We got a Institute of Liberal Studies here in Czechia which calculates the tax burden for an employee pretty efficiently and right now its sitting around 60%. I've seen some pages claim that the tax burde in Norway is around 80% (dont quote me on that one).

How much is the tax burden in the US? Do you know of any good institutes/research papers that actually look at the tax burdens around the globe or at least in the US?

PS: I dont mean INCOME TAX, I mean the effect of ALL taxes on prices and thus a person.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-zuckerberg-is-now-a-libertarian-who-takes-calls-from-trump-report

For my podcast this week, I talked with Ted Brown - the libertarian candidate for the US Senate in Texas. One of the issued we got into was that our economy (and people's lives generally) are being burdened to an extreme by the rising inflation driven, in large part, by deficit spending allowed for by the Fed creating 'new money' out of thin air in their fake ledger.

I find that I get pretty pessimistic about the notion that this could be ameliorated if only we had the right people in office to reign in the deficit spending. I do think that would be wildly preferable to the current situation if possible, but I don't know that this is a problem we can vote our way out of. Ted Brown seems to be hopeful that it could be, but I am not sure.

What do you think?

Links to episode, if you are interested:
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-29-1-mr-brown-goes-to-washington/id1691736489?i=1000670486678

Youtube - https://youtu.be/53gmK21upyQ?si=y4a3KTtfTSsGwwKl

It's obvious that this didn't mean welfare programs but what did it originally mean?

I heard some people use that word to say that the government does have the authority to force a "living wage" and "universal healthcare"

i used to be libertarian, though that changed when i moved out and started interacting with new people in a new area and understood how governments benefit people in ways that for-profit organizations can't. i don't mean this as an attack on your ideology, simply as a reflection of my own perception of the ideology i used to align myself with.

from time to time i'll pop in the conservative subreddit to see what unhinged conspiracies they're hurling, and it's always a shock to me to see the transformation of what it was before (or more accurately, my perception of what it was as a libertarian, back then).

recently i decided to look at the libertarian subreddit as well and it seems like a more than half the users there advocate for things that are quite anti-individualist. things like access to healthcare is seen as evil; they want the government to strip away individuals rights to said healthcare. now if i reflect back on how i would've approached that subject: i had strong philosophical convictions about libertarianism. i might personally disagree with a type of behavior or action a person might want to take, but i fully-heartedly support their freedom to do so. i would've 100% supported pro-choice and gender-affirming positions.

but at the same time i look at the libertarian friends i had in highschool and where they're at now... they're trump supporting, anti-mask (i get the angle on this one, just seems like a weird hill to die on), fear-mongering, conspiracy-peddling libertarians. these are not the same people i knew. i know libertarians aren't a monolith and that there's at least a substantial amount of libertarians that are nauseatingly pro-individualist (i was one of them!), i'm curious to see how current libertarians view the two types in their own party.

Maybe this is too meta, but does anyone else feel like many of the questions asked here are structured to be inflammatory, as though the person behind the question is deliberately taunting rather than genuinely inquiring? I don't want to plant a target on anyone by giving specific examples; I just want to know if I'm being paranoid or if anyone else here gets this same feeling.

Under a decentralized government, states could just completely do whatever they wanted. Even if those actions hurt the liberty of others

Overall, in states with tons of power, wouldn’t they just not act libertarian...?

Some states would move LibLeft, LibRight, and LibLeft, authoritarian right and left. So what's the point of libertarianism if provinces and states will eventually become whatever they want, eventually just hurting people's rights?

Recently had Day & Ross Shipping (Canada), lose a package that was being shipped to me. Turns out they aren't liable for the value of the packages they lose. They paid the claim at like 5 cents on the dollar.

The shipper actually has to pay extra to get insurance to cover the full value of the shipping company's mistakes. This apparently applies to UPS, Canada Post, etc.

I have liability insurance in case someone trips on the front steps of my porch, so why don't shipping companies insure themselves against their own mistakes?

Is this a distortion caused by cronyism, or is this what a free market looks like?

Hey so I know this will sound silly but I am a teenager and my definition of a libertarian is Ron Swanson from parks n rec so downvote me if thats wrong.

I always, jokingly, agreed with Ron because aside from his jokes he usually had a valid point.

Anyway so to the question, Am I libertarian with these opinions below:

• I believe that capital gains tax on stocks and assets should be higher than your tax bracket

• Free education from 6-26

• Government is essential for the development of a country

• Ideally, politicians should have a working class wage, but I doubt that it would be possible

• Equal wages and women have the right to access to support should they feel discrimination regarding recruiting, wage, parental leave

• Nature above all, humans should have the consciousness to do right by nature before being comfortable

I have a lot of opinions about human rights and the environment but I wanted to list my economic standpoints since thats what libertarianism is right? That you have a right to your own money? because I believe that too. Hey by the way was this really difficult to read? Yeah the smartass writing this does not know how to write and it has nothing to do with literary knowledge.

I am a pursing libertarian and I want to see evidence that antitrust policies don’t work.

There is always a running joke in the comments of almost every article that every author at Reason is secretly a Democrat. Most of this started from a "who we're voting for" article from 2020:

https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/

Where there were about 3 people who were going for Biden, but commenters are always pointing out bias. It could be that most libertarians lean right, so that is why they see bias.

TL;DNR: Certain forms of, principally wealth-emphasising, libertarianism, seem to be logically contradictory, or false.

r/Libertarianism banned this, which seems ironic; I’m not trolling, I pursue "the best way,": the truth, and human wellbeing, so I developed this critique (it may be difficult to read, though, sorry). If libertarianism isn't the best way, I'd think people would want to know. If you can, please read it, decide whether it has merit. Thank you.

Begin with the Non-aggression Principle, a “concept in which ‘aggression’ – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited.” Hereafter called “NAP”; this dispensed with, that form of libertarianism falls. We refute it thus – that, whereas Thomas Hobbes’ authoritarian “Leviathan” state is absurd, since if there were “Bellum omnium contra omnes”, how to come together to establish a state… without some impulse to collaborate, and, with such an impulse, how could there ever have been universal war? That is absurd.

Conversely, for the NAP, unless humans had a conflictual impulse, what need would there be for the Principle? Whereas, if that conflictual impulse exists, how can it be overcome, to enforce the principle, without a contradictory force?

Now, differences are resolved and decisions made, either based on objective reason, or else by subjective convention and arbitrary agreement. If the NAP is based on the former, it is unnecessary, since by assumption there are objective facts including in ethics. Conversely if there are not objective rules of conduct then again the NAP is arbitrary and conventional.

But if the NAP is arbitrary and conventional, but is a first principle, then it utilises reasoning methods (including logics) likewise merely conventional (for if not, those methods derive certain conclusions which are no longer merely conventional). That is, the NAP presupposes a Hilbertian formalist vantage of reasoning and deduction. All this is true also of “argumentation ethics”, as either reasoning is objective and violence never necessary, therefore NAP redundant – or argumentation qua argumentation is conventional, only, and its reasoning rules formalist.

So, as merely social principles, we may observe both the NAP and “Argumentation Ethics” to have ratiocinative Hilbertian formalism their necessary conditions (presuming this conventional “argumentation” to take the form of reasoning, per von Mises’ “action-axiom”, concluding with action-determining consensus conclusion; else the “argumentation” ends in non-consensual action, i.e., is aggression, contra-principle).

But Gödel’s theorems falsify formalism as incomplete; and the similar Tarski’s theorem falsifies the omni-reliability of more general formalist ratiocinative systems; that so, so too must be NAP and “AE” incomplete, so unworthy of being a guiding principle of action for all cases. We can represent this in zeroth-order logic (provably complete even in formalist terms), where “Argumentation Ethics” is “AE” (representing NAP also, since both social, have formalism as their necessary condition), the fact of Gödel’s theorems is G, the reliability of formalism for all deduction is F:

[G → (¬F)] ; ["AE" → F] ; G∴ ¬("AE")

1. [G → (¬F)] | Premise

2. ["AE" → F] | Premise

3. G | Premise

4. [(¬ F)] | 1), 3) Modus Ponens

5. [¬ ("AE")] | 2), 4) Modus Tollens

So we conclude that “AE” → ⊥; that is, “Argumentation Ethics” is false. It seems telling of the intellectual foundation of non-left libertarianism that it is so quickly displaced.

And so: either the NAP is at best convenience, in which case there is no reason to obey it, if one is strong enough. Or it is derived from a more basic principle, in which case that forbids violence from its axiomatic self, and the NAP is unnecessary.

Whereas – one can refrain from force knowing that the universe is rational, that one is correct by rational analysis – a Platonist, or intuitionist, e.g., knows their argument is correct by reason, and violence is redundant; in reason is victory-inevitable.

Also, were NAP derived from a force of reason – but if the NAP is deducible from another principle, it is not a first, and for reasoning we begin only with absolutely most basic principles. And then we ought to discover and obey what enables the NAP. Which, if what is objective supersedes NAP, that should be adopted in its place. If NAP is merely conventional, so from formalism, then the NAP is not logically guaranteed, not fit for adoption.

For the latter point, if there be no objective reason the NAP must be adopted, then there is no logical suasion in favor of the principle, and it is enacted only with adequate force to ensure non-aggression – but that is contrary to the principle itself.

So, the NAP is not conceptually necessary even for non-violence, so it falls. Without the NAP, non-left libertarianism falls.

All this seems to be correct.

why libertarians not support Intervention  like how biden Intervention  russia-ukraine war?

https://mises.org/mises-wire/unprecedented-monetary-destruction-coming

I am usually skeptical when it comes to something that sounds like doom and gloom. I take a grain of salt when I hear people claim that the sky is falling. However, I do find the monetary policies of the current regime (specifically in the US) to be problematic and I'm swayed to believe they are likely to cause long-term damage. I could be mistaken.

What do you think is most likely to result from the current system? What steps or measures, if any, do you believe are wise to take to shield yourself in the event those results manifest during your lifetime?

Thank you all in advance for any replies!

Slab city or "the last free place" is specifically anti capitalism but has anyone made an ancap version of slab city?

I got this idea from Trump saying he's gonna put a 10% interest rate cap on credit cards

I classify myself as a minarchist, and people have argued that my position on this disqualies me....

Does the evolution of technology modify the principle of no privacy in public? Some take the position that using drone cameras that use ai face recognition is just the extension of being able to watch a person in public. Others say the technology changes things. What say you?

The classic version is the thermal cameras pointed at someone's house. But what if there is a camera that can do better? You have no right to privacy if photons in the visible wavelength and bounce off your body and enter someone's sensor (eyes) outside your home. What does it matter if the photons are at a lower wavelength?

I am familiar with many libertarian policy recommendations. But, it seems like most of those policies would need to be enacted by the legislature. Which policies specifically does do libertarians want the executive branch to enact?

Two days ago, I was over at the Mises institute (2nd visit) and the bookstore manager said that the Cato Institute is funded by the government. Exven though I've read some sources that said they received private contributions and that they did not receive any funding from the government at all whatsoever.

The bookstore manager even jokingly called it the "Stato Institute"

So I was wondering if it's true that Cato Institute receives government funding or not.

The 10 commandments prohibit Statism. The only way to act in accordance to the 10 commandments is to be an anarchist. Pre-monarchical Israel during the Judges period may be a good example of this

The 10 commandments prohibit theft, coveting and murder. These aspects single-handedly prohibit Statism: the State's revenues don't have to come from explicit voluntary agreements, rulers by definition covet the property they seize from others and a State has to be able to murder to enforce its arbitrary non-Divine Law decrees. One could argue that Statism furthermroe violates even more commandments.

Jesus was set out to finalize the Old Law. He thus bases his teachings on at least these three aforementioned prohibitions and other things. I think it is uncontroversial to say that Christians are prohibited from stealing.

Remark: I am not saying that scripture says that Divine Law is anarchist. I rather argue that what we call "anarchism" describes conditions which are compatible with Divine Law, and thus that that which we call "anarchism" today approximately describes the conditions which adherence of Divine Law will lead to.

In my understanding, pre-monarchical Israel during the Judges period might be a good model of what the 10 commandments intended.

The common pro-State allusions to the Bible

Render onto Ceasar Matthew 22

The quote goes as following:

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

1. In this, Jesus does not even say: "This is a feature we want to have under Christian governance. Taxation is a necessary evil". The only thing we can infer from this is that Jesus thinks that the Christians of the time should have continued paying the taxes to the current pagan leaders with the superiority who occupy the rest. It does not say anything about how Christian governance should be like; indeed, Jesus was set out to finalize the Old Law, and the Old Law is one which prohibits theft among each member of God's chosen people. The quote merely
2. One could also argue that Jesus talks as he did because he is literally tempted into saying something wrong to have him be prosecuted over

Romans 13

I was sent this video by someone knoweledgable Romans 13 - an interpretation you haven't heard before - YouTube

Bob Murphy is also interviewed on the matter: https://youtu.be/igWBRldnvAc

For this sub, I am assuming the direction that people will take is what countries have more libertarian healthcare.

I am interested to see whether "more libertarian" aligns with "better healthcare". Better healthcare is most commonly measured by:

-Access to care.

-Proportion of positive outcomes across a variety of specialties (quality of care).

-Cost.

-Proportion of GDP spent relative to successful outcomes.

-Wait time for treatment.

What I am finding in my own research is that not a lot of countries endorse a fully privatized healthcare system. Instead, it seems like the most successful countries either still have the government providing some services or have a single payer model.

Was Lincoln right into using any and all means to preserve the Union? Would you have voted for Bell or others in 1860, or Mclellan in 1864, if Lincoln's most authoritarian means outweighed the good actions he took (i.e: Emancipation Proclamation)?

Stossel recent video about Class Action Suits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlYZLcMVfEI

Not sure what's the "root cause" here. Is this just education issue, i.e. "just don't enter these class action lawsuits because they're usually scams!"?

And how would "Private Rights Protection Company" not become scams too..?

Do you think it was good/legal for Trump to push congress to accept alternate electors from states that he didn't win? Does that qualify as a coup or is that a case of "we're a republican not a democracy if it helps Republicans"?

Anytime a ReasonTV video pops up, the comments section on that video is just so negative, and it’s just overall people acting like four year old brats. What’s the deal? Trolls? Bots? Algorithm? All three?