Comment by drrotmos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by drrotmos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties.

Well, I'm not an american, so I don't vote in the US, but if I could I would vote for Libertarian Party candidates.

> Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.

No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical.

> I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.

I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.

>No, but it's not about helping myself, it's about having a system which I consider ethical.

It's not about helping yourself. It's about consistent voting. If everyone votes for the rich person, the entire system will be skewed hopeless in their favor.

You think taxes are unethical? Then how does the government pay for itself? Would you rather they just printed the money they need? That would also be a tax; a flat tax.

And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system.

>I'm from Sweden. I understand very well why the Libertarian Party exists. We do have (very small) parties in Sweden which correspond quite well to the libertarian party.

By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt. If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.

> You think taxes are unethical? Then how does the government pay for itself? Would you rather they just printed the money they need? That would also be a tax; a flat tax.

> And if you don't believe the government should exist then that's anarchist, not libertarian. Though if you want anarchism then you can't have a barter system.

Well, since I'm also an opponent of fiat currency, the government couldn't very well print any money :)

I'd prefer a night-watchman state, with the government handling police, courts, the military and possibly other services relating to emergency rescue, the justice system or government administration.

I would prefer the following for funding the (very small) government in ranking order: 1. Donations, 2. Fees, 3. A small flat tax levied either as an income tax or a corporate tax.

And yes, the third option isn't a very good option.

> By "very small" you mean "fringe". Like the BNP in the UK no doubt.

Indeed. I can't speak about the BNP, since I don't know anything about it, but the classic liberal party of Sweden only got a few hundred votes last election.

> If you truly have "US Libertarian" parties in Sweden, then how about instead of ruining your country you just move the US so you can enjoy what a Libertarian paradise is actually like.

I'll do that once the US stops being a collectivist surveillance state corrupted by cronyism, and actually starts respecting the principles set forth in its constitution again. (Not to mention when it actually starts allowing immigrants again.)

Until such a time, I'll try to make the situation better where I happen to reside.

>Well, since I'm also an opponent of fiat currency, the government couldn't very well print any money :)

So you want the gold standard again? Hasn't being in the EU shown you the dangers of having a currency you can't adjust to respond to international conditions?

>I'd prefer a night-watchman state, with the government handling police, courts, the military and possibly other services relating to emergency rescue, the justice system or government administration.

And somehow you imagine that the megarich corporations aren't instantly going to (a) start using unregulated practices to set up all kinds of monopolies and (b) start spending money to turn the country to their favor resorting in the exact same place the US is right now?

>1. Donations, 2. Fees, 3. A small flat tax levied either as an income tax or a corporate tax.

Donations? Seriously, donations? The police, military and so on will be at the mercy of what people decide to give of their own free will? Why am I not surprised to see such a position from a self proclaimed Libertarian.

>Until such a time, I'll try to make the situation better where I happen to reside.

Turning Sweden even more over to corporations isn't going to make it better, you must be out of your mind.

> So you want the gold standard again? Hasn't being in the EU shown you the dangers of having a currency you can't adjust to respond to international conditions?

Being in the EU has shown me the dangers of government meddling in the market.

> Donations? Seriously, donations? The police, military and so on will be at the mercy of what people decide to give of their own free will? Why am I not surprised to see such a position from a self proclaimed Libertarian.

Yes, because it's far better to steal the money instead of it being given freely. I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?

>Being in the EU has shown me the dangers of government meddling in the market.

Oh ffs. What place has shown you the joys of a completely laissez faire market? I'd be interested to hear about it since no such thing actually exists at any reasonably large scale. It was tried in Chile once and failed so hard that Friedman's own "Chicago boys" had to back it off.

>I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?

Well, no actually. I'm not willing to spend a dollar on those services until I know those getting more value out of them (i.e. the rich) are paying their fair share. In reality, they'll probably be paying nothing so I will join them.

> Well, no actually. I'm not willing to spend a dollar on those services until I know those getting more value out of them (i.e. the rich) are paying their fair share. In reality, they'll probably be paying nothing so I will join them.

Okay. That would be your right. Just don't start complaining once the underfunded justice system won't have the resources to handle burglaries in homes which cannot afford private security.

I will complain because I wasn't paying because the rich weren't paying. What could my pennies do if they won't contribute? Seriously, this has to be the most naive nonsense I've ever read on HN.

U.S. as libertarian paradise? HAHAHAHAHA!!

Of course. If Libertarians ever got their paradise it would quickly devolve to exactly what you have now: a Corporatocracy.

The reason we have a corporatocracy now is due to the opposite of libertarianism: cronyism / crony-capitalism. When you have huge bureaucracy, you get a situation where corporations have to bribe (aka, lobby) for special rights, favors and bailouts. In a libertarian economy, a company would have to stand on it's ability to solve a marketplace demand.

Are you against voluntary society?

>a company would have to stand on it's ability to solve a marketplace demand.

This is the libertarian hand waving I complain about.

As long as you have a group with guns, companies will be paying that group to use their guns to enforce the rights of those companies. That's the most rational thing for a company to do. You can't out-innovate your competitors forever, you can't undercut their price forever and you can't provide better quality forever. Doing any of these things is very hard work, can be very expensive and you will lose eventually. It's a safer approach, once you win in a market to use those winnings to buy government-created barriers to entry against you're biggest enemy: new competition.

>Are you against voluntary society?

No, I assume it's inevitable given a large enough timescale. I have simply read enough to know that such a society is incompatible with capitalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com