the problem exists: by what just means should a libertarian advocate funding the functions of government he or she accepts should exist?
Clearly, on initial inspection, the revenue source which would be most often considered justified in a libertarian framework would be voluntary contributions. If one is completely entitled to use or distribute one's property however they wish, then if they voluntarily contribute a portion of it to government for the purpose of financing services, then I really can't view any sort of libertarian opposition to the property holder's decision.
User fees would naturally follow as an acceptable form of revenue generation, and they are usually the first point made by libertarians when discussing just taxation. If the government provides a service, then those who use it can directly pay a fee for doing so. This is especially true if a service is tradable. A perfect example is postal service, for which consumers must pay a stamp fee to use. The principle may even be extended, for instance, to gasoline taxes: if drivers want to travel on public highways, then they can pay a fee (the gas tax) while driving on them for when for their availability and maintenance. Local property taxes may also be considered user fees, if the revenues are devoted toward the funding of law enforcement and courts of justice that are responsible for protecting private property rights. (However, the distortionary effect of property taxes can be significant. Perhaps this problem could be alleviated if the tax was in the form of a Georgian land value tax.)
The a similiar foundation for the justification of both voluntary contributions and user fees exists for the use of lotteries. The concept of a lottery entails that services (entertainment, potential prizes, etc.) are awarded by the government, and the fees paid to the provider (the government), after covering operating costs, finance other services (usually public education). If one values the entertainment from playing a lottery enough to voluntarily transfer a portion of his assets that would go to other purposes to gain it, then I could no more see libertarian opposition to state lotteries than I could to profit-earning entrepreneurs appropriating their earnings to other purposes than the production of their goods and services. It amazes me, for example, that in North Carolina, the GOP Party line on the recent institution of a state lottery was opposition. I'm sorry, but isn't the conservative position on fiscal policy supposed to be that the mandatory tax burden should be as low as possible and that people have the right to do with their money as they please? Granted, there was a lot of impropriety in the implementation of the lottery, but that is a separate issue. (Of course, the main reason why the NCGOP opposed the lottery was unrelated to finances and individual liberty. Scroll down to Article V, Section 3)
But if it is the case that voluntary contributions, user fees, and lotteries cannot fund all of the necessary functions of government and to an adequate level to protect individual liberty, property rights, and enforce contracts? What other forms of taxation are acceptable on libertarian grounds?
Certainly income (including wage/payroll taxes) and broad-based consumption taxes would be ruled out by many libertarians (including me), for philosophical reasons I stated above. But furthermore, these taxes penalize the very activities that generate growth: work, saving, investment, creativity, entrepreneurship, and consumption. Not only are these the most unjust forms of taxation, but they are also the most economically inefficient.
Excise taxes do suffer from the same problem that broad-based consumption taxes do, which is that effectively coerce agents to hand over a certain proportion of their property in order to carry out a particular transaction. Granted, this effect is not nearly to the degree of that created by broad-based consumption taxes, as the consumer has much more power to avoid the tax (via the availability of tax-free substitutes). On economic efficiency grounds, however, there can be serious distortions caused by excise taxes. This is effectively the same effect as that caused by subsidization of the production of private goods: an inefficient redistribution of resources toward production and consumption of certain goods and away from others. If, for instance, an excise tax on the sale of oil was instituted, this would eventually drive up market prices for oil. This could cause, for instance, substitution in consumer's energy consumpiton patterns toward corn ethanol-based fuel, which would lead to inefficient levels of corn production and higher corn prices. This would squeeze lower-middle income consumers who must then face higher prices of corn and corn-based products. The efficiency effects of excise taxes vary across the board, however.
If we operate on a "choose the least evil" principle, certain excise taxes may qualify. For instance, luxory taxes are unlikely to cause great distortion in consumer decision-making, since the goods for which they will apply are likely to face inelastic demand curves in their markets. (Since buyers, namely upper-middle-to-upper income consumers, will generally have high purchasing power.) Given that these goods are luxories and not essentials for life, the power to avoid them would be high. Furthermore, a luxory tax could even be considered a user fee, of sorts, as they could be used to fund policy protection for these luxory goods.
But there is one other form of taxation that I don't hear many libertarians discuss, which is Pigovian taxation. Pigovian taxes levy penalties for the negative externalities of a market activity; for instance, pollution. Pigovian taxes can be quite justified on libertarian grounds. Negative externalities of market activities (or at least most of them) ultimately represent damages to private property, either directly through physical damage or indirectly by decreasing property values. If we believe that government exists to protect private property rights, then levying a tax on negative externalities to effectively penalize property damage would perform this mandate. Pollution taxes would protect property rights by levying penalties for damaging other people's property. Cigarette taxes could even be considered Pigovian taxes, as by taxing cigarette purchases, they charge penalties for the harmful health externalities of second-hand smoke, protecting people's property rights to their labor and productivity. Furthermore, Pigovian taxes can be justified on efficiency grounds, as levying a Pigovian tax reduces the cost of negative externalities of an activity and provides an incentive for the producer of the negative externality to reduce it. This brings the level of the market activity to a socially optimal level.
So by my count, at least, here are the government revenue sources that are justifiable, livable, and absolutely unjust in a libertarian framework:
Justifiable
* Voluntary Contributions
* User Fees
* Lotteries
* Pigovian Taxes
Livable
* Excise Taxes
Unjustifiable
* Income Taxes
* Broad-based Consumption Taxes
What are your thoughts?
A conundrum for libertarians arises, however. Many libertarians adhere to the idea that taxation is inherently coercion, as it compels agents to submit a certain proportion of assets acquired or value traded in a transaction or face consquences for failure to do so. The income tax, for instance, is considered theft: enforced at gunpoint, one must either submit property acquired or face the consequence of jail time and loss of liberty. A broad-based consumption tax, such as a sales tax, does not entail the same level of compulsion for consumers, as individuals may affect the level of tax paid by changing their consumption behaviors (and, in cases where a consumption tax only applies to new goods, by purchasing old goods). However, it still establishes the fundamental idea that a consumer (or a producer, who is usually responsible for collection and submission of consumption taxes, and in the case of a value-added tax, is the party directly responsible for payment) must transfer a proportion of their existing assets to a third party in order to undertake an activity that they already have a right to pursue without precondition established by others. Excise taxes also suffer from this fundamental problem; however, because, the amount of coercion relative to the broad-based consumption tax is much lower, as the tax applies to far few goods and there is much greater ability of agents to avoid the tax.
Thus, the problem exists: by what just means should a libertarian advocate funding the functions of government he or she accepts should exist?
Clearly, on initial inspection, the revenue source which would be most often considered justified in a libertarian framework would be voluntary contributions. If one is completely entitled to use or distribute one's property however they wish, then if they voluntarily contribute a portion of it to government for the purpose of financing services, then I really can't view any sort of libertarian opposition to the property holder's decision.
User fees would naturally follow as an acceptable form of revenue generation, and they are usually the first point made by libertarians when discussing just taxation. If the government provides a service, then those who use it can directly pay a fee for doing so. This is especially true if a service is tradable. A perfect example is postal service, for which consumers must pay a stamp fee to use. The principle may even be extended, for instance, to gasoline taxes: if drivers want to travel on public highways, then they can pay a fee (the gas tax) while driving on them for when for their availability and maintenance. Local property taxes may also be considered user fees, if the revenues are devoted toward the funding of law enforcement and courts of justice that are responsible for protecting private property rights. (However, the distortionary effect of property taxes can be significant. Perhaps this problem could be alleviated if the tax was in the form of a Georgian land value tax.)
The a similiar foundation for the justification of both voluntary contributions and user fees exists for the use of lotteries. The concept of a lottery entails that services (entertainment, potential prizes, etc.) are awarded by the government, and the fees paid to the provider (the government), after covering operating costs, finance other services (usually public education). If one values the entertainment from playing a lottery enough to voluntarily transfer a portion of his assets that would go to other purposes to gain it, then I could no more see libertarian opposition to state lotteries than I could to profit-earning entrepreneurs appropriating their earnings to other purposes than the production of their goods and services. It amazes me, for example, that in North Carolina, the GOP Party line on the recent institution of a state lottery was opposition. I'm sorry, but isn't the conservative position on fiscal policy supposed to be that the mandatory tax burden should be as low as possible and that people have the right to do with their money as they please? Granted, there was a lot of impropriety in the implementation of the lottery, but that is a separate issue. (Of course, the main reason why the NCGOP opposed the lottery was unrelated to finances and individual liberty. Scroll down to Article V, Section 3)
But if it is the case that voluntary contributions, user fees, and lotteries cannot fund all of the necessary functions of government and to an adequate level to protect individual liberty, property rights, and enforce contracts? What other forms of taxation are acceptable on libertarian grounds?
Certainly income (including wage/payroll taxes) and broad-based consumption taxes would be ruled out by many libertarians (including me), for philosophical reasons I stated above. But furthermore, these taxes penalize the very activities that generate growth: work, saving, investment, creativity, entrepreneurship, and consumption. Not only are these the most unjust forms of taxation, but they are also the most economically inefficient.
Excise taxes do suffer from the same problem that broad-based consumption taxes do, which is that effectively coerce agents to hand over a certain proportion of their property in order to carry out a particular transaction. Granted, this effect is not nearly to the degree of that created by broad-based consumption taxes, as the consumer has much more power to avoid the tax (via the availability of tax-free substitutes). On economic efficiency grounds, however, there can be serious distortions caused by excise taxes. This is effectively the same effect as that caused by subsidization of the production of private goods: an inefficient redistribution of resources toward production and consumption of certain goods and away from others. If, for instance, an excise tax on the sale of oil was instituted, this would eventually drive up market prices for oil. This could cause, for instance, substitution in consumer's energy consumpiton patterns toward corn ethanol-based fuel, which would lead to inefficient levels of corn production and higher corn prices. This would squeeze lower-middle income consumers who must then face higher prices of corn and corn-based products. The efficiency effects of excise taxes vary across the board, however.
If we operate on a "choose the least evil" principle, certain excise taxes may qualify. For instance, luxory taxes are unlikely to cause great distortion in consumer decision-making, since the goods for which they will apply are likely to face inelastic demand curves in their markets. (Since buyers, namely upper-middle-to-upper income consumers, will generally have high purchasing power.) Given that these goods are luxories and not essentials for life, the power to avoid them would be high. Furthermore, a luxory tax could even be considered a user fee, of sorts, as they could be used to fund policy protection for these luxory goods.
But there is one other form of taxation that I don't hear many libertarians discuss, which is Pigovian taxation. Pigovian taxes levy penalties for the negative externalities of a market activity; for instance, pollution. Pigovian taxes can be quite justified on libertarian grounds. Negative externalities of market activities (or at least most of them) ultimately represent damages to private property, either directly through physical damage or indirectly by decreasing property values. If we believe that government exists to protect private property rights, then levying a tax on negative externalities to effectively penalize property damage would perform this mandate. Pollution taxes would protect property rights by levying penalties for damaging other people's property. Cigarette taxes could even be considered Pigovian taxes, as by taxing cigarette purchases, they charge penalties for the harmful health externalities of second-hand smoke, protecting people's property rights to their labor and productivity. Furthermore, Pigovian taxes can be justified on efficiency grounds, as levying a Pigovian tax reduces the cost of negative externalities of an activity and provides an incentive for the producer of the negative externality to reduce it. This brings the level of the market activity to a socially optimal level.
So by my count, at least, here are the government revenue sources that are justifiable, livable, and absolutely unjust in a libertarian framework:
Justifiable
* Voluntary Contributions
* User Fees
* Lotteries
* Pigovian Taxes
Livable
* Excise Taxes
Unjustifiable
* Income Taxes
* Broad-based Consumption Taxes
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
