Ummm? Where did he dig this up? There is no reputable libertarian resource that advocates for such an abomination. A carbon tax that transfers economic wealth to a 'basic income' program? Did he fall down the stairs before the interview?
Last edited by AuH20; 08-17-2016 at 05:30 PM.
Originally Posted by William Tell
Like many libertarians, Johnson said he liked the idea of the UBI because of its potential to save money in bureaucratic costs, freeing up more money to give people directly. During the exchange, we discussed how directly giving a basic income would increase the value of each dollar spent for the recipient, as opposed to in-kind services, such as food stamps, which restrict purchases.
At the same time, I asked Johnson about his position on the carbon tax and using these funds to fund the basic income. He once again said he was “open” to the idea.
“There are a lot of smart libertarians that support the carbon tax, so I don’t discount the idea,” Johnson said.
"The Patriarch"
I don't support it, but...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...income/375600/The idea isn’t new. As Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.”
Also Charles Murray and Thomas Sowell spoke about it as well. The idea is to replace our current system of welfare with this. It's a transitioning tool. Thomas Paine, believe it or not, advocated something a little similar in his day. (as reparations from the Crown)
But hey, I wouldn't expect this to come through in a tweet or soundbite. Much easier to dismiss completely.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Occasionally the tree of liberty will require a carbon tax.
Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
"I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
Ron Paul
Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty ReportBITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE
+rep please.
My guess is that Johnson was intrigued by this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...change/257827/
More at link.My argument is that the same general principles that lead libertarians and conservatives to call for greater protection of property rights should lead them to call for greater attention to the most likely effects of climate change. It is a well recognized principle of common law that if company A is flooding the land of person B, it is irrelevant whether company A generates lots of economic prosperity for the local community (including B). A's action would still violate B's property rights, and B would be entitled to relief of some sort. By the same token, if the land of a farmer in Bangladesh is flooded, due in measurable and provable part to human-induced climate change, why would he be any less entitled to redress than a farmer who has his land flooded by his neighbor's land-use changes? Property rights should not be sacrificed as part of some utilitarian calculus. Libertarians readily accept this principle when government planners violate property rights in the name of economic development (see e.g., Kelo v. New London). Yet they seem to abandon their commitment to property rights when it comes to global warming.
I readily recognize that there is, as yet, no international mechanism that adjudicate warming-based disputes, and I am quite sympathetic to those who believe any international entity capable of adjudicating such disputes would do more harm than good, but this does not negate the principle that global warming is, as best we can tell, likely to cause harms that should be addressed. The question is how to do it.
Accepting that global warming is a serious problem does not require the embrace of federal regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as currently undertaken by the EPA. I have been quite critical of these efforts, which I believe are based on a misinterpretation of the Act by the Supreme Court. CAA regulation will be extremely costly but will not produce emission reductions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The pork-laden cap-and-trade legislation passed by the House of Representatives would not be much better. What then should we do?
Again, I don't buy the idea, but the idea is to do it INSTEAD of all measures we have in place now.
Specifically, the federal government should impose a price on carbon that is fully rebated to taxpayers on a per capita basis. This would, in effect, shift the incidence of federal taxes away from income and labor and onto energy consumption and offset some of the potential regressivity of a carbon tax. For conservatives who have long supported shifting from an income tax to a sales or consumption tax, and oppose increasing the federal tax burden, this should be a no brainer.
Oh, but yeah. Much easier to do no homework and just tweet out some nonsense. Great job, Justin.
Last edited by CaptUSA; 08-17-2016 at 06:30 PM.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
And this would be a voluntary replacement to the non-voluntary system in place?
Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
"I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
Ron Paul
Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty ReportBITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE
No. And that's the problem with it.
Just like with every government system, it would have a whole new host of unintended consequences. And to fix those consequences, you'd have to enact more and more BS rules and the costs would increase.
It might be nice to start from scratch, but this has virtually zero chance of ever passing since it cedes control. I was responded to the idiotic tweet in the OP that this idea has no libertarian cred. It obviously does. But only when compared to the existing F'd up system.
More of that LP circular firing squad. Even ideas that are FAR FAR better than the current system are laughed out of town because they're not pure enough. But the OP gives Trump a pass... go figure.
Last edited by CaptUSA; 08-17-2016 at 06:40 PM.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
For those too lazy to read:
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Damn... Where'd you go?
Come back...
It seemed like we were actually going to have a libertarian discussion for once??? I guess the OP was just about throwing ignorant stones, then?
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Better than what we have now.
Eventually, y'all are going to run out of excuses for this clown. I understand. We like to count our names. We want to maybe get some personal pride back that was lost during past elections. But is it worth it? Is throwing out the baby with the bath water really worth it? We keep seeing that word "purist" arrogantly thrown around. But these are fundamentals, boys. There is a difference. And denial doesn't change that.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-17-2016 at 07:20 PM.
So Friedman, Hayek, Sowell... They lack the fundamentals, too?
Henry Hazlitt, too.
Sorry folks. If we're going to start ousting people based on this, we're really going to lose most of our top economists.
Last edited by CaptUSA; 08-17-2016 at 07:29 PM.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Not surprising in the least. The only libertarian chops Johnson EVER had was that he reduced government spending.
This is completely in line with a guy who wants to reduce government spending and has no further consistent political compass to go by.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
Who said anything about ousting people based on this one thing except for you? Seems like you like to project a lot. I noticed that in the Johnson evaluation thread. Actually, I was ousting him based on a couple of things. For instance, he'd mentioned that he'd consider signing an illegal transfer of power. Which is a patent sacrifice of the constitution. He also openly professed that he'd send men with guns from the government to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their property (property is the principal support for securing Individual Liberty and Life itself, btw) at the ends of their barrels. This thing here is just something else to add to the list.
Or am I just imagining these things and they didn't really happen? Hm? Is that what it is? I'm just imagining these things there, CaptUSA? Nothing to see here? Move along, then?
There are likely some other reasons I'm ousting his cultural Marxist, Communist ass, but I'll run with these couple for the moment just to stimulate a response from you to pop off some more excuses for him.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-17-2016 at 07:59 PM.
THE CARBON TAX aspect is the relevant part that has "no reputable libertarian resource that advocates for such an abomination."
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
lets be honest here that Sowel and Friedman are not an Austrian economists; they're Chicago school
Hayek, Hazlitt, are Austrians
You can't just lump them together, its like lumping Ayn Rand's objectivism in with libertarianism
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
That is true. I can't believe Gary is kowtowing to this fraud science. Though CaptUSA was correct in his research on the libertarian origins of basic income.
And I linked to that argument as well. Keep reading.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Yep. That's correct.
Heh. I was going to let them keep running with it for a while before dropping the hammer. You messed it up, man.
Yep. But I wasn't speaking of Austrian vs Chicago. Just "libertarian" economics. I don't side with the Chicago school, but at least they're on our side. And eventually, Hazlitt got it right. He eventually drew it out to its conclusion and landed in the same place I have. Buckley hit on it, too, in his questioning of Friedman.
But the suggestion in the OP was that these ideas couldn't be supported by libertarians. That's just patently false.
These economic ideas are not good if we're starting from scratch, but in comparison to what we have now, they're a stark improvement! But this is what always happens with libertarians... We judge ourselves by a different standard. For a libertarian, it's always about adherence to the ideal - never a comparison to the existing system.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
posted above. Who said anything about Chicago vs. Austrian? The OP was about "libertarian" - which encompasses several economic schools. Nice try, though, Trumpster.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Trumpster!? Ha. Classic comeback. Is that all you have left, man. It's come to that, has it?
Deception will get your argument nowhere, my friend. It'll work on the average schmucks flipping through the channels. But not here.
By all means, though, keep rolling with it. Ought to be a hoot.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-17-2016 at 08:09 PM.
I'm not making excuses for him - I disagree with the proposal to which he is "open". But the ideas in this thread are not Marxist or Communist. They are simply a better solution than the current system - not the ideal.
But somehow, you expect the ideal from the LP and not from the GOP candidate. I don't expect it from either. Johnson is disappointing as hell, but compared to Trump, Clinton, and the current system, he's fairly preferable.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
If the shoe fits...Trumpster!? Ha. Classic comeback. Is that all you have left, man. It's come to that, has it?
Just pointing out to anyone who may be reading this thread that you are no supporter of "libertarian" principles. If you want to call out Gary, at least be consistent with your support of Trump.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
You mean the "I'm going to inject my abrasiveness into the conversation and effectively halt meaningful discussion" shoe?
It does seem to fit both of them.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
No. I'm probably the most strict libertarian in this thread. What a blatantly dishonest little sht you are being. This coming from the guy who has been cheerleading for the TPP for months. Which is a patent transfer of power and a trashing of the constitution. Puleeez. That makes me want to bump threads just to demonstrate what kind of deceptive little worm you are being here.
Now, why are you going to force me to do something like that? Hm? Why?
Trump supporter. Phhht. Please.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-17-2016 at 08:22 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us