Tariffs : The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Milton Friedman once paraphrased Ronald Reagan describing tariffs as shooting a hole in a boat with a group of friends. If your friends start shooting holes in the boat, the best way to stop them isn’t to start shooting holes too. That just causes more damage to the boat harming both your friends and you.

In general, I like most, believe tariffs are harmful. Here I tell why, while also giving the case for why they can also help. In other words, “the good, the bad, and the ugly.”

The Deficit

I’m a libertarian. There are different types. From the least government anarcho-capitalist to the more, but still limited, classical liberal. I consider my position as in between. I’m a minarchist, more or less. In other words, I believe some form of limited government can be beneficial.

If there should be government, then there needs to be a way to fund it. We refer to that as taxes. Many libertarians, especially anarcho-capitalists, like to say “Taxation is theft”. That should be qualified. “All taxation is theft” might be appropriate for an anarcho-capitalist. For a minarchist, or at least my definition, “some taxation is theft” would be a better qualified statement. Which taxation? As a starting point, only taxation that’s authorized. For example, with regards to the US Federal government, that would mean by the US Constitution.

The Good

Of course, much theft is currently occurring there, but “the good” of a tariff is more about the hidden taxation. The deficit. For 2024, the US Government had a deficit of roughly $1.8 trillion. It’s an immorality that our government borrows on the credit of future generations to fund current spending. As of August 2024, we’ve already accumulated over $35 trillion.

While I’d love to see spending cut, until then, the government should collect sufficient revenue. Therefore, increased revenue is welcomed.

I spent a lot of time debating the Fair Tax. One concept that came up a lot was “embedded taxes”. Basically meaning that all goods and services produced in the US had income taxes embedded in their cost. It was a selling point of the Fair Tax. Many nations are able to remove those from exports and place additional taxes on imports via a Value-Added Tax. The US doesn’t currently employ a VAT, so tariffs are the next best things to even the advantage between domestically produced goods and those of foreign origin.

The Bad

Even taking into account the good above, using tariffs to remove the deficit is a heavy lift. In 2024, the US collected roughly $77 billion from tariffs. Remember, that’s needed to address an $1,800 billion deficit.

Tariffs, of course, also raise prices on foreign goods. That is bad for those purchasing the goods. It’s also bad for the producers.

It’s not just consumers that suffer. Many US producers use foreign imports for their products. This will also raise the prices of domestically produced goods. Goods are consumed domestically, as well as being exported.

The Ugly

Finally, the worst thing about tariffs? Central planning. The vast majority of government’s using tariffs has been to change the behavior of societal segments. Sometimes it’s foreign governments. So they’ll lower their tariffs. Sometimes to address other things. Like fight fentanyl.

And to get domestic consumers to buy domestically. But this always boils down to raising the price of goods. As the Irish found out, it can be devasting. Not the first time central planning has led to mass starvation.

Bottom Line

Governments need to be funded. Tariffs are one source. Maybe raising them to address other governmental issues if beneficial. Maybe even using them in lieu of other government revenue sources is desired. But they shouldn’t be used as political weapons to pick winners and losers in the economy. In the end, we all become the losers.

Government Shutdown : Who’s Actually Taking Poor Hostages?

1 Reply

Another government shutdown is looming for Friday March 14th. Coincidentally, also the 5 year anniversary of the Covid shutdowns (if you count from Saturday, which I do). One about too much government and the other about “too little” (theoretically). Not sure if Congress will reconcile it by the time I publish this, but it got me thinking. What happened the last few times the government shut down? I talked to Chat GPT to make sure my memory was correct about the dynamics that were happening. Chat GPT indeed confirmed the main issue I had with the debate.

Legacy Media Narrative

The general narrative is that the Republican party is holding America hostage by not fully funding the government. I remember Anderson Cooper lamenting about the FDA postponing drug approval without the slightest notion that if they didn’t prohibit drugs in the first place, the shutdown wouldn’t affect people getting there medicine. I believe he interviewed a young boy’s mother stating he might not live if the government remained closed. All the people with the same illness, but months ahead of this particular individual, had already felt the impact.

However, if Republicans are willing to fund a portion of the government, why are they accused of holding anyone hostage? The Democrats say they want to fund the same portion. Isn’t it the Democrats, who won’t fund anything, really the ones holding the country hostage. They just want to fund more. The Republicans disagree with that funding.

The Real Hostage Taker

Logic dictates that Congress should first fund everything agreed upon. Not giant bills (there used to be 12, now usually just one continuing resolution). First get all the “basics”. I’m sure I disagree with the mainstream political consensus, but let political will take us where it will. Then make compromises for getting things that don’t have a consensus. Trade votes and choose the least of bad options.

When this occurs, Republicans feel political pressure to cave. They really need to get out in front of the argument. Those not voting for any funding if all the funding they want isn’t included are really the ones “holding America hostage”.

Government Shutdowns : A Recent History

1 Reply

Here is me brief conversation with Chat GPT about recent government shutdowns. You can find my thoughts on the “hostage taking” here.

FBD : Can you give me a brief summary of every US Federal Government Shutdown since 2008 with quotes from both sides of the debate?

Chat GPT :

Since 2008, the U.S. federal government has experienced several shutdowns due to funding disputes. Here’s a brief overview of each, including perspectives from both sides of the debates:

1. October 2013 (16 days):

Cause: Disagreement over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Republican Perspective: Many Republicans, particularly in the House, sought to defund or delay the ACA, arguing it was flawed and would harm the economy.
Democratic Perspective: Democrats insisted on preserving the ACA, emphasizing its role in expanding healthcare coverage.

2. January 2018 (3 days):

Cause: Dispute over immigration policy, specifically the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
Republican Perspective: Focused on securing funding for border security and addressing immigration reforms without linking them to budget negotiations.
Democratic Perspective: Pushed for protections for DACA recipients to be included in the funding bill.

3. December 2018 – January 2019 (35 days):

Cause: Disagreement over funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.
Republican Perspective: President Trump and his supporters demanded $5.7 billion for the border wall, emphasizing national security concerns.
Democratic Perspective: Opposed the wall funding, viewing it as an ineffective solution and advocating for alternative border security measures.

4. December 2024 (Averted):

Cause: Potential shutdown due to disagreements over spending bills and the debt ceiling.
Republican Perspective: Some Republicans, influenced by President-elect Trump, opposed temporary funding extensions without addressing long-term fiscal issues.
Democratic Perspective: Advocated for passing the stopgap spending bill to prevent a shutdown and ensure continuity of government services.

Each of these shutdowns stemmed from deep policy disagreements, reflecting the challenges in reaching bipartisan consensus on critical issues.

FBD : During that time, which political party was to blame according to the concensus of legacy media?

Chat GPT :

The consensus of legacy media (mainstream outlets like The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) has generally leaned toward blaming Republicans for most government shutdowns since 2008. Here’s how they framed each event:

2013 Shutdown (16 days – ACA dispute) → Blame: Republicans
- Legacy media largely blamed House Republicans, particularly the Tea Party faction, for attempting to use government funding as leverage to repeal or delay the Affordable Care Act (CNN: “GOP-led House triggers shutdown over Obamacare”; NYT: “Republicans’ hard-line stance led to shutdown”).
- Democrats, including President Obama, were portrayed as holding firm against what was described as “hostage-taking” by the GOP.
2018 Shutdown (3 days – DACA dispute) → Blame: Mixed, but leaned toward Republicans
- While Democrats initiated the holdout by demanding DACA protections, coverage often framed it as a failure of Republican leadership under Trump to negotiate effectively (Washington Post: “Republicans control Congress but can’t keep the government open”).
- Some outlets acknowledged Democrats’ role but suggested that the GOP, controlling both chambers and the White House, should have prevented the shutdown.
2018-2019 Shutdown (35 days – Border wall dispute) → Blame: Republicans/Trump
- Media consensus strongly blamed Trump for the shutdown, as he had openly stated, “I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down” in a meeting with Democratic leaders.
- Coverage emphasized the economic harm and unpaid federal workers, often portraying Trump as stubborn and unwilling to compromise (NYT: “Trump’s shutdown: Chaos with no end in sight”; CNN: “Trump’s border wall obsession led to longest shutdown in history”).
2024 Potential Shutdown (Averted) → Blame: Republicans (especially Trump-aligned faction)
- Coverage suggested that hard-right House Republicans aligned with Trump were making negotiations difficult (NBC: “MAGA Republicans threaten another shutdown”; WaPo: “House GOP dysfunction puts government funding at risk”).
- The framing suggested that while both parties were involved, it was mainly the GOP infighting that risked a shutdown.

Overall Trend:

Legacy media narratives have largely assigned blame to Republicans, emphasizing their use of shutdowns as a political bargaining tool. While Democrats have been involved in some of these disputes, coverage tends to portray them as defending existing policies rather than instigating the shutdowns.

FBD : In any of these events, had Republicans proposed funding smaller portions of the government?

Chat GPT :

Yes, during the 2013 and 2018-2019 shutdowns, Republicans proposed funding smaller portions of the government to mitigate the impact while negotiations continued. However, these efforts were largely rejected by Democrats.

2013 Shutdown (ACA Dispute)

House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, attempted a piecemeal funding strategy to reopen specific parts of the government, such as:
- National Parks and museums
- Veterans’ benefits
- The National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Senate Democrats and the Obama administration rejected these proposals, insisting on a full funding bill rather than a selective reopening.
Obama’s stance: “You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the government to fund.” (Washington Post, Oct 2013)

2018-2019 Shutdown (Border Wall Dispute)

As the shutdown dragged on, Republicans proposed funding all government agencies except for Homeland Security, where the border wall dispute was centered.
Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, rejected this, arguing that piecemeal funding would reduce pressure on Trump and Republicans to fully reopen the government.
Schumer’s stance: “The president is holding government services hostage over his wall.” (CNN, Jan 2019)

Media and Democratic Response

Legacy media and Democrats framed these partial funding efforts as a political stunt rather than a serious attempt to govern.
Republicans countered by saying Democrats were refusing to negotiate, prioritizing politics over reopening essential services.

Outcome

These piecemeal funding bills failed, as Democratic leaders refused to pass them in the Senate or accept them in negotiations.
The shutdowns ultimately ended when broader funding deals were reached.

In short, Republicans did propose funding smaller portions of the government, but these efforts were rejected in favor of pushing for full funding resolutions.

The Medicaid Debate: Who Really Pays the Price?

Leave a reply

With the new Republican budget proposal, there has been a lot talk about cutting Medicaid. Of course, many are worried about how less money will affect the people currently receiving the funds. But I have another question. Where did the money come from? It’s definitely a benefit to those receiving the subsidy. But there is also a cost.

How Medicaid is Funded

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, states provide the base funding with the federal government giving matching funds up to a certain percentage. 50-77% was described as the base rate, but states get plus ups based on other critera, for example, participation in the Affordable care act, i.e. Obamacare.

The federal government basically gives states incentives to fund Medicaid with a bunch of strings attached. So, in essence, Medicaid is funded by state and federal taxpayers. What’s the difference?

The Real Funding Source of Medicaid

There is no difference. The taxpayers from the 50 states are the same taxpayers to the federal government. So basically, if the Federal portion of Medicaid ended tommorow, state taxpayers would be required to send that much less money to the government. Of course, the Federal government runs an enormous deficit, but that’s for another post.

The Benefits of Eliminating Medicaid

If Medicaid is eliminated, state taxpayers will get to keep their tax dollars. If a state deems it wise to continue funding Medicaid on their own, they need only ask for the tax dollars no long taken by the Federal government. The state taxpayer will be no worse off. In fact, they may be better off through removing the the inefficiency of the federal tax. No longer needing to give money to the federal government and get it back. Restoring the concept of federalism will actually make any attempt to be charitable via government more appealing.

States will now be able to control more tax dollars, more efficiently, for the benefit of those they’re trying to help.

The Morality of Social Security

Leave a reply

In the debate on social security, I often hear this refrain: I paid into it, so it’s my money. Ignore that SCOTUS has consistently stated there is no legal right to the money paid in. It’s still a fact that the money paid in by past generations was immediately spent. Where was this money spent? It was spent on subsidizing government services for those very same people. You know, the people that voted for the representatives that decided to collect less tax revenue from income taxes. Instead they “borrowed” those funds from the payroll tax.

It bears repeating that the people whose payroll tax contributions were used to fund borrowing for government services were the same people that voted for the representatives that decided this was a good policy. They were also the same people that benefited from less income tax and, more accurately, goods and services that had less income tax cost embedded in them.

Of course, I’m not a collectivist and understand that many individuals saw this occurring. Furthermore, many voted against this sort of thing (or at least for representatives that didn’t support it). However, the notion that people that had paid into social security had their money taken by an external force, just isn’t accurate. Does that mean I think social security should immediately end? That those that were forced to pay in should be left high and dry? Absolutely not. But does that mean that I would like to start modifying the program immediately? Absolutely. I’d start with wealthy retirees being cut off.

As a start to this process, so the voting public can see more clearly to what these sorts of changes would mean, please read my post on Social Security and Medicare Clarity. Means testing, conversion to owned retirement assets, and/or making Social Security a safetly net only program are all good reforms.

Free Market Immigration

Leave a reply

I recently watched a Reason YouTube video called “What’s the ideal immigration policy?”. It was basically a debate between libertarians Dave Smith (who I’ve been familiar with for a few years) and Chris Freiman (who I had never heard of) hosted by Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe on their “Just Asking Questions” series. Mr. Smith’s position was basically that controlling the borders was completely inline with libertarian principles. Even going as far as saying it was communist not to want to control the borders. (Though this may have either been hyperbole or using communist outside of the definition that includes central planning. I’ve at least argued with socialists that take this position.) Mr. Freiman’s position was that freedom of movement and association were key libertarian principles that would be violated by government restricting immigration.

The term “open borders” was also thrown around. I’ve struggled with this term myself, believing I support open borders, but still allow for restrictions WRT safety. Maybe the best way is defining what I mean by open. First, and what I believe is the easiest to make a libertarian case for, is labor. Anyone that wants a job and has someone else willing to give them that job, should be able to enter into that contract. I also believe a lot of opposition to open borders is opposition to this very thing. That’s what I call “centrally planning” labor. Politicians, or the “ruling elite” if you will, decide how many of what type of labor should be allowed into the country. I also believe tourism, visiting relatives, and other forms of voluntary association shouldn’t be restricted.

Before I go too far, however, let me address a concern I think libertarians on both sides of this debate have: Tax-payer charity, i.e. “welfare”. It has been stated that “You can’t have open borders at the same time that you have a welfare state.” Even by my favorite libertarian, Milton Friedman. I have to respectfully disagree. Those 2 restrictions on freedom are absolutely, 100% mutually exclusive. Having one doesn’t justify having the other. If tomorrow, the “open borders” legislation was passed and signed, it could state that no immigrants are eligible. (On a side note, it could and should also state that no one is eligible, but that’s a different subject.) If it didn’t have that caveat, would I still support it? I’m not sure, but am leaning towards no.

I also think a lot of the debate hinges on restriction of public property. “Using heroin in a public school bathroom” was the prime example of libertarians supporting some restrictions. I too, agree with restrictions, but, to be fair, no one was suggesting we only limit immigrants from doing this, but citizens were free to do what they want, especially as taxpayers. It was the act that we democratically decided (yes via the “ruling elite”) that was bad. Not the immigration status of the individual consuming the heroin. The same is true, of course, of using roads (funded via gas tax) or even being on public property in general. What if an immigrant wants to just come here and sleep on a park bench? Again, I’m not sure what the answer to homelessness is, but I don’t think it should be based on immigration status (with maybe public systems being subject to the same caveat I endorsed for welfare).

Culture was also given as an acceptable reason (I believe even a libertarian reason) for restricting immigration. This I wholeheartedly reject. People are free to associate, eat, dress, etc. as they wish. In fact, IMHO, one of the best advantages of a system as free as ours is that various cultures can express themselves as freely as they want (as long as the non-aggression principle is respected, of course).

Voting, on the other hand, or the right to vote, is completely up to democratic decision making. I think a lot of the desire to restrict immigration has to do with the party that’ll be perceived to gain the most politically. Which is of course, the democrats. Republicans believe it and don’t want them voting. Democrats believe and absolutely want them to vote. In fact, Democrats keep immigrants in the shadows by rejecting compromises that’ll limit the path to citizenship. I feel this is probably the topic of another post, but let me just say, I’m 100% with letting immigrants in, especially to work, without any path to citizenship, or even if we say limit the number of naturalized citizens on an annual basis. To me, that’s much more in line with liberty than limiting who can and can’t work.

Probably, the last major category of determining the free flow of immigration is asylum. Our current system is government based, but, as always, I’d prefer a private solution. Reason has another great article on the future (and past) of this phenomena in the United States. I’d say this is a subcategory of general social services.

I’m just going to wrap up by saying the Reason discussion is a great watch. They did a great job of pointing out where different flavors of libertarianism may have differing opinions on the subject. Though I personally lean “open borders”, I can see reasoning behind certain restrictions.

Why do states fund political party primaries?

Leave a reply

On this Super Tuesday, as I’m watching election returns, I’m reminded of the question I often ask during primary season: Why do states use taxpayer dollars to help political parties choose their candidates? I think I started asking this question when California was going through their open primary battle with political parties. Californians decided we should have “open” primaries, i.e. primaries where voters could choose any candidate regardless of their own party affiliation, and the Democrat and Republican parties decided that wasn’t fair and sued. I believe the final determination was that voters could vote for any candidate they wanted to, but political parties were free to ignore that vote.

As a liberation, I supported the latter part of that decision. After all, political parties are private organizations. But that got me thinking, if they’re private, why is the government even funding a mechanism for them to choose a candidate? My only conclusion was that they shouldn’t be. I’m sure given that the vast majority of those elected are from political parties that getting any elected official to call for a stop would be impossible. Maybe, at least in states that allow for public referendum, voters/citizens/taxpayers (at least those that aren’t officially part of a political party), would be willing to stand up and put a stop to this waste of taxpayer dollars.

Prior to writing this post, I decided to ask ChatGPT the question “Why do states pay for primaries?” The following is the response. “Reaching” would be an understatement:

States in the United States typically bear the cost of conducting primary elections for political parties as part of the democratic process. Primary elections are a crucial step in the electoral system, serving as a means for political parties to select their candidates for various offices, such as presidential, gubernatorial, or congressional positions. Here are some reasons why states cover the expenses of primaries:

Facilitating the Democratic Process: States aim to ensure a fair and accessible democratic process by organizing primary elections. By covering the costs, they contribute to creating an environment where citizens can actively participate in selecting their preferred candidates.
Party Autonomy: Political parties in the United States have a considerable degree of autonomy in determining their nomination processes. States conduct primaries as a way to allow parties to select their candidates, and by covering the costs, states support the parties in carrying out this fundamental function.
Inclusivity: States want to encourage broad participation in the electoral process. By organizing and funding primaries, they make it easier for voters to engage in the candidate selection process, promoting inclusivity and representation.
Ensuring Fairness: The government’s involvement in primaries helps ensure that the election process is conducted fairly and transparently. States set rules and regulations to maintain the integrity of the primary elections, which may include guidelines on candidate eligibility, voting procedures, and the counting of ballots.
Legal Requirements: In some states, the law mandates the government to organize and finance primary elections. This legal framework is designed to provide consistency and a standardized approach to the primary election process.
Party Access to Ballot: Political parties often need to fulfill certain requirements, such as obtaining a certain percentage of votes in a primary, to gain access to the general election ballot. States may facilitate this process by organizing and covering the costs of primaries.

While states generally cover the expenses associated with primaries, political parties may also contribute funds for their internal operations during the primary season. The specific arrangements can vary from state to state, reflecting the diversity in election laws and regulations across the country.

Top of Form

The Minimum Wage Debate

Leave a reply

I think most people believe the minimum wage is virtuous. The main reason being that they believe somehow the poorest amongst us gain benefit from the most well off. In other words, wealthy business owners just pay poor workers more. However, many, if not most, economists see through this fallacy using a basic economic principal: Price floors cause surpluses. What does that mean? A floor on the price of employment leads to less employment. That’s why I believe supporting the minimum wage is great politics, but poor policy.

I’ve recently been watching (and rewatching) some debates on minimum wage. Proponents seem to argue that they have the preponderance of studies that show minimum wage helps poor people starting with the grandfather of pro minimum wage studies, Card/Krueger. Those against telling low skill workers they are not legally allowed to be employed, however, usually counter the claim stating they have the numbers. I tend to believe those against the price floor, but that’s probably my bias. And even if my position does have many more empirical studies, it doesn’t actually matter. Why? Because the 2 sides use completely different methodologies to come to their conclusions. One side could stop doing studies for 20 years. If the other side said every study in that time span shows they’re correct, it wouldn’t mean a thing. What’s really at issue is the methodology those studies use. But before I talk about that, I’d like to discuss another important point I’ve been using for years and that I heard brought up in at least one debate.

Before any studies are even considered, what does economics 101 say about a price floor? They cause surpluses. For comparison, price ceilings cause shortages (even well-intended, but ultimately harmful decrees against price “gouging”). The moment the price of labor goes up, the employer has 2 things he can do, raise prices or take less profit (or a mix, of course). The latter will be done by all employers that are still happy with their profit. Of course, some employers will not be happy and instead raise prices. This will necessarily mean people demand less of their product, i.e. produce a surplus. This will drive down the supply meaning less workers will be needed to make the product. Eventually, the market will have its way. This is the hurdle that proponents of the minimum wage must overcome with their studies. They have to be so convincing that a basic law of economics is suspended. And they are anything, but convincing.

First off, let’s say what most of these studies that support a minimum wage don’t say. They don’t say the minimum wage is a good policy or that it helps the poor. Basically they say that in a very short time frame a small change in the wage has negligible effects on employment. But of course, that’s not how politicians or “progressive” economists present them. In the debates I watched, a couple times their measuring was compared to displacement of water. One in particular compared it to putting bricks into a pool of water. If each brick was measured against the last brick, there wouldn’t be much change. However, if the bricks were measured in totality, they’d definitely have an effect. Further, the timeframe measured was also considered small. Debaters against the minimum wage admitted in the short run, employers would most likely not fire people, but in a longer timeframe would definitely be less likely to hire people. Russ Roberts used the example of American Somoa to show how seemingly small hikes can affect certain locations disastrously in the short run too.

I also like to remember that the main supporters of the minimum wage, progressives, have always supported it as a policy. However their early support was for very different reasons. They agreed with those currently against the central planning of wages that the floor on price would actually keep people from working. I believe it was first for children, then for women, and finally for minorities. But then, as they became less misogynistic and racist, they wanted to keep the policy, but just claimed that it no longer had these negative employment effects and instead helped the poor and underprivileged. It just took them a while to “prove” it using studies. In fact, I’m not even sure there was any significant study that supported their position prior to Card/Krueger.

Social Security and Medicare Clarity

1 Reply

There are many issues with so called “entitlements”, i.e. Social Security and Medicare. Solvency. Legality. Morality. But today I don’t intend to address (or debate) any of those issues. Instead, I’d like to propose changes to the system that simply provide clarity to the voting public. Instead of obscuring the real cost and benefit of the system, take steps so the electorate can see how they’re really affected by the system.

Some of these proposals with offend those on the left. Others will offend those on the right. Some people will reject any and all changes as being an attack on their rightfully earned property. But these are really provided to reveal what the programs really costs. I’ll also end with what I think the actual benefit is.

My first proposal is to get rid of the employer portion. This simply exists to hide some of the tax governments are placing on workers’ wages. Right now workers believe the government is taking about 7.5% of their wages in payroll taxes when in reality, they’re taking about 15%. They just hide 7.5% from their paycheck by having employers provide this directly. Employees need to see the full tax to begin to appreciate what is happening. I know some think that somehow making this change would help the employer and harm the employee, but how much an employer pays to utilize an employee’s labor is a function of the market. Where those funds go doesn’t matter one bit to the employer.

The second proposal would get rid of the fiction that there is a trust fund. That thing where the government borrowed money from itself many years ago and will now pay itself back. Try that with your own retirement. Save all your income and then borrow it back with a promise to restore the debt when retirement comes. That’s what the trust fund represents. If the fund needs to be used, it’s the same taxpayers whose payroll tax is being taken that will need to honor the fund with different taxes. So the proposal is that the rate will go up (and maybe down) based on the amount of revenue required. That way, wage earners can see every paycheck (based on period for recalculation) what they’re really paying.

The final proposal that would help clarify cost is to remove the cap. I don’t like progressive taxation, but I’m no fan of regressive taxation either. In my opinion, both are just market distortions that actually make the cost of government for each citizen harder to calculate. The first dollar would be taxed the same as the millionth.

Passing these 3 proposals would clarify the cost of entitlements which help clarify the cost and benefit of any changes to the system. However, one final order of business doesn’t need to be passed at all. It just needs to be explained to the general public. What is the benefit of Social Security and Medicare. It’s not an insurance program. Not legally or in practice. It’s not a pension. They aren’t putting your money into a fund that grows and will later be drawn upon for surviving members. It is, in reality, a transfer of wealth from the relatively poorer demographic of the young to the relatively wealthier demographic of the old. Yes. Some of the young are wealthier and can well afford the tax. And yes. Some of the old are poor and indeed need assistance. But, in general, transfer of wealth from young working people to older retired people is the benefit. Nothing more.

Meaning of Freedom Before Democracy

Leave a reply

I thought maybe my first post should be related to my general philosophy on government or, more specifically, what principles should be used when deciding on policy. In three words, freedom before democracy.

Before going much further, I should probably start with defining what I (and others) mean by democracy. What I mean is simple. Majority-rule. Some people also believe it means freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Some people believe it means a government that treats its citizens with respect. Some people even believe its synonymous with freedom. But the problem with all those other definitions is that people that use them, also define it as majority-rule. Then whenever majority-rule supports their position, but overrides any of those other definitions, they just retort “Well, that’s democracy.” So, to keep it clear, democracy mean majority rule.

It’s probably also worth defining freedom. Surprisingly, this too can have different definitions. Some think it means doing whatever you want. But I reject that simply because what you want may affect other people in a way they don’t. So, in my definition, freedom can only be defined by all affected parties agreeing to the action. A lot of libertarians, like myself, call it the non-aggression principle (that is the idea that you never initiate violence). Free market advocates, which I also am, define it as consisting of only voluntary transactions. As a small (versus no) government type, I concede that some actions need to be adjudicated since the involved parties may not always have the option to engage in a voluntary transaction. For instance, noise ordinances fall under this category, since one party may want to be free to be as loud as they like, but the other wants to be free from the noise. Since the noise can’t be confined to one’s property, a rule is set up before hand.

So given my preferred definition of these 2 terms, I submit that the best way to make policy decisions (from being a sitting member of Congress to voting directly for state or local initiatives) is not to determine what you personally would do, but to instead consider what is the freest course of action. Only when that course isn’t clear, vote for the “fairest” solution. Or, in other words, always choose freedom before democracy.