Libertarianism is NOT about smoking dope or porn, it’s about freedom and liberty.

Ron Paul is not in favor of drugs etc, but he understands that it is not the federal government’s role to regulate what an individual does. All the WoD has done is increase drug use- just like prohibition increased drinking. These are issues that belong to the states, not to the fed gov.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that actually believes in Agency and liberty- and he’s not LDS.

Sadly, many non-Mormons will listen to Romney and surmise that we are a war-loving people (and I’d guess they’d be right – we are a stiffnecked people).

Romney’s campaigning for increased war and doubling the size of Guantanamo, etc., will be a net negative for the Church.

If we would repent and serve the Lord, we may realize just how wrong our fears really are.

I won’t speak for anyone else, but I think the closest thing to a Libertarian state we have seen in modern times was Hong Kong while under British rule. I’m not sure how it has done under China, but the British basically just made sure people didn’t kill or steal and left them very free. The standard of living was high. Poverty was nearly non-existent. All this from a densly populated area with virtually no natural resources. I don’t know if that’s how it would always turn out and I’m not a believer in Utopian ideas, but it gives a vision.

I really like that you are willing to discuss things here, and appreciate a daily dose of thought. Personally, I’m still a fan of the flat tax. I guess I really like the Lord’s way where everyone pays 10%. I realize there are great differences in that church donations are voluntary, etc. but I see some good benefits anyway. The Lord views my tithe and Jon Huntsman, Sr.’s with equal validity, thus making all flesh equal in his eyes. There is no class warfare. If I were living in a tent and collected $1 worth of cans for the day, my dime of tithing would be fully respected, and I would have the self respect of contributing. I could be wrong, and I realize that others may view it differently, but when I think of fairness, can I define it better than the Lord? The main point that I really like of Ron Paul’s is the idea of getting the size of government under control. I think taxes could be much lower for all of us if the Federal Government stuck to its constitutional authority and we didn’t go fight wars everywhere. I don’t think he is against poor people at all. If we look at everyone doing what is fair, the small government agenda is pro-poor people. In fact, I believe, if we all had to pay for what the government does, it would put a natural limit on governmental growth.

On to the excise tax. It is defined as “A Federal or State tax imposed on the manufacture and distribution of certain non-essential consumer goods. Examples of excise taxes include environmental taxes, communications taxes and fuel taxes.” (http://www.investorwords.com/1813/excise_tax.html)
In my view, who pays what would depend largely on what the excise tax is. Where the examples given are actually arguably essential (in the case of fuel and to some extent communications), it would be normal that they affect poor people disproportionately. If excise taxes were to be increased to replace income taxes, then it seems to me that what items they decided to tax would determine whether the poor or rich would be most effected. They wouldn’t simply increase the gasoline tax or communications taxes. A tax on yachts or private aircraft would affect the rich. A tax on food would disproportionately affect the poor. So I guess it comes down to exactly what would be done.

On to tariffs. It looks like you have no problem with Dr. Paul’s ideas on tariffs, so rather than dwell on in, I would just add that it gives good faith as to how he would set up a decent excise tax system.

Finally, the progressive income tax being compared to the Communist manifesto. I don’t think this is a cheap shot, as Marx is the modern author of the progressive income tax. I do think the term Communist is not well understood and has a bad taste because of Cold War propaganda. To see just how close Communism is to our own common beliefs, a good look at the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 is a great starting point. See: http://www.stateofmankind.com/governing-principles/the-constitution-of-the-ussr/

Of course, were your premises and reasoning to be true, then it wouldn’t matter what the results would be, since the principles of government & society would be the correct ones… So I recognize that regardless of the consequences you would still support it. But I’m curious what you actually believe would happen and what kind of society we would have if the government’s only role were to be police and military related.

Do you believe that prosperity and happiness would be increased near universally? Or that it definitely would for certain groups but not others, but that’s okay because the principles are correct? What good and bad effects would you predict?

Okay, I will go along with you that Ron Paul isn’t going to do a sales (fair) tax or a flat tax. But the fact that he thinks they “would be a better alternative” either means he hasn’t thought it over or thinks a tax increase on poor people is a “better alternative.”

But let’s talk about the taxes he does believe in – non-protectionist tariffs and excise taxes.

First, excise taxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USFederalExciseTaxShareByIncomeLevel.1979-2007.png

As this chart shows, it still favors the rich way more than the poor or middle class (who take the biggest pounding by it).

Next, tariffs. As CATO itself shows, tariffs again benefit the rich way over the poor. Though from what I read on what Ron Paul has said, I think he would try to fix that part (yes, even more so than Obama or any other Republican).

Lastly, comparing a Progressive tax to the Communist manifesto is just a cheap shot. Hitler didn’t smoke so I guess we should all start smoking so we won’t be like Hitler. The Communist manifesto also wants to get all of the royalty in Europe off the public dole… something Libertarians would agree with. But that doesn’t make me think you all are Communist sympathizers.

I think it’s merely a fulfillment of prophecy though–:)

If anyone is interested about parallels between the British Empire and the American Empire–

in the 1880s in England farm workers who had independent cottages (paid rent to landowners who were not their employers)–

made 10 shillings/week. This was just the men working, and they did put in long days in the fields, but they enjoyed their work for the most part.

This was as the empire was crumbling.

Rent for the independent workers was 1 shilling a week for a modest cottage and 2 shillings a week for a larger home–

Each cottager had land for chickens, bees and a bountiful garden–

There was also room in the village for any cottagers who wanted to grow grains on community properity (not government owned)

The cottagers were free to glean from the ‘wheat’ fields at the end of the harvest, and often they would glean enough, if they had children who were good workers (the women generally did the gleaning) to provide their own flour for the winter–
they would barter with the local miller to pay him part of their gleanings to grind the flour, and the flour would be stored in the kithcen until the next harvest–
Many of them had enough to do this; those who were infirm (this was before socialism in England; this was as the feudal period was waning, and there were no labor unions among the farmworkers–yet)–

or elderly (and the elderly didn’t have a safety net then, just the workhouse or help from their children)

were often fed by those who had more flour–

there was a strong sense of community, and very little governmental presence.

I don’t know how many Americans/Mormons pay no taxes (these farm workers were not taxed, because they were considered to be too poor to pay taxes; their wages were ‘skimmed’ so that the farmers could pay their own taxes)

and have rents or mortgages that are only 10 to 20 per cent of their income–

These people considered themselves to be VERY poor. They were proud, hard working, would not allow idleness among themselves, and their children all worked hard; the young women worked as maids in dairys and in homes and wealthier kitchens; the boys worked in the fields with their fathers, but the mothers/women were the caretakers of the home–

They made their own clothing or received second hand clothes from the wealthy employers of their daughters. They had no vehicles. Those who wrote about this period said that there was NO hunger–

The cottagers had high standards of cleanliness; there was a lot of pressure on the families and the wives to keep their homes up–

clean . . .

there was little to no mental illness; there were rarely children who were cognitively challenged, and other than a few epidemics of measles, little illness–

yet, *we* look back on these people and ‘feel sorry’ for them. I don’t know about *you*, but we have a very modest home, and our pre-tithing, post-tax income is just a little over 3 times our mortgage (including insurance and property taxes)–

a very modest home–

we have a very good credit rating–

No, we are not wealthy–

but we work hard.

The point is that those cottagers inherited solid furniture and often animals from their parents, and THAT generation was wealthier—

they earned more in the fields than their children’s generation, in terms of what food and housing cost!!!

But THAT generation had inherited very nice things from the previous generation in which there was even more prosperity for farm workers!

How can this be? *We* have been told how ‘blessed’ we are–

and yet . . . my parents had more than I did, and my grandparents, though they were parents with children during the depression . . . had NO debt–

NO debt . . . mortgages were considered a shame in the early to mid part of the 20th century–

mortgages a shame–

no debt . . . big gardens . . .–

they ate better than my parents’ generation, and we spend more for food than my parents’ generation–

What is the parallel?

The more prosperous farm workers in England who were the grandparents of the farm workers in the 1880s . . . were at the BEGINNING of the British empire, before Britain began to use up her wealth maintaining overseas empires–

The same thing is happening again.

Socialism followed the 1880s–

the government began to support more people; they lost thier pride, and fewer people were willing to suffer to be independent–

And, yet, *we* think *we* think we are so prosperous and free?!

My husband and I will never have the wealth and prosperity of our parents’ generation, and yet we both began working before our teens–

and we both put ourselves through college, and he put himself on a mission, with his own money–I earned about 1/3 of mine–

Our children will not be as prosperous as we ard, though they work EVER so hard–

and . . . the empire is expanding even more–

History is helpful in understanding what is happening today–

Thanks for hitting the political nuts and bolts of this issue very well. Ditto.

@OTC,

Sorry to hear that such pride exists in the Church, and I’m glad self reliance isn’t a lost principle.

we also made choices with regards to our family that others should not have to share, HOWEVER, we have found, in speaking with people much wealthier than we . . . that we have honestly paid more for most of our family’s needs, etc.–because we have been more independent. In many ways we have worked much harder.

We paid ‘cash’ for a lot of things that others had better benefits for, just ‘because’ they had better benefits–

We realized that our tax percentage has been as high, though we have become more and more relatively poor as the years have gone by–

as many who are very wealthy–

this means nothing to those with whom we go to church who, because of the outward appearance of our lack of prosperity (small home/old cars, though we keep ourselves very neat, very comely and do not look even remotely ‘poor’, and though our home is very clean)–

those in our ward who make a LOT of money complain “around” us about ‘those who make less who pay so much less’–

it is a prejudice, whether it is true or not. If you don’t have a large home and new cars, you are considered a ‘leech’, even if you work more hours/week, even if you work harder physically to make up for deficits, even if you pay as high a percentage as they do, because they can pay accountants to find loopholes–

So, we gave up. They will judge us, because we make them uncomfortable, and because they are heavily influenced by the MSM they have heeded the propaganda that divides *us* all from each other. We have to make certain we don’t do the same thing, even if, when we speak to them, we realize that in some ways they don’t work as hard for what they have–

*I* (and my husband) would rather work harder and not owe others! It IS a true principle to be self-reliant, and if you’ve felt the sting of condescension from those who believe that their high income justifies them in thinking of others as ‘leeches’–you don’t want that.

I had some other ideas that I wanted to ‘share’ along the same line, but I’ve forgotten them; maybe I was supposed to–

LOL!

And, yes, Jim Davis, Ron Paul is heavily misunderstood–

I appreciate your last post, too–

While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.

Ron Paul’s true desire is to repeal the 16th amendment which “authorizes” the federal government to tax our income (a power that didn’t exist before 1913). If you ever listen to him or read his books you’d understand that he wants an income tax rate of “0.00%” across the board. The link continues…

But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans. The answer to spending and debt is to return to a constitutionally limited government that protects liberty – not one that keeps robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Which philosophy do we espouse?

A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax -Carl Marx (2nd Plank of Communist Manifesto)

Or

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. (D&C 134:2)

I would like as few taxes as possible. I just think it is fair that everyone pays the same percentage. Why should I support a government program if i’m not willing to pay my share of it? The Socialist George W. Bush (you may get a chuckle out of that one) with his working class family tax cuts made me a non taxpayer for a few years. From my experience, I’ve decided I would rather pay my percentage and have my self respect.

On another level, I believe that freedom is having choice and accepting responsibility for the results of that choice. I chose my vocation. I chose my family size. Why should you or Connor or anyone else pay for my decisions? Such a program takes away my responsibility and therefore my freedom.

I thought the Libertarians wanted little or no taxes on everyone. I showed that the poorest of the poor will pay more taxes under Ron Paul than they do now. With either a sales tax or a flat tax.

Proverbs 28:15
15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.

Thanks for your comments on the tax issue. I may be in a vast minority, but I would love a flat tax and it would increase my taxes quite a bit. I believe that everyone should be a contributor and don’t let myself off the hook. I think your comments show very well how unfair the tax system currently is.

Kelly W., thank YOU, too–

:)