If libertarians wanted what they said they wanted, they’d be progressive Dems.
They’re all hung up on “no taxes” and to dumb to realize the reason regular people’s taxes are so high, is the wealthiest no longer pay their fair share.
We could have a lot more social programs and lower taxes, but the wealthiest donate heavily to politicians to prevent that rather than just paying their damn taxes.
If we raise taxes for the ultrarich, then those libertarians will have higher taxes when they become ultrarich! Which will happen to them any day now, they swear!
I already say that everyone is a libertarian when they are teenagers and think they know better for themselves than anyone else could. The only people who keep being libertarians are either too dumb to realize how good taxes and public goods/services are or are too self centered to ever consider that they could be wrong.
Libertarianism works really well in communities sized under Dunbar’s number. Once you have more than that, you need much stronger laws. Young people just don’t have the experience to know just how much diversity there is in the world around them.
Dunbar’s number is only around 150, so that greatly limits the number of situations Libertarianism works well in.
Which pretty much makes it functionally impossible post WW2 with a few super rural exceptions. Even then those locations benefit greatly from government subsidies. I’m thinking of a lot of the Alaska villages that get oil money from the state but even those towns of 200 people in Wyoming have roads and electricity only because of government programs. If you want to be a part of the world in any way shape or form you need some type of government and any government needs taxes to be able to function.
I’d say their real fault lies in not accepting that zero regulations ultimately means that whoever gathers the most influence the fastest will corner every market, and you will no longer have the “choices” that their free market capitalism promises.
It’s extremely simple. History his rife with examples. Modern day is full of examples.
The 2nd largest fault is thinking that people will do what’s in their best interest. If fire departments, roads, etc are a good idea, people will opt to subscribe to those services / maintenance of their own volition. This again ignores the history of what has already happened, and why these became involuntary tax funded services to begin with.
More likely, those services would be controlled by the rich and the price would be set to exclude x% of people who are too poor to pay. Then someone’s house catches on fire and before you know it half your workers are homeless. Not good for business. So what’s the solution? Make the middle class pay for everyone’s fire protection of course! (Should be the rich paying for it, but you know, capitalism)
Remember, the rich are the enemy… Stupid people are the victims just like poor people.
They’re in no way progressive Dems. They don’t believe in stuff liked negative externalities. They don’t just hate taxes;they hate governmental interference in nearly all of their lives.
Progressive democrats generally affirm the incredible value and importance of government.
While there may be some overlap on topics of personal freedom, such as reproductive rights or drug decriminalization, libertarian views of government itself are much closer to classic conservatives. They both want to dismantle the government as it exists today.
Edit: or perhaps I misunderstood what you meant, which is that progressive democrats actually fight for a tangible reality in which liberty is increased for all. At which point we agree z
I consider myself a progressive libertarian… I want government to be just big enough to transfer wealth from the rich/corporations to the people/social services and to stop corporations from destroying things… I want government almost entirely out of my life otherwise until I need them for something
Edit: in addition I don’t believe in taxes on individuals. I think the corporations should be paying 100% of the taxes needed to maintain a functioning society, and we the people should be deciding what that entails.
If libertarians wanted what they said they wanted, they’d be progressive Dems.
They’re all hung up on “no taxes” and to dumb to realize the reason regular people’s taxes are so high, is the wealthiest no longer pay their fair share.
We could have a lot more social programs and lower taxes, but the wealthiest donate heavily to politicians to prevent that rather than just paying their damn taxes.
If we raise taxes for the ultrarich, then those libertarians will have higher taxes when they become ultrarich! Which will happen to them any day now, they swear!
They just need to work a little bit harder. The harder you work the richer you get.
I already say that everyone is a libertarian when they are teenagers and think they know better for themselves than anyone else could. The only people who keep being libertarians are either too dumb to realize how good taxes and public goods/services are or are too self centered to ever consider that they could be wrong.
Libertarianism works really well in communities sized under Dunbar’s number. Once you have more than that, you need much stronger laws. Young people just don’t have the experience to know just how much diversity there is in the world around them.
Dunbar’s number is only around 150, so that greatly limits the number of situations Libertarianism works well in.
Huh… That sounds about right for communism too
Which pretty much makes it functionally impossible post WW2 with a few super rural exceptions. Even then those locations benefit greatly from government subsidies. I’m thinking of a lot of the Alaska villages that get oil money from the state but even those towns of 200 people in Wyoming have roads and electricity only because of government programs. If you want to be a part of the world in any way shape or form you need some type of government and any government needs taxes to be able to function.
Not everyone. Some teenagers try to understand the rules before trying to make the rules not apply to them.
I’d say their real fault lies in not accepting that zero regulations ultimately means that whoever gathers the most influence the fastest will corner every market, and you will no longer have the “choices” that their free market capitalism promises.
It’s extremely simple. History his rife with examples. Modern day is full of examples.
The 2nd largest fault is thinking that people will do what’s in their best interest. If fire departments, roads, etc are a good idea, people will opt to subscribe to those services / maintenance of their own volition. This again ignores the history of what has already happened, and why these became involuntary tax funded services to begin with.
More likely, those services would be controlled by the rich and the price would be set to exclude x% of people who are too poor to pay. Then someone’s house catches on fire and before you know it half your workers are homeless. Not good for business. So what’s the solution? Make the middle class pay for everyone’s fire protection of course! (Should be the rich paying for it, but you know, capitalism)
Remember, the rich are the enemy… Stupid people are the victims just like poor people.
They’re in no way progressive Dems. They don’t believe in stuff liked negative externalities. They don’t just hate taxes;they hate governmental interference in nearly all of their lives.
Progressive democrats generally affirm the incredible value and importance of government.
While there may be some overlap on topics of personal freedom, such as reproductive rights or drug decriminalization, libertarian views of government itself are much closer to classic conservatives. They both want to dismantle the government as it exists today.
Edit: or perhaps I misunderstood what you meant, which is that progressive democrats actually fight for a tangible reality in which liberty is increased for all. At which point we agree z
I mean, yeah.
Libertarians claim to be all about personal freedom as long as it doesn’t impede on others freedom.
Thats progressive Dems all day.
I consider myself a progressive libertarian… I want government to be just big enough to transfer wealth from the rich/corporations to the people/social services and to stop corporations from destroying things… I want government almost entirely out of my life otherwise until I need them for something
Edit: in addition I don’t believe in taxes on individuals. I think the corporations should be paying 100% of the taxes needed to maintain a functioning society, and we the people should be deciding what that entails.