Libertarian's Forum - Libertarian forum for politics and economics

BlackSand

Libertarian Senior Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 367
Arizona

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #10 - Feb 19^th, 2010 at 7:34pm

Thanks for the compliments. I just need a PhD in psychology, education and programming, and ill be on my way. Cheesy

Ill probably spend the next 3 years imagining this system before I ever think of doing anything with it again. :/

Meric, basically what you are saying is that gold is more useless than a piece of paper. A dollar is backed by the economy, gold backs itself. So even when the economy is bad, you dont have to worry about gold, because it will always retain value. Youll always be able to buy oil or steel or what have you. A piece of paper only has value if everyone agrees it had value.

Guns. It may work in Australia. But I just cant imagine it working here. Especially with the drug wars going on in Mexico right now.

Do you guys not hunt?

Constitutional limit of laws. I see what you mean. But I dont know how it would work.

Back to top

IP Logged

Angus Libertarian Full Member Offline Libertarian's Forum Posts: 161 St. Louis, Mo	Re: What kind of libertarian are you? Reply #11 - Feb 19^th, 2010 at 10:03pm The best way to keep the government small and limited is to go back on the gold and silver standard.
Back to top	"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin http://freespchdre.blogspot.com/ IP Logged

Richard Enderle

Libertarian Full Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #12 - Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm

I hope nobody minds if I challenge them.

First off, restricting abortion rights is contradictory to libertarianism. The assumption that a fetus has to have his individual rights protected is an assumption that the fetus is an individual with rights. By ascribing rights to the fetus, the non-living, the potential human, you are infringing on the rights of the actual, living human being. You are infringing on her right to

- Liberty, her reproductive freedom
- Pursuit of happiness/Property - Her right to ownership of her own body

And sometimes, you may very well be infringing on her right to life. There is no reason a woman should be forced to die, giving birth to a baby she did not want.

meric wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 8:39pm:

A family has a car crash. Only the 5 year old kid survives and he loses 1 arm and 1 leg. He lives in an orphanage (let's say there's people doing private orphanages). When he grows up to be 18, He comes out of the orphanage. What is he going to do? His job opportunities are going to be so much more limited.

If businesses weren't being taxed and regulated to death, there would be more opportunities for this person. This includes minimum wage.

Quote:

A man retires at 65 with no family because he had reproductive problems. He's saved up $500,000 for retirement and uses $25,000 a year. That should be enough till he's 80. (he gets interest from his investments too). Yet, due to some 'divine intervention', this guy still lives at the age of 98 when he's finished up his last penny (He'd sold his house years before to keep living.). What's he going to do? Rely on voluntary donations?

Yes. It is only moral if it is voluntarily given.

Furthermore, ignoring the fact that you failed to take into account annuities, which would have been the logical approach if he assumed he was going to live forever, why do you believe this man has the right to live forever? If he is not working, why is he entitled to money other than what he saved? If he has lived until 98, then it's about his time. He can't force other people to sustain him. Nobody has a "right to retirement"

Quote:

I've seen it. If voluntary donations worked beggars won't be homeless.

Well, why is he homeless?

- Because of minimum wage laws preventing him from being able to work a trial period

- Because businesses won't hire someone if they don't have a mailing address, because it's illegal to employ people under the table

There would be less beggars who actually wanted to work, if there wasn't as much government intervention.

Second of all, yes. Contributions are only moral if they are voluntary. If they are extorted by the government, then it is a violation of another person's rights.

Quote:

I don't think society should just abandon unproductive people, the revenue from income taxes would be used to support these people.

If they are unproductive, then there is a reason why people are not paying them. Support for people should be voluntary, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Quote:

I'd be against it if it wasn't banned already. But in Australia it seems to work quite well. I rarely hear about gun deaths. And when I do 90% of it is the mafia killing themselves. The 10% remaining is there was some drunk guy with a gun (don't know where he got it) driving through a neighbourhood shooting. I might've heard about a dozen cases occurring in my life.

Okay, so you heard about less gun crimes. What other murders were committed? Does it matter what is used in the killing? Gun control only redistributes the choice of weapon, it doesn't prevent deaths.

Quote:

There was 1 case where the victim having a gun might've led to a better outcome: This family was murdered in their house by some professionals. (The police said they were professional assassins or something...) But I don't think they'd have survived anyway.

So, you "didn't think he would have survived anyway". And you think it's acceptable to put people who obey the law at a bigger disadvantage than those who don't.

Quote:

One of the things people perceive libertarian values is "Income Inequality" and "Richer gets richer". They are right. That is a problem.
Inequality per se isn't unfair. (e.g something like top 10% of programmers produce 90% of quality software, so it won't be unfair if they be paid a dozen times more. )

And who exactly are you to decide who deserves what income? Income is not for you, the government, or anyone to decide but the free market.

Quote:

However, it becomes a problem when the wealth gets inherited. As Warren Buffet said, its like picking the 2020 Olympic Team from the eldest sons of 2000 Olympic gold medalists.

If you want to eradicate inherited wealth advantages, I would suggest getting a neutron bomb big enough to wipe out the entire planet. You may be able to prevent inherited wealth through extortion, but you can't destroy genetic inheritance.

Wealth does not just apply to finance. If you have inherited a healthy body from your parents, you have inherited wealth. If you have inherited a mathetically skilled mind from your mathematically inclined parents, you have inherited wealth. You are inherently at a better advantage than someone born with Harlequinn Ichthyosis, or someone who was born to a person with a mental illness.

Inherited wealth lasts maybe one generation. But a man does not survive by wealth. He survives only

Back to top

IP Logged

Richard Enderle

Libertarian Full Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #13 - Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:06pm

Continued from last post:

He survives only by one thing: reason.

Quote:

This is where public education comes in. Without it, only those who can afford it can go to school, and they'll have inherited the "educated" status. Thus there would emerge 2 different classes. "Educated" and "Uneducated" and people would become Marxists all over again.

You've made two assumptions:

1) That public school actually educates

and

2) That homeschooling/private school would be nearly as expensive as it is today if the government wasn't regulating/competing aggressively with it. If we got rid of the public schools, private schools would take it's place. If there was a demand for cheap education, cheap education would be provided. But if what you're suggesting is that education should be free, hate to break this to you, but it's not possible. Even in public school, if the parents don't spend money on their kids, they won't get very far.

Quote:

In a libertarian society, there is going to be inequality but you should be guaranteed equal opportunity. That's why we support banning murders, remember?

No, we support banning murders because murder = force. Force infringes on individual rights. What you suggested is not protection from force, but rather, a shining example of force. You don't agree with the money someone makes, so you believe the government should extort money from them to give to someone, rather than donate yourself.

If you want to redistribute the wealth, that wealth has to be yours to distribute. If you want to give money to beggars and the homeless, it has to be yours to give.

Back to top

IP Logged

agorista

Libertarian Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #14 - Feb 20^th, 2010 at 2:32am

What kind of libertarian am I

I am a Minarchist who thinks that government should exist soley to defend the country inside and out,provide courts by which we can establish our own rights to our bodies and our property.

Everything else [highlight]Everthing/highlight] should be done entirely by voluntary cooperation.

Everything currently owned by the government NOT concerned with the above should be sold off or transferred into independant instutues (such as federal highways) and teh mo0ney used to fund the military ,courts and policing.

Back to top

IP Logged

meric

Libertarian Full Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 96

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #15 - Feb 20^th, 2010 at 7:35am

If I don't address your point it means I agree with you and there is nothing to say, I'm not ignoring it.

Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

If businesses weren't being taxed and regulated to death, there would be more opportunities for this person. This includes minimum wage.

Yes. It is only moral if it is voluntarily given.

Say there's no minimum wage and he got a job but he's being paid $3 an hour, but everyone else gets $10. He's still at a disadvantage. There are many people who would be willing to pay for this guy and automatically deduct from their wages to subsidize caring for him (i.e income tax and welfare), including me. If there weren't, there wouldn't be laws enforcing it. It's unfortunate that libertarians are outnumbered in their cause. Same point for the 98 year old guy. People put themselves in other's shoes and decided to put a government in power to redistribute their income.

Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

Well, why is he homeless?

- Because of minimum wage laws preventing him from being able to work a trial period

It could've been the one leg one arm boy who can't afford the rent with his $3 an hour income.
Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

Second of all, yes. Contributions are only moral if they are voluntary. If they are extorted by the government, then it is a violation of another person's rights.

Government is put into power by the people. :/ We'll have to convince people to elect a smaller government instead.

Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

Okay, so you heard about less gun crimes. What other murders were committed? Does it matter what is used in the killing? Gun control only redistributes the choice of weapon, it doesn't prevent deaths.

I'm not sure about all that. I just have this latent fear of a drunk guy with a gun. He could kill me with a gun easier than with a knife. I'll give him a knife instead.

Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

And who exactly are you to decide who deserves what income? Income is not for you, the government, or anyone to decide but the free market.

I, the voter, and voters like me.
Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

If you want to eradicate inherited wealth advantages, I would suggest getting a neutron bomb big enough to wipe out the entire planet. You may be able to prevent inherited wealth through extortion, but you can't destroy genetic inheritance.

You're right, enough wealth is inherited already. We don't need even more things to be inherited and stacking the world even more; That'll just split the society apart. You're going to have the kings and lord, and the rest are peasants, each person inheriting their role from their parents.

Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

Inherited wealth lasts maybe one generation. But a man does not survive by wealth. He survives only by one thing: reason.

It's lot longer than one generation. You're more likely to have a low income just because your parents were. And if you have a low income it'll likely your children have a lower income too. There, > one generation.
Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

You've made two assumptions:

1) That public school actually educates

I have been in public education for most of my life and it educated me. What is your experience?

Richard Enderle wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 11:02pm:

2) That homeschooling/private school would be nearly as expensive as it is today if the government wasn't regulating/competing aggressively with it. If we got rid of the public schools, private schools would take it's place. If there was a demand for cheap education, cheap education would be provided. But if what you're suggesting is that education should be free, hate to break this to you, but it's not possible. Even in public school, if the parents don't spend money on their kids, they won't get very far.

This violates many economic principles. I'll explain how prices are determined.

1. There is downward pressure from competition among suppliers.
2. There is an upward pressure from demand among consumers.
3. If marginal cost and marginal benefit of suppliers and consumers do not over lap there will be no trade.

Here's the situation
1. There is a lot of supply of education, from public and private sources. (Downward pressure)
2. Evidently there is a lot of demand for private education but not enough supply. That's why it is expensive.
3. The government provides ~80% of money required to run a school to private schools.

You're saying, If the government eradicated public school, and private school's funding, that the school fees will go down, just because people like cheaper education? Private schools won't be able to operate as they are because it's too expensive giving so much to students.

A lot of people demand $100 laptops. Okay, so there are now $100 laptops but they suck.

Removing government support will certainly reduce the quality of education each student will receive.

Why would this happen? Because you didn't cover the positive externality of a student's education. Research it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Richard Enderle

Libertarian Full Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #16 - Feb 20^th, 2010 at 12:34pm

meric wrote on Feb 20^th, 2010 at 7:35am:

Say there's no minimum wage and he got a job but he's being paid $3 an hour, but everyone else gets $10. He's still at a disadvantage.

But he would have no money if there was no minimum wage. $3 hour > No money

Quote:

There are many people who would be willing to pay for this guy and automatically deduct from their wages to subsidize caring for him (i.e income tax and welfare), including me.

And they must do this voluntary.

Quote:

If there weren't, there wouldn't be laws enforcing it. It's unfortunate that libertarians are outnumbered in their cause. Same point for the 98 year old guy. People put themselves in other's shoes and decided to put a government in power to redistribute their income.

So you believe that it's okay to force everyone to do what the majority is willing to do, instead of simply letting the majority do something voluntary.

Quote:

I'm not sure about all that. I just have this latent fear of a drunk guy with a gun. He could kill me with a gun easier than with a knife. I'll give him a knife instead.

He could also kill you a lot easier with a car. There's no point in pre-determination of a crime. This is how we got the Patriot Act in America, and that pissed everyone off. It's unaccetpable to say "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither" but then say "Oh, well except for guns".

Quote:

I, the voter, and voters like me.

No, in a libertarian government, you don't have the power to determine who has too much income. There would be amendments specifically protecting against what you would try to pass.

Quote:

You're right, enough wealth is inherited already. We don't need even more things to be inherited and stacking the world even more;

So says you, and this is something you and people who agree with need to achieve ideologically, not through personal or government force. If someone wants to leave behind a wealthy estate for their kids, they should be allowed to. It's their kids. If you're wealthy, and you've earned it, you have the right to spoil your kids.

Quote:

That'll just split the society apart. You're going to have the kings and lord, and the rest are peasants, each person inheriting their role from their parents.

You're comparing private enterprise with rulers that extort money. Wow.

Quote:

It's lot longer than one generation. You're more likely to have a low income just because your parents were. And if you have a low income it'll likely your children have a lower income too. There, > one generation.

If you do absolutely nothing to better your situtation, then perhaps you will. There are scholarships, there are student loans, and there are many ways to get out of a bad situation. There would be even more if people would stop taxing people to death.

Quote:

1. There is downward pressure from competition among suppliers.
2. There is an upward pressure from demand among consumers.
3. If marginal cost and marginal benefit of suppliers and consumers do not over lap there will be no trade.

Well, consider this: Most of the people who would be qualified to run a private school, are working at public school.

Quote:

Here's the situation
1. There is a lot of supply of education, from public and private sources. (Downward pressure)
2. Evidently there is a lot of demand for private education but not enough supply. That's why it is expensive.

There is not enough supply, again, because nobody wants to supply it. Because there is a public school, and if they were to start a private school, they'd be taxed and regulated to death by the government.

Quote:

3. The government provides ~80% of money required to run a school to private schools.

What? No, private schools are private, because they are free from government intervention. The only schools that get subsidized are community colleges and state universities.

Quote:

You're saying, If the government eradicated public school, and private school's funding, that the school fees will go down, just because people like cheaper education? Private schools won't be able to operate as they are because it's too expensive giving so much to students.

Private schools are expensive because of this mindset: that the more expensive a school is, the better it is. The demand/price increase feeds on itself. A way to break that, is to delegate public schools to private ownerships

Quote:

Removing government support will certainly reduce the quality of education each student will receive.

Why would this happen? Because you didn't cover the positive externality of a student's education. Research it.

Private schools can survive without government money. They do almost every day in the U.S.

If you want a cheap education, go to a tech school. If you want to get paid for your education, go to a grad school that offers a stipend. Some schools actually pay you, like if you're getting a PHd in the sciences. They're by no means "crappy" educations.

Also, when government externalizes costs, that's how waste happens. Nobody spends money more wisely than their own

Back to top

IP Logged

meric

Libertarian Full Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 96

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #17 - Feb 21^st, 2010 at 1:33am

A government internalizes externalities. You've got it the other way around. If there was no government there won't benches on the sides of roads.

The bench is a public good, and anyone who builds it will likely provide value for everyone who uses it, but because you can't feasibly collect a fee from everyone who sits on it, there wouldn't be enough benches built.

This applies to roads, highways, education, national defense, water pipes, electricity grids, sewage networks, etc.

In Australia, all private schools receive ~80% of the funding each public school receives. That's why they're so good. =) But even then they're expensive. After some brief research I see this is equivalent to "charter schools" in the US. So there's a bit of misunderstanding there...

Quote:

force everyone to do what the majority is willing to do.

That's what society is about. If you want to have 100% freedom as a minority you're going to have to be 100% independent too. So, don't live there. Move to the cayman islands or something, where there's no income tax.

I, as part of the majority, is willing to automatically sacrifice part of my income to help people I don't know about.

Quote:

He could also kill you a lot easier with a car. There's no point in pre-determination of a crime. This is how we got the Patriot Act in America, and that pissed everyone off. It's unaccetpable to say "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither" but then say "Oh, well except for guns".

Well, it works. I would've opposed banning firearms if it weren't banned yet, but its already banned and it is working out.

Quote:

No, in a libertarian government, you don't have the power to determine who has too much income. There would be amendments specifically protecting against what you would try to pass.

Yeah that would be nice. Now how about we try to get a libertarian government in power? I doubt people will be convinced by us preaching the one arm one legged boy can make it on his own and relying on voluntary donations (a.k.a begging).

Quote:

So says you, and this is something you and people who agree with need to achieve ideologically, not through personal or government force. If someone wants to leave behind a wealthy estate for their kids, they should be allowed to. It's their kids. If you're wealthy, and you've earned it, you have the right to spoil your kids.

Right, so why don't we pick the 2020 olympic team from the eldest sons of gold medalists from the 2000 olympics too?

Quote:

You're comparing private enterprise with rulers that extort money. Wow.

You missed my point. You want your kids to have enough money so they feel they can do anything, but you don't want them to have so much that they feel like they don't need to do anything at all.

Quote:

If you do absolutely nothing to better your situtation, then perhaps you will. There are scholarships, there are student loans, and there are many ways to get out of a bad situation. There would be even more if people would stop taxing people to death.

Public education means automatic scholarships for everyone. I'd doubt if government didn't exist everyone would still have access to education. I'm not totally sure, but if we are to move to a more libertarian government public education is definitely NOT the first thing I would like to see axed.

Quote:

Well, consider this: Most of the people who would be qualified to run a private school, are working at public school.

What makes you think that? Private school teachers could well be paid more since the schools have so much more money. (at least here, anyway)

Quote:

There is not enough supply, again, because nobody wants to supply it. Because there is a public school, and if they were to start a private school, they'd be taxed and regulated to death by the government.

Here, they get subsidized so much it isn't funny, yet they're still expensive. It costs over $20,000 a year to send a kid to a good private school, that's as much as the rent of the house!

Quote:

Private schools are expensive because of this mindset

I'd doubt its just a mindset. The most expensive private schools here are the top performers in the state, on par with the top selective schools.

That's why selective schools exist... You want kids who work hard to have the same opportunities as kids whose parents are just rich.

Quote:

Also, when government externalizes costs, that's how waste happens.

Example:
When government passes a "Pollution tax" it's to discourage factories from polluting. Its a net benefit to everyone because when factories pollute they make the environment worse for everyone else. Let's say they do $60 in damages a day (e.g polluted water now needs to be filtered), then the ideal tax for the factory would be $60 a day. That would move the supply curve back to equilibrium.

I recommend you take a course in microeconomics 101.

Gosh, libertarians can be so extreme sometimes. :/
Quote:

Meric, basically what you are saying is that gold is more useless than a piece of paper. A dollar is backed by the economy, gold backs itself.

What makes gold so valuable? http://money.howstuffworks.com/question213.htm
There's so few of it. In the same way you can make paper currency `safe` by not printing so much.

Back to top

IP Logged

Richard Enderle

Libertarian Full Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #18 - Feb 26^th, 2010 at 7:28pm

Quote:

A government internalizes externalities. You've got it the other way around. If there was no government there won't benches on the sides of roads.

The bench is a public good, and anyone who builds it will likely provide value for everyone who uses it, but because you can't feasibly collect a fee from everyone who sits on it, there wouldn't be enough benches built.

This applies to roads, highways, education, national defense, water pipes, electricity grids, sewage networks, etc.

In Australia, all private schools receive ~80% of the funding each public school receives. That's why they're so good. =) But even then they're expensive. After some brief research I see this is equivalent to "charter schools" in the US. So there's a bit of misunderstanding there... [/quote]

Benches can be built by property owners without asking people pay to sit on them. People don't charge money for every living breathing thing in existance.

Quote:

That's what society is about. If you want to have 100% freedom as a minority you're going to have to be 100% independent too. So, don't live there. Move to the cayman islands or something, where there's no income tax.

I never thought I would have to argue how dangerous political collectivism is to a supposed libertarian.

There is no society. There are only individuals.

Quote:

I, as part of the majority, is willing to automatically sacrifice part of my income to help people I don't know about.

I is?

And you are perfectly capable of doing that on your own time without forcing others to. What is so hard about that? Redistribute your own wealth.

Quote:

Well, it works. I would've opposed banning firearms if it weren't banned yet, but its already banned and it is working out.

Define "working out". Because if I were to presume correctly, sacrificing freedom for security.

I take freedom to mean any action that does not mean force (trespass, violence) or fraud (breach of contract, false advertising).

I take "security", in this context (because let's face it, security never really happens for long) to mean a slight decrease in what may be bad.

"Well it works" just does not cut it. If I buy a firearm, but I do it because I would like to have target practice, the targets I'm practicing on are not individuals or private property owned by individuals, and the government incarcerates/fines me, then the government has overstepped it's boundaries of retaliatory force and became the initiator of force.

Here in America, the states with the most gun control have the most violence (California, Illinois, etc) and the ones with the most lax gun control have the least (The Red States, like Texas and Oklahoma).

You can make something illegal, but you will always get law abiding citizens to obey the law before you get criminals to. There is no justice in making it so that more criminals have firearms than law abiding citizens, because the law abiding citizens will have no defense against firearms.

Gun violence going down does not matter if violence in another weapon has gone up by the same amount. Violence is violence. And really, you can't "kill someone easier" with a gun. If you don't know how to use a gun, it's a lot harder to kill with a gun, than with a knife.

But even if this were not the case, arguing purely on utilitarian grounds, and not even explaining how gun control is not inherently initiation of force does not a libertarian make.

Quote:

Yeah that would be nice. Now how about we try to get a libertarian government in power? I doubt people will be convinced by us preaching the one arm one legged boy can make it on his own and relying on voluntary donations (a.k.a begging).

Well, we would get into power the same way that Abraham Lincoln got into power by being against Slavery: by not even mentioning it at first.

I'm not saying that there needs to be an overthrow of all government over night. I'm saying that getting rid of welfare should at least be a goal, or that people should be moving away from government control, and at least believing that less government initiation of force is more.

Quote:

You missed my point. You want your kids to have enough money so they feel they can do anything, but you don't want them to have so much that they feel like they don't need to do anything at all.

This is a decision that the parent must make.

Quote:

Public education means automatic scholarships for everyone. I'd doubt if government didn't exist everyone would still have access to education. I'm not totally sure, but if we are to move to a more libertarian government public education is definitely NOT the first thing I would like to see axed.

So you'd be okay if we moved away from public education slowly, but carefully. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

Here, they get subsidized so much it isn't funny, yet they're still expensive. It costs over $20,000 a year to send a kid to a good private school, that's as much as the rent of the house!

That sounds to me like an argument against subsidies. If schools cost $20,000 a year, it doesn't seem like the private schools are trying to make their schools less expensive. They know the government's got their back, so they charge whatever they want.

Back to top

IP Logged

Richard Enderle

Libertarian Full Member

Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50

Re: What kind of libertarian are you?
Reply #19 - Feb 26^th, 2010 at 7:40pm

You believe a truly intelligent, but not quite wealthy child should be allowed to have an education. This is possible in America's current system, and can be moreso in a free system. If you want to get a PHd in the sciences, you will actually get PAID to go to school. Of course, if you want an education, you have to get a technical one. Liberal Arts education is for when you have enough money.

Quote:

When government passes a "Pollution tax" it's to discourage factories from polluting. Its a net benefit to everyone because when factories pollute they make the environment worse for everyone else. Let's say they do $60 in damages a day (e.g polluted water now needs to be filtered), then the ideal tax for the factory would be $60 a day. That would move the supply curve back to equilibrium.

1 - You missed my point about "Waste". Waste in this context means financial waste.

2 - A government should not "discourage" people from anything other than force or fraud. You mentioned pollution. Since air can not be privately owned, and can affect everyone, then if the pollutants in question are objective (not like Carbon Dioxide), then a pollution tax would be acceptable. But more should be done than just "discouragement".

Quote:

Gosh, libertarians can be so extreme sometimes. :/

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Moderation in the defense of justice is no virtue.

Back to top

IP Logged