For example public parks have bipartisan support and are funded by taxes. So why will the US tax people to care for wildlife, but not its own citizens?
At one time the US instituted a military draft, requiring citizens to carry out military service. Citizens are required to obey the law, pay taxes and serve the interests of society, as determined by the government. I believe that this places a responsibility on that government to care for and protect citizens. It must offer them the protection of the law, defend them in times of war and, I believe, provide basic health care. It should do so not just for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of society.
There's no point drafting people into the military if the health of the population isnt up to it. This was a major issue for the UK in WWI and a key factor in getting cross-party support for a national health service, because a shocking number of young men were unfit for duty. Currently not being in a time of war doesn't change the relationship though. The duties and responsibilities are still there.
I know governments are in a unique position to be able to print money, but that is not how the US government routinely funds it's budget, and certainly not how it mainly or exclusively does so or inflation would skyrocket.
The government can increase deficit to put more money into private sector, which boosts profits and savings, it can choose to take money out by taxing more or spending less. Which creates fewer savings and smaller profits, and more private debt.
Locke would disagree with your premise. You're an individual with the freedom to move to any society that you agree with the most. Unless your freedom has been alienated, you are tacitly consenting to a government's laws by remaining where you are.
Do they just happen to agree with the society they're born into, or is it possible there are stronger forces than political preference that constrain their movement?
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...
These are extremely powerful forces, despite the fact that they don't fit into the economics-101 thinking that libertarians are so fond of.
Have you ever taken that class?
Many countries have strict immigration and citizenship requirements, many of which revolved around wealth.
So whilst it may be true that very rich people have complete freedom to choose their favourite society, that's not the reality for the majority of people.
The counter-argument here is not one around taxes, but around the obligations of the state. If you don't believe in universal healthcare then you ipso facto believe the state has no obligation to provide it, and that's where the counter-argument needs to come from.
Police yes, army no.
In Costa Rica the answer to whether government have an army is no. In many other countries the answer is "not really" or "not required"
The USA stands alone when it comes to the amount of money spent on military. It is somewhat absurd.
What makes you say that?
You might see more territorial wars, such as with Russia invading former USSR states and China making stronger claims over the islands in the South China Sea, but there is no indication that other countries would not pick up the slack and fill in the gaps created by reduced American military presence.
The amount the US spends isn’t absurd on a percentage of GDP or even a per capita basis. It could be “absurd” when looking at it in raw dollar amounts, but you could say that American expenditures for movie tickets are absurd — Americans spend more money on movie tickets than the entire GDP of 65 different countries.
The US stands alone on the amount spent on the military, but it also stands alone for the amounts spent on everything: it’s the world’s largest economy and it would seem rather prudent to be able to defend that economy — and it does, at a reasonable level of military spending as a percentage of that economy.
A bank that protects $50 might not need a guard. A bank that protects $50,000 might need one guard. A bank that protects $5 trillion might need a few more guards.
Comparing Costa Rica to the United States is pretty ridiculous in terms of national defense. It’s rather naïve to suggest that militaries are not required. It’s never required, until it is.
If someone were to invade Costa Rica, who do you think would come to the rescue when asked? Costa Rican security is benefiting from the military of the United States. The Rio treaty gives Costa Rica the luxury of not having to worry about invasion since the US military is standing by to help.
Denmark doesn’t need much of a military because it’s part of NATO.. a risk to Danish national security wouldn’t last very long when you have the most advanced military in the world as your ally and treaty-bound to protect you.
These treaties and arrangements make it easier for countries to reduce their military since they are allied with the United States.
My point is that making comparisons isn’t very accurate without considering defense treaties that might exist and thus incentivize smaller military expenditures.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?year_...
The only thing holding them back is massive American firepower. In its absence every midsize Asian country is going to acquire nuclear weapons.
The army is also a huge wealth distribution machine: Raytheon or Boeing are businesses, and army personnel presumably is paid, too.
> tax its citizens to protect them
For example, from life threatening conditions.
Same statements, different cherry picking -> entirely different results.
Ah, so you are in favour of universal socialised health care!
(/joking, mostly. But I feel that protecting citizens only from other humans but not from the far more deadly problems of disease and ill-health is a very limited view. If the US really believed in the inherent superiority of the private model, it would use it for its troops. No medevac if you've not paid your premiums!)
This argument seems to be novel from the late 1800s. Before then, it seems to have been understood that the political system ran on taxes. It beggars the imagination that modern Americans seem to believe the old anarchist saw that cooperation and working with society via the ancient tradition of taxation is theft.
Before then the political system openly ran on violent coercion.
That tyranny has been "understood" is not a justification for the deliberate resurgence of tyranny. That you could take even more money from the public to fund your pet project is of no importance to the question of whether it is right or wrong to do so.
> This argument seems to be novel from the late 1800s.
Have you heard of the USA? It's been constituted since 1788, and it was more or less understood that the government wouldn't be getting involved in this sort of thing. If I'm not mistaken, 1788 is before the late 1800s.
I propose you use some other rethorical device to back your argument. it was also understood back then that government would not ban slavery and that only people with property and penises could vote.
And yet you enjoy GPS, roads, running water, bridges, numerous standards, air quality and pollution reduction by regulators, defense of property, fire departments...
This particular line of argument is tiresome unless you're willing to forgo all of the amenities others have paid (and sometimes died) for.
If you're not willing to give them up, adding healthcare to the tab is hardly a step too far.
Again, I don't believe this argument, but this is the argument.
Like, it's easy to say "well if somehow all of the public goods I enjoy were taken over by private companies then I'd be happy to pay them instead of taxes", but such a changeover doesn't really happen--you end up "freeloading" on the public dole until this future comes to pass.
And again, I know you aren't making this argument. It's just really annoying to have to hear it from otherwise intelligent friends when it comes up.
(Also, why the heck anybody would want to live in a world without a guarantee of basic services and rights is beyond me.)
Libertarianism is about the rights of an individual to engage in transactions they find beneficial. However, libertarianism is not about the right to infringe on others’ rights to do the same.
Libertarians support individual rights at a vastly greater level than anyone else. In collectivism, there are no individual rights or at least they are secondary to collective rights.
>Libertarianism is about the rights of an individual to engage in transactions they find beneficial.
>Libertarians support individual rights at a vastly greater level than anyone else
And who protects these rights? Who defines them? Is it really possible for everybody's rights to be protected simultaneously (whatever those rights may be)? Who decides ownership? Who guarantees the avenues for beneficial trade?
The rule of law cannot be enforced without an element of coercion. The best we can hope to do is to make it as enlightened as we can.
Specifically, Joseph Dejacques polemic against Proudhon [1] where the term libertarian was coined focused on the latter's willingness to talk loftily of liberty on one hand, but the next moment limiting to liberty related to capital rather than the emancipation of all, specifically throwing women under the bus because Proudhon did not see them as equals:
> Moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian, you want free exchange of cotton and candles and you seek to protect man against woman in the exchange of affectional human passion. You cry against the great barons of capital, and you would rebuild a proud barony of man on vassal-woman.
Dejacques makes an impassioned (and poetic -- the letter is well worth a read even if you disagree with every word) argument both for anarchy, and against the monopoly on resources, and the turns Proudhon's own word against him in arguing that for men to monopolise power is the same thing - talk of liberty becomes meaningless when we allow there to be arbitrary limits on who are afforded said liberty based on ideas of who are worthy:
> Attribute not to him a stock of intelligence which belongs to him only by right of conquest, by the commerce of love, by usury on the capital that comes entirely from woman and is the product of the soul within her. Dare not to attribute to him that which he has derived from another or I will answer you in your own words: “Property is robbery!”
> Raise your voice, on the contrary, against the exploitation of woman by man.
Dejacques set the term "libertarian" up as a step beyond "moderate anarchists" (!) and "liberals" such as Mr "property is robbery" Proudhon:
The emancipation of human beings, according to Dejacques, comes from taking the ideas that Proudhon happily promoted in economy - to limit power, be it over persons or property - to the full conclusion with a focus on the emancipation of all humanity.
Mere de jure emancipation will not do, then, if people can not take advantage of it. Maximising liberty to Dejacques meant being uncompromisingly willing to take that which is being hoarded and share it, be it money or power, or authority.
As such, the idea of maximising liberty from a left libertarian viewpoint does not see property as the holy cow that right libertarianism does, but in fact has from the outset seen strict property-rights as a direct threat to liberty, rising to outright aggression (e.g. if you try to use force to prevent someone who is starving from eating to maintain life you are putting their life at risk).
Right-libertarianism makes a mockery of libertarianism by sacrificing the principle of maximising liberty in order to provide an ideological veneer for the protection of wealth and privilege.
[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...
- military
- roads
- primary education
- secondary education
- criminal justice system
- research
Each and every one of those could in theory run entirely on a voluntary basis and has through history been doing so here and there from time to time.
I prefer to stick with what works in practice, even if it's imperfect.
Consider more rural areas, where there are less people to make these donations, and more roads are needed. Is it ok to say "pay for your own roads" when it unfairly shoulders them with the largest burden? It will end up with lower income rural areas having crappy or no roads. Same for all the others you listed, bar military. Also, who pays for the highways?
Having a justice system depend on donations from the populace is kind of a huge issue with impartiality.
Fyi, England used to effectively do what you suggest pre ~1700. It didn't work out well from a justice, education or infrastructure angle until the state got involved.
I think it works very well to pay all those things through taxes.
Same can be said about health care, at least in countries that (unlike Post-Thatcher UK) don't actively try to ruin their public health system.
I hate this argument, taxes are a fact of life in society, you're going to pay them and the only question is where are they being spent. If instead of spending so much on the military, some of that budget was spent on healthcare, than maybe there wouldn't even be a need for higher taxes.
But instead of lobbying for their taxes being spent appropriately at home, many in the US seem happy with going to sovereign countries instead of taking care of their own citizens.
There never seems to be a concern if you have money for the next invasion, but when it comes to healthcare or education, where's the money going to come from? (To be fair, it's not just the US that has this problem, but it is certainly one of the worst examples.)