#beinglibertarian

[christianandnerdy]

Celebrating Easter Sunday 2020 #easter2020 #eastersunday #eastersunday2020 #beinglibertarian #christianandnerdy https://www.instagram.com/p/B-5MIunlUXO/?igshid=rt8ebnwfkncu

[beinglibertarian]

Misconceptions of Individualism

The political divide can be dichotomized in multiple ways, one of these being individualism vs. collectivism.

With the rise of collectivism on both sides of the political spectrum, misconceptions of what individualism actually represents are becoming increasingly common. If we wish to preserve the rights of the individual, we must be aware of the misconceptions that others have and ensure that we fully understand individualism.

Individualism by Definition

Individualism, by definition, prioritizes the rights of the individual over the rights of the group. This does not mean that groups cannot exist, or that individuals with a common interest cannot voluntarily form groups to represent their values. It only means that the groups themselves do not have any rights, only the individuals within them.

Collectivism, on the other hand, holds the opposite perspective. Collectivism emphasizes value of the collective group over the individual. These groups are usually labeled as society, the general welfare, the people, and so on. Instead of arguing for individual rights, they argue for rights in the context of various groups, including workers rights, LGBTQ rights, black rights, women’s rights, etc. Individualists are not opposed to these rights, with the exception of the so-called “rights” that work in favor of one group at the expense of another group. Individualists would just categorize all of these together under the banner of human rights.

Individualism and Empathy

The most vocal proponent of individualism was novelist and Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, especially as an opponent to collectivism (most of the top searches for this dichotomy are Objectivist sources).

Ayn Rand was very unapologetic in her defense of selfishness as a virtue. Her archetypal ideal characters, especially Howard Roark, were sometimes interpreted as lacking any sort of empathy and compassion (this is intended as a general statement, not as a critique of her characters). These characters, representing “the ideal man” as a strong individualist, likely played a role in creating the rumor that individualists lack empathy (although malice on the part of collectivists cannot be discounted).

Contrary to this rumor, empathy is a large part of individualism. While collectivists are concerned with the general welfare of the group they are defending, individualists have concern for the injustice of any human being. To defend the rights of “the little guy” (sometimes at the expense of the group) is to hold the principled position that each person, no matter what group they are part of, has inalienable rights that must be protected.

Individualism and Narcissism

One claim against individualism is to imply that to be an individualist is to be “self-centered” or narcissistic. This argument misses the point of individual rights. It’s not wrong to say that individualists are defending their own self-interest, but when doing this they are also defending the self-interest of every person around them (besides those that seek to control others).

Narcissists are not particularly suited to either individualism or collectivism. If a narcissist lives in a collectivist society, he will strive to become a politician. If he is able to do so, his will becomes synonymous with “the will of the people” and he is in an ideal position. If he is unable to become a politician (a much more likely option), he will be condemned to working for the “common good” of others for the rest of his life.

If a narcissist lives in an individualist society, he is free to live his own life, but will be unable to prosper unless he learns to empathize with others and acknowledge their rights as well as his own.

Individualism and Isolation

To be an individualist does not mean you must become a hermit and isolate yourself from the rest of society. It’s not ideologically inconsistent for an individualist to join a group that represents his interests. Individualists are not anti-collective, they are anti-collective rights.

This misconception comes from a pragmatic argument that a group is more powerful than an individual, therefore individualism can never hope to beat collectivism. While it’s true that collectivists can be better organized thanks to total dedication to group cohesion, individuals have nothing against forming groups to fight for a common interest.

In fact, Murray Rothbard once wrote that collectivism isolates people. As some collectivist ideologies become more concerned with enforcing equality of outcome, they begin removing every possible unique difference within human beings until each person is soulless and empty, leaving no possibility for association with one set of people that could leave out another set within the same collective group.

Nearly everyone can agree that we want what’s best for the greatest number of people. By fighting for individual rights over collective rights, we can defend everyone equally and guarantee that every single person has the most basic human rights.

The post Misconceptions of Individualism appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Qe2t9s via IFTTT

[beinglibertarian]

The Fabled 91% Tax Rate of Americas “Golden Years”

In light of the immense 70% tax rate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced, which she has dubbed the ‘Green New Deal,’ it is necessary to discuss some of the claims she has referred to. In essence, she demands the wealthy pay a large portion of their income to subsidize government initiatives to combat environmental woes. Now I would hope we can all come into agreement that the environment is a vital factor that must be accounted for, after all, it is our home. Instead of discussing the varying approaches to its conservation and restoration, another conversation has been brought forth.

This is the notion that in the middle of the 20th century, the wealthy paid enormous taxes upwards of 91%. In regards to the marginal tax rate, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is correct. However, we must dig into the nuances that are being conveniently ignored. This has created a much emphasized misconception floating around the minds of many Americans, particularly progressives, and it couldn’t be farther from the truth. To properly assess this, one must understand the history of tax laws in the United States, and their policy implications of today. Firstly, we must understand the purchasing power of money, PPM, has declined due to inflation. For example, $500,000 dollars in the 1950’s and 1960’s would equate to roughly $5 million dollars in today’s PPM. Obviously, this distorts statistics that are employed.

In the 50’s and 60’s, because there were a dramatically small number of individuals who were in that top tax bracket, and those who were did not pay anywhere near that fabled 91%. A study from the Congressional Research Service concluded that the effective tax rate for the 0.01 percent of earners paid only around 45% of their earnings. It also must be stressed, this 45% accounts for income, corporate, property, estate, and payroll taxes. This includes collections from federal, state, and local governments. In regards to income taxes exclusively, the wealthy paid an effective 16.9% in the 1950’s. How is this possible one was may ask? One observation is the mass amount of deductions and loopholes taxpayers could utilize, which were eventually disposed of in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It has been stated by Lawrence Lindsey, the former governor at the Federal Reserve, that only eight Americans, yes only eight, paid the 91% tax rate.

Frankly, it is an erroneous belief that the “Golden Years” of mid 20th century America s was owed to the vast taxation of the wealthy. This claim is supported by the evidence that regardless of the tax rate, the government has only managed to collect roughly 20% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in taxes since the 1950s, which is otherwise known as Hauser Law. Although many economists have their doubts about its validity, it has been consistent in the US economy. One can suggest this is due to a multitude of factors, namely individuals have an incentive to change their tendencies when adjusting for tax rates. One theory to this phenomenon, being a decrease in production and output due to escalated levels of taxation causing lesser tax revenues, is known as the Laffer Curve.

In conclusion, the claim that the rich are not paying their fair share and the vast amounts of financial growth in the 50s and 60s at the expense of the wealthy is a fabled myth. In fact, the top 3% of earners paid only 29% of all federal income taxes in the 1950s. In the recent decade, the wealthy contribute 51% of total federal income tax revenue, although data has shown they pay upwards of 70%. It is unfounded, and the claim has little to no evidence to support it. When will progressives, and even conservatives in regards to trade, learn that a market economy is not a zero-sum game? Just because one individual is better off, it does not make another poor. As history has shown, when wealthy entrepreneurs are engaged in large amounts of production and output, those who surround them are much better off. If we are to consider drastic policy, Ms. Cortez and her constituents should not be misleading in their observations.

The post The Fabled 91% Tax Rate of Americas “Golden Years” appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2C9KA5f via IFTTT

[beinglibertarian]

No, Paul Krugman, This Shutdown is Not a ‘Big Libertarian Experiment’ – The Lowdown on Liberty

With the government shutdown now entering its fourth week, it seems that it’s left many political pundits clamoring for an excuse to wash their party’s blame from the situation. Perhaps the most glaring example came from Paul Krugman’s recent New York Times column, “Trump’s Big Libertarian Experiment.” The Nobel-prize winning economist has never been shy about his contempt towards libertarianism, and this column only demonstrates he’s come closer to full-blown lunacy. Because, as I’ll explain, no, this shutdown is not a libertarian experiment.

I know many who may be unfamiliar with libertarian philosophy like to think our only concern is hatred for the state, and that anything not inherently pro-government must be essentially libertarian-esque, but that’s not quite the case. Libertarianism, at its core, is a much deeper philosophy, one that centers around the recognition of private property rights and a strict adherence to consent and the non-aggression principle (NAP). And already in Krugman’s first paragraph we begin to see his claim of tying this to libertarians unravel, as he admits that while conservatives often echo libertarian rhetoric, they’ve never actually followed through on any of their policy.

Nonetheless, now that it’s Trump who’s allowed a government shutdown (something every president has endured going back to Gerald Ford, but never mind that inconvenient fact), this somehow makes it a libertarian experiment. In other words, what we’re expected to believe is that although these politicians have ignored the advice of libertarians for decades, in most cases doing the exact opposite of what we espouse, now that people are seeing the negative side of their policies as government checks dry up, it is suddenly a libertarian’s wet dream. The obvious contradiction in that claim should be glaring.

It’s not unlike when we complain about silly, little things like endless wars and deficit spending; issues Democrats and Republicans can’t be bothered with, and we’re inevitably told to move to our utopia – Somalia. What Krugman is implying here is that a nation operating in complete contradiction to libertarian thought (poor regard for the protection of property rights and an inclination towards aggression against others as a political solution) can likewise come crashing down and somehow, this demonstrates it’s exactly what we’ve always wanted – or at least the negative consequences are our fault.

Not so fast though, Krugman.

Because as history shows, it wasn’t libertarians who advocated for any of this. We never lobbied for the government to expand to the point of hiring 800,000 workers that even they deem to be “non-essential.” Neither did we advocate for a massive, $4 trillion annual budget, requiring an ever-expansive debt ceiling just to keep it open, the very reason this experiment of a shutdown began in the first place.

You know who did though? Paul Krugman. With his commitment to Keynesian economics, he has rarely seen an instance of deficit spending he hasn’t liked. Unless of course Trump is in office with a Republican congress; then he’s almost downright libertarian on the deficit.

Ironically, one of the few policy agreements he actually does have with libertarians – a disdain for farm subsidies – is somehow pointed to as a strike against libertarians. Never mind that our use of the term “crony capitalism” here is the exact same as Krugman’s description in his own writing; I wouldn’t hold your breath for Krugman to share any fault now that the checks are no longer being mailed out to the farmers though. I suppose we can overlook the fact that it wasn’t even libertarians who initially enacted those subsidies back during the New Deal; a policy Krugman argues, if anything, didn’t go far enough in its spending, calling it only “modestly expansionary.” And I also suppose we ought to ignore the countless politicians who’ve fought to keep these crony policies in place, including the progressive darling, Bill Clinton, who saw to it that farm subsidies ballooned to $30 billion in 1998 by classifying it as “emergency aid.” Never mind that there weren’t any libertarian representatives behind it; now that people have been made dependent on them and are suffering in their absence, it’s a downright libertarian utopia!

And God forbid we use these libertarian critics’ own argument against them. Who was it that derided Sears’ CEO, Eddie Lampert, for running the company into the ground while still receiving a bonus check? Calling him an “Ayn Rand devotee.” Oh, that was Paul Krugman. While laying off 30,000 people and keeping your bonus is quite immoral, should we expect the same outrage from Krugman in the face of twenty-five times as many federal employees losing their checks as his friends in the Washington elite keep the money flowing in? Of course not. “Blame the libertarians!” goes the broken record.

It’s at this point, however, that Krugman spills the beans about his true agenda all along. As it turns out, he admits that libertarian ideas aren’t a “real” force within the GOP. (who knew?!) Rather, he surmises it’s only a cover story for Republicans’ true plan to distribute wealth to their rich friends – arguably the truest statement made in the entire column.

Now, what libertarian critique would be complete without a fallacious argument about food being poisoned?

Krugman decides to end his column with the oldest of libertarian strawmen: the insinuation that without the Food and Drug Administration working tirelessly to inspect our food, we’d succumb to the whims of greedy capitalist producers who only wish to poison us. Oddly, you’d think a Nobel economist would grasp the concept of how unlikely and unprofitable it is to intentionally kill off your customers – seeing as how we’re told relentlessly capitalism only cares about profits. What’s more likely is that in the absence of any real arguments comes an appeal to what political hacks do best: fearmongering.

So, does the prospect of contaminated food smell like freedom to us? No, not any more than your attempts to pass blame make this shutdown any sort of “big libertarian” experiment.

The post No, Paul Krugman, This Shutdown is Not a ‘Big Libertarian Experiment’ – The Lowdown on Liberty appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2VHe2sm via IFTTT

[beinglibertarian]

About Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ 70% Tax

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in the progressive limelight yet again today because of her latest proposal: raise the federal income tax on top earners to 70%. This, of course, is being heralded by progressives; at least by those in my social circle. Why shouldn’t those who have an inordinate amount of money be forced to give some of it up for the common good? This is a good question (in their eyes), but I have a question of my own.

Why are we only taxing money?

I have a friend — let’s call him John. Like many people in my social circle, John is a “democratic socialist,” but John is unique in that he and I are so alike in all of the ways socialists think matter: we’re both white, heterosexual, grew up on the same side of town and in the same school district; both in families that were lower-middle class; we both graduated high school the same year; possess relatively similar intelligence and physical ability, etc. Demographically, we’re damn near identical, but there are two ways where we differ greatly: in ideology and values.

Before I continue, I want to make something as clear as I possibly can: I am not vaunting what I value above what he values. I am not saying that I chose a better path than him, or anything of the like. Likewise, I’m not saying the opposite: the path he chose is not “better” than the one I chose. I’m merely laying out the stark difference between those paths.

I don’t want to give away too much information here, so I’ll keep it vague.

John has pursued things that he enjoys and loves immensely. He works in a career field that many would say should be relegated to a hobby. He reads hundreds of books every year because he loves reading and learning. He explores different cultures and foods he finds fascinating. He decided to pursue things he found interesting in college rather than things that would generate income. He left the economic security of home to move to the city where the love of his life, and now wife and mother of his child, live.

I have taken, well, essentially the exact opposite path. I put off college, deciding instead to enlist in the military and learn a trade in my state’s Air National Guard. Shortly after my enlistment was over, I got a job contracting overseas. Instead of moving to a city with my wife, whom I love just as much as John loves his, I opted to leave so I could help secure us financially for the future. I, admittedly, make a lot of money right now because I’m in a third-world country living in half a trailer and working six days a week every week, in a physically-demanding industry. Also, the summers are very hot, and that sucks too.

I did this because I saw people very close to me put in hard, dire situations financially at all points in their lives. I saw how these situations impacted their relationships, their plans for retirement, and most of all their general happiness, and decided when I was a teenager that I never wanted to be in that situation. I have gone to great lengths to do everything I can to insure myself against those situations. I work a job I don’t like in a place I don’t want to be, separated from everyone I love and care for, to try and make sure that I’m never in that situation. I have sacrificed a great deal; sacrifices I didn’t have to make, to pursue that goal of shoring myself and my family against the buffeting winds of financial uncertainty.

John has taken the exact opposite path. Instead of sacrificing his personal fulfillment in career for money, he has sacrificed his potential earnings for fulfillment. Instead of spending his spare time researching investments and starting his own entrepreneurial ventures, he spends his spare time reading about things he enjoys reading about. I sacrificed time with my loved ones for economic security, he sacrificed economic security to be with his loved ones.

And all of that is, once again, perfectly fine! We simply value different things at this stage in our lives.

But it does make wonder why he, and my other “democratic socialist” friends, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, feel entitled to tax a huge sum of what I gain, in pursuit of the things I value, when he gets taxed very little or not at all in pursuit of the things he values.

Why is it, that because I have pursued different things than he has, that they feel I should have to give up 70% of what I earn – or whatever massive number AOC and her followers would like to tax people who make as much money as I currently make?

We all have 24 hours in a day. That’s our resource, the primary resource that all of us have, universally. That’s true equality right there, no matter where we were born, what our last name is, we all have 24 hours in a day; no more, no less. I choose to spend that resource to pursue economic stability, while John, and a vast number of socialist friends in my circle, choose to spend that resource pursuing things they enjoy. Why do I have to sacrifice so much of what I gained spending that resource when they don’t have to give up anything they gained from how they spent their resource?

Put simply, if I spend 10 hours of my potential leisure time working overtime, it is taxed at, let’s say 40%, after all taxes are accounted for. This is, from what I am told ad infinitum, “the price we pay for a civilized society.”

Yet, when my peers spend those same 10 hours opting to read, or go out with the friends or loved ones, or watch TV, or play video games, or browse social media, or get high, or get drunk, or doing whatever it is that they enjoy doing, none of that gets taxed. Society benefits nothing, except for perhaps very vaguely and tangentially, from these activities, but if I complain about my egregious tax rate, I’m “selfish.”

So, I’d like to issue a proposal. Socialists want to tax those with “disproportionately high incomes” at 70%? Fine, I’ll agree to that, the moment they also agree to tax the time of those with a “disproportionately high amount of leisure time” at 70% as well.

How would that play out? Well, that evil 1% can be summed up quite nicely with CEOs. Harvard conducted a study of CEO work hours and found that they work an average of 62.5 hours a week or an average of 8.9 hours a day, every day of the week. To put that into perspective, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the average American works 3.6 hours a day, meaning CEOs are spending 56% of their waking hours working towards the acquisition of money while the average American spends about 23%. Once again, keep in mind that these CEOs have the same 24 hours a day that we all have, and they are using that one, fundamental resource to pursue the collection of money. Since AOC and my friend John want to tax the always-maligned 1% at 70%, it seems fair to me to use their work hours as our baseline, and that 70% as our top tax rate. So, whatever hours an individual works (defined by generating taxable income, with income taxes being paid) will be subtracted from 62.5, and we’ll call that “leisure time.”

Let’s keep our “leisure time” tax consistent to the income tax. So, if you have very little, say 5 hours or less, of “leisure time” you owe no “leisure time” tax. From 5 hours up to 62.5 hours of “leisure time” the tax rate increases, all the way up to Ocasio-Cortez’s applauded 70% rate. So, people who don’t work at all will be charged 43.75 hours (70% of 62.5) of “leisure tax.”

What would this tax entail? Well, these people aren’t generating taxable income that society can benefit from during those hours, so whatever your “leisure time” tax comes out to is time that you are legally mandated to perform some type of volunteer service that is assigned to you by the federal government. We’ll even make a new 3 letter bureau to enforce it, say, the “Leisure and Responsibility Service” or LRS, just to keep it fun. The LRS will tell you where you are to log your volunteer hours based on your expertise and physical fitness, utilizing some type of “from every person according to their ability” assignment system. So, if you are a young, fit male, for example, you might be assigned to pay your “leisure tax” by building roads, while the old or infirm could be assigned to clerical work, etc.

And what happens if you refuse this unpaid labor the LRS has determined you owe society? Well, the same thing that happens to anyone who doesn’t pay their taxes. Your bank and investment accounts will be seized to pay your bill. If you don’t have enough money to pay your bill, the LRS will send men to take your possessions away from you. If you don’t have enough possessions to pay your bill, the LRS will send men with guns and haul you off to jail.

If all of this seems fundamentally wrong to you, just remember that it’s a tax, and taxes are, after all “The price we pay to live in a civilized society.”

If the notion of stealing people’s time and labor under threat of physical violence and imprisonment seems “uncivilized” to you, well, I would agree.

And I hope you keep that in mind when you think about income tax as well.

***

P.S. I would like to address, albeit briefly, what I’m sure some will deride me for in that I chose a military-centric career when I am taking a stance against taxes. Exploring all of my political stances on taxes, politics and the military, are far beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that I am not an anarchist and I believe the government has legitimate roles for which taxes may be levied.

Summed up: I take the “necessary evil” view of taxation, and favor a drastic reduction in the size and scope of our military operations, a view I apply to nearly everything governments of all levels are involved in. For my current contract, we are not working for the United States, but are working for and paid by our host country. And I pay a lot in taxes.

The post About Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ 70% Tax appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2Fw1KgG via IFTTT

[beinglibertarian]

Addressing the Living Wage – Eccentric Economics

Since the mid- to late-1800s, better working conditions have been proposed by both activists and government bureaucrats, with constant political pressure on entrepreneurs having yet to cease. Of the many policies that have been suggested or, better yet, enforced, there is one in particular that has remained consistent: increasing the minimum wage.

As of late, it has been referred to as the “living wage.” This policy essentially advocates that companies increase the pay of their workers, particularly those that maintain a meager amount of skills valued in the market. After brief analysis, however, one will conclude that the “living wage” is nothing more than an asinine populist term that maintains steep repercussions not only for companies, but also for the intended beneficiaries of the policy.

Even when examining this progressive concept without much thought, it still falls under scrutiny. Its advocates claim the wage is determined by calculating the expenses for food, healthcare, rent, transportation, childcare, and a handful of other costs in a particular area. Like the CPI, these costs are completely arbitrary. Of the millions of individuals who maintain subjective consumer tastes, preferences and tendencies, how can one accurately determine an average price that would efficiently fulfill each individual’s need?

Before we proceed, one must grasp those economic dynamics that determine wages, which we will find is nothing more than a price. Prices, and the signals they convey, are a vital tool in a market economy. They are essentially a language. They allow both producers and consumers to observe and communicate the aggregate value of a particular commodity or factor of production. These prices reflect the current market conditions of the good or service consumers wish to purchase, without having to know its current supply.

Think of it as a simplified ledger conveyed into a single number.

The determination of the price of the good or service is determined purely by its demand. This is not to insinuate that demand is the only influence of a price, but is rather the origin of the good or service in question. The supply of the given good or service maintains its importance in the determination of the price, but it is certainly not the driving factor.

The failure to realize demand is the vital determining factor of a price. This has created the claim that an increase in wages inflates the price of a good, which is misleading. Prices are not set by producers and the costs of production, but rather by consumers. The price can only be raised by the producer to the point where consumers are willing to purchase the good, due to elasticity. For the remainder of this analysis, we will refer to demand as the demand for labor.

When demand has been realized in the marketplace, workers will offer their labor to meet the demand, which constitutes the supply of labor.

In essence, the living wage intends to support those who maintain little to no skills. The main concern with this notion is that there is already a large supply of unskilled workers in the marketplace. When the wage rate is mandated to be set above its equilibrium price, a surplus of labor arises. With each additional increase in labor, the utility of each additional laborer decreases. This is otherwise known as the law of diminishing marginal utility. During the production process, the entrepreneur utilizes the amount of labor required to fulfill the marketplace demand. With each additional worker enacting their labor, a point will ultimately be reached where an additional input of labor will generate no return, and instead increase the cost of production. This concept is known as the law of diminishing returns.

With these economic principles being realized, the entrepreneur will determine the amount of labor needed to generate the required output to receive a profit, or at the very least break even. The entrepreneurs will pay each laborer their price which was set by the market demand for their skills well before the production process is complete. This is because laborers tend to have a high time preference, meaning they prefer income now rather than later. This causes the individual with a high time preference to receive their income at a discounted rate.

This concept is what determines the wage rate of the laborer, known as the discounted marginal value product, or simply the marginal product. Simply put, each laborer’s wage is determined by the required output to satisfy consumer demand. But why, one may ask, has productive output increased over the past few decades, yet wages have been stagnant when adjusted for inflation?

One could make dozens of suggestions, but the most observable is the increase in the productivity of capital goods. One must recall that labor is not the only factor of production.

Contrary to those who favor a universal basic income and who maintain this erroneous fear of automation, the increase in output due to capital investment is a good thing. This is because the increase of output at lower production costs due to capital investments allow consumers to purchase goods at lower prices! This is why, contrary to Keynes in his General Theory, real wages are what is important, not money wages. As long as artificial inflation is not induced, the purchasing power of real wages to consume goods and services ensures a respectable quality of life.

We have established what constitutes the wage of a laborer, and have also determined that wage rates artificially held above the equilibrium price set by the market results in surplus labor, thus unemployment.

We may now conclude that this surplus of labor induced by the artificial wage set by the government, in fact, harms and discriminates against unskilled workers. As noted earlier, a brief observation of the “living wage” can be turned on its face. With further analysis, it is simply not feasible and maintains damaging ramifications. The “living wage” is nothing more than left-wing populist rhetoric that seeks to reach politically-expedient goals in the immediate future, disregarding the externalities and negative long-term effects of the policy.

The post Addressing the Living Wage – Eccentric Economics appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2TOC57c via IFTTT

[beinglibertarian]

Top 20 Being Libertarian Articles of 2018

It’s been an amazing year overall for us here at Being Libertarian LLC, and we wanted to wrap the year up with a list of our top articles from 2018. We definitely want to thank each and every author for their contributions throughout the year. Here they are for your reading pleasure, and definitely keep your eyes out for all of the great content we have planned for you in the year ahead. Enjoy!

1. ‘Rampant Voter Fraud’, Florida Gov. Scott Files Lawsuits After Uncovering 100,000 New Ballots

Author: Alex Croft

“Broward County stated on election night that there were 634,000 votes cast that day. As of 1 pm Thursday, that number was corrected to 695,700 and again later that day at 2:30 pm to 707,223. Thursday evening saw that number jump further to 712,840, as Palm Beach County claimed to find over 15,000 previously untallied votes.”

2. Want A Gun For ‘Self-Defense’? That Will Soon Be Illegal In South Africa

Author: Martin van Staden

“If this bill is passed into law in its current form, it will likely make it impossible for those who acquired their licences for the purpose of self-defense unable to renew those licences, which is required on a periodic basis. Aspirant firearm owners would be barred completely from using guns as a tool to defend themselves going forward.”

3. JuSt cAlL ThE PoLicE

Author: Mike Ursery

“Bloom ruled that the school district and the sheriff’s office had no constitutional duty to protect students not in custody. She wrote in her ruling that Cruz was a third party and not a state actor and that for the duty of protecting plaintiffs to exist, they would have to be in custody, such as prisoners or patients at a mental hospital.”

4. The Truth About Gun Violence

Author: Vinny Marshall

“Historically, what we can learn from past attempts to remove or regulate ownership rights of firearms from citizens is that it doesn’t do a whole lot to actually affect the rates of violence that exist, only the rates of violence with the weapon that you had set out to ban.”

5. Misconceptions of the Libertarian View of Abortion

Author: Nathan Kreider

“Block and Whitehead argue that a woman has the right to evict the fetus, but not to terminate it if it’s possible for the fetus to exist outside the womb with the help of medical technology. They point out that as technology advances, the point at which a fetus can exist outside the womb will inch closer to earlier stages of development, and thus the earlier the limit on abortions will be placed.”

6. The Dangers of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Author: Jenny Grimberg

“We examine three of her policy proposals to show that not only are they incorrect, but also to remind everyone that capitalism has helped millions of people, and we should not be taken in by the socialist tendencies of politicians like Ocasio-Cortez.”

7. The March for Our Tyranny – The Lowdown on Liberty

Author: Thomas J. Eckert

“And therein lies the problem: the anti-gun crowd wants solutions to their perceived problems, but how can we begin a discussion with a group so disingenuous about their intentions? It’s like trying to speak to a pickpocket as they reach for your wallet. As you ask them what they’re up to, they may reassure you they mean no harm and accuse you of being paranoid, but the truth is that in the end they want your wallet, regardless of what they say.”

8. Why People Are Left Wing – Freedom Philosophy

Author: Brandon Kirby

“I believe something similar has happened to the left. They very passionately want to abolish poverty, perhaps in some cases even more so than the right. Just as the greediest investor is not the most successful investor, the most passionate people aren’t the ones with the best ideas on how to accomplish this goal.”

9. The Rise of Jordan Peterson – What It Says About Us

Author: Adam Barsouk

“I believe Peterson’s claim to ideological fame is his seeming lack of interest in it. Most political pundits start and end their careers in politics. And yet, politics inherently do not produce any economic value—the entire essence of the job is to steal another’s earning while convincing that person it is for their own good.”

10. No, Vaccines Should Never Be Mandatory

Author: JSB Morse

“As with any medication or pharmaceutical, there are health risks that come with the benefits of vaccines. It is irresponsible to suggest that all people should get all such pharmaceuticals and it is illegitimate use of governmental authority to require it in order to receive benefits or other privileges.”

11. Jordan B. Peterson’s Twelve Rules is a Wakeup Call for a Nightmare Society

Author: JSB Morse

“We have collectively been lulled into an unnatural and inhumane philosophy of life through various diabolical agents. Twelve Rules is an urgently needed wake-up call for us to stand up and take responsibility for one’s life—not 50% or “just enough to get by,” but everything you can muster—100%.”

12. GM Cuts Over 10,000 Jobs, & No, It’s Not All Due To Tariffs

Author: Vinny Marshall

“While those who take issue with tariffs will be quick to point out the economic policy handed down by the Trump administration as the primary cause of the downsizing currently being undertaken by American automakers, tariffs seem to only be a portion of the issue at hand. Yes, the tariffs play a role as GM and Ford have both stated tariffs on steel have cost the company upwards of $1 Billion, and Toyota claims the tariffs will raise the cost of popular models by $1-3k dollars. However, tariffs do not seem to be the primary issue in this case.”

13. It’s Time to Focus on the ‘School’ in ‘School Shooting’ – The Lowdown on Liberty

Author: Thomas J. Eckert

“No matter how you slice it, it’s impossible to examine what we know about school shootings with any objective measure and not conclude that public schools may be a large contributing factor. The only problem is that new solutions seem to be unwelcome in – what feels like – a never-ending conversation.”

14. Liberty at Sea – Red Dirt Liberty Report

Author: Danny Chabino

“Many people are looking to the concept of “seasteading” as a new bold adventure into free societies that exist outside the hands of existing governing bodies. Seasteading is as it sounds – making a home on the open seas, sometimes in international waters, where no particular government is in charge, and sometimes by negotiated means in a free economic zone that has been established.”

15. FCC Lied About DDoS Attack to Downplay Opposition of Net Neutrality Repeal

Author: Alon Ganon

“Unfortunately, it appears that the Pai led FCC is sounding like they have no plans to tell the public what truly happened or whether they had lied, as it appears the FCC has gone silent about the issue.”

16. Why Only Stupid People Propose Taxing Churches – Freedom Philosophy

Author: Brandon Kirby

“Governments tax profits. They tax income. When a pastor takes out an income from the church they must pay taxes on it. Canada has decided that money going to a non-profit organization is not considered income, for the organization and the one giving the money, so donations are a tax deduction. Religious ministers, unless they’ve taken a vow of poverty, aren’t being given a free ride on taxation, the ones whose tax returns I’ve filled out seem to be as aggravated as the rest of us on tax day.”

17. Sexualized Content: Revival of Puritanism

Author: Killian Hobbs

“With Facebook joining this decision despite having no such issues themselves in recent history it seems like little more than the revival of Puritan thinking. Once again, the social media platforms we frequent daily are deciding for us what is an is not appropriate content. This is a decision that shouldn’t be left in the hands of a small handful of companies, but rather in the hands of the users.”

18. Before You Go To University: Top 10 Logical Fallacies

Author: Brandon Kirby

“The wonderful thing about logic is that when practiced properly it finds falsehood against which there is no response. People who are found guilty of these fallacies have false arguments. Professors, scientists, economists, politicians, pastors, even philosophers, who make such fallacies can have their arguments that take this form immediately dismissed without further discussion.”

19. The Self-Destructive Nature of the Libertarian Party

Author: Jake Dorsch

“If you pay any attention to Libertarian Party politics, you would know there are far more gaffes than this that I could mention just from Gary Johnson alone. That said, I like the people I mentioned here and I think the named people would make excellent governors and senators.”

20. GoFundMe For Trump’s Border Wall. Sadly, It’s True.

Author: Killian Hobbs

“In my personal opinion, this is both a good and a bad thing. It raises many questions about the mindsets of the average American that is donating the funds directly out of their own pocket towards this campaign. Despite the general uselessness such a wall would actually have compared to say additional border staff or the like (if their intention is to truly increase border defense) they still are making large donations. The one upside to this, however, is that if it does work it will open the American public’s eyes to a notion that we Libertarians have been espousing for years: fund these things yourself rather than using our tax dollars towards it.”

The post Top 20 Being Libertarian Articles of 2018 appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2QZ48DZ via IFTTT

[beinglibertarian]

My Argument With The Marxist Intellectuals (Part 1)

This article was spurred by a video I watched promoting the ideas of Karl Marx. The YouTube channel, The School of Life, had a video that shifted the conversation of Marx’s ideas. This prompted me to counter this portrayal of Marx.

I am not speaking to those who think that in practice Karl Marx’s ideas will work. We all know that they have been utterly disastrous. Instead, I am speaking to those who see him as a guide that helps point out the faults in capitalism.

Marx wrote more against capitalism then he wrote in favor of communism, which is the political affiliation that he had as a young man. Marx was not popular in his day and the people of his time were intelligent enough to realize that his ideas did not work.

Today, some believe that his work was the foundation for some of the most important movements in recent history. Unfortunately the movements, Cuba, China, USSR, Venezuela, etc. are all shams. Capitalism, at the time of Marx, was a very young idea. Nevertheless, he identified a number of problems with capitalism, which I am here to analyze.

Workers in a Capitalist Economy Feel Alienated

One of Marx’s gripes with capitalism was the assumption that the modern worker felt alienated. Marx argued that the worker wanted to see themselves in their work and that capitalism made that impossible. However, this is a narrow-minded scope of the economy. For example, I drive a truck and I may see my job as meaningless, but without me making deliveries companies cannot get sugar, pallets, labels, beer, candy, and more. I help provide southern Idaho, northern Utah, and many more places with food, drink, supplies and more. Marx also noted that this alienation made the worker hate their job. For this, I will discuss something that my dad has always told me, “I hate my job. I have hated every job I have had because that’s what it is: a job. However, I love the stuff I get to do because of my job.” My dad hunts, fishes, travels, owns snowmachines (that is a snowmobile for all you non-Alaskans), a house in Mexico, and more. A Job is a means to an end.

The problem is that communists think that everyone has a special place and that no one should be cast out. This basically means that everyone has a right to your property if they need it no matter the reason for them needing it, including any self-inflicted reason. I would argue that everyone’s special place is a term that makes a commie’s skin crawl; specialization. The fact that we are able to specialize in a specific product allows us to generate far more products quicker and at a cheaper price. The real sense of contribution is being proud of what you do, taking pride in your work, and being educated in your field to the point that you become indispensable to the company.

Capitalists Get Richer, While the Workers Gets Poorer

Next big issue that Marx had with capitalism was the fact that workers get paid little and “capitalists” get rich. One thing to note first is that we are all “capitalists.” The idea that Marx was trying to get across was that these business owners shrink wages in order to increase their profits. This is a very basic and childish view of an economy. Owners also have an incentive to increase benefits to workers. As I am typing this, I am sitting in the waiting room of a company who just sent their staff, and families, to Disney Land as a gift to their workers. Still, If this was an issue then the mistreated worker has the availability to go work for someone else. If for whatever reason, they can not find a job that pays them what they want, then the harsh reality is that they simply cannot produce enough to justify that wage. So many want to yell about the minimum wage and how these people cannot support themselves, but only 3.3% of the workforce makes minimum wage.

Owners take on so much risk, and therefore they reap the largest reward. The owners have start-up costs, operational costs, along with other costs, such as hiring specialists to help them decide where the best direction for the company to go. Some commies want to shout about shareholders having influence over a company, and that may sound reasonable on the surface. However, if you invest in a company and finance the debt of a business, then yes, you should have a say in the direction of the company.

Nevertheless, I am sure that some of the Marxists are still yelling that the capitalist’s profit is theft from the workers. Somehow the owners of businesses are stealing the labor from the workers, but this is just crazy. This would constitute force and slavery, but this is certainly not the case. Think about the hiring process for a job. The worker files an application, then they sit through a few interviews. During these interviews the worker’s experience and education are reviewed, the job duties are discussed, the wage is discussed, and the benefits are discussed. What many do not realize is that this is the area for bargaining. Plus there is another quick highlight in there; wage. That means that the worker is being compensated for their time. They are trading hours for dollars at that point, and therefore no force has been enacted. People typically increase their age by moving from company to company after seemingly reaching the ceiling at one company.

At this point, the Marxist has probably shifted the argument to the idea that the theft comes from the capitalist paying the worker one price for his labor, then selling it to another person for a higher price. So the issue here is that under a contractual agreement the owner offered a worker to perform a task for a specified compensation. At that point, the owner has paid the worker for what they have done. This means that the owner owns the result of the worker’s labor because he paid the worker for it. If I hire you to build me a dresser, and then I pay you for it, if I turn around a sell it for a higher price do I owe you money? No. It is basic property rights.

I urge you Marxists to get together and create a completely worker-owned company and carry out your ideas. I mean I am sure that at least thirty of you could pull it off. That is the great thing about living in a capitalist economy, you can freely choose to collectively assemble and do just that.

Still, the argument might continue to profit equals exploitation, but this is ridiculous. Rather, it’s now come to grasping at straws. Profit equals capital, which is the element of an economy that helps create a booming business. For all of you thirty or so Marxists that are going to open a collectively assembled business, you are going to need capital. That capital may come from saving or from borrowing – but you will need capital – which can only morally be collected through a capitalistic, free-market system.

Join me for the next article where we will dismantle more of the points laid out in this video.

The post My Argument With The Marxist Intellectuals (Part 1) appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2rM97Jb via IFTTT