CosmicCommander said:
In my time as a Rooster Teeth-ist, Nation State-ist, Bungie-ist, and most importantly, Escapeist-ist, I have seen many misconceptions of the political and philosiphacal ideology known as Libertarianism, I have been told that it is simply "Centrism plus 1" which it clearly isn't, so, I bring you a handy animation to show you What The Hell Libertarianism is.
Clicky [http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf]
A joke, at least amongst economists. On the whole, it simply seems to consist of a great deal of pious moralising rather than a logical approach as to how to get things done. And no sir, I am not a communist, or even particularly socialist.
Some intrinsic flaws of Libertarianism:
Flat Tax: Well, firstly, to maintain a modern government (even a minimal one) under flat taxation, you would have to keep to such a level of taxation that it would seriously hurt poorer people. Yes, I'm sure it would seem entirely fair to you, but you should realise that U$100 is, to a billionaire, disposable, to a normal man, sizeable, to a poor man, indispensable, and to a Mexican immigrant, a fortune to send back home. Money is fiscally relative - it's value is not the same to everybody.
Secondly, the notion that it is intriniscally unfair that a rich man pay more tax than a poor man. Well, that is also silly. Your tax, at a most basic level, pays for the maintenance of law and order in your nation by means of an army, police force and so on. Thus, you are paying for a service. However, a wealthy man benefits far more from this service than a poor man. Put simply - if you own a nice car, you are more likely to have that car stolen. If you own two cars, you are twice as likely to be the victim of automoblie theft. In short, the rich have a great deal more to lose from the breakdown of law and order - and thus gain more from it's maintenance - than the poor.
Thirdly, we come to the pragmatics. Simply put, without a degree of a welfare state, much as I am loathe to argue this, economic recovery is considerably slower. The recent macroeconomic crises of these times have all been that of demand-depression - where demand slumps, and thus suppliers begin to make cutbacks, cutting labour costs, thus worsening the situation blah blah blah. Without government intervention, this cycle would eventually continue until much of the nation was simply bankrupt and unemployed - rock bottom, as it were. With government intervention, a level of demand is maintained in the economy by means of a welfare payout. Yes, it is taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, but the fact remains that that money will soon cycle back to the rich again. Secondly, since the wealthier you are, the higher your MPS (marginal propensity to save), the fact is that in an economic downturn, that money is less useful in your hands (or bank account) than it is in a poorer man's (being spent). Yes, it sucks, but it also stands between you, and total economic ruin. So cease complaining so loudly.
