Hello, DU. I am a libertarian.

[R.Quinn]

49. Back again

I've been doing some digging over the last few days after reading your most recent reply, especially in regards to regulation and tax expenditures.

Let's clarify what "tax expenditures" means in the context of your first figure (titled "Wealthy Households...&quot . Tax expenditures, as defined by the CBPP (which is where the first figure comes from), are subsidies delivered through the tax code as deductions, exclusions, and other tax preferences (i.e. "tax breaks&quot . This is different from "tax spending", which is how services, programs, and infrastructure get funded (e.g. cops, sewer, etc.). A flat tax would eliminate these very same breaks that disproportionately favor the rich. Furthermore, federal money doesn't generally fund police, fire, sewer, water, roads, schools, etc. That stuff comes from state and local tax spending. Therefore, we should be looking at state and local tax data, and I still haven't found hard data showing that state and local tax spending favors the rich. Lastly, keep in mind that although a flat tax would tax everyone at the same rate regardless of income, the rich would still by far pay the most taxes relative to lower earners.

Sorry about the minimum wage link not working. Here it is:

This short 8-minute video sums up my minimum wage views rather nicely.

You're right, police don't need a warrant to tail someone. But they also don't have the right to trespass on private property either. Neither does a family have the "right" to enter someone's private business for any reason, whether to buy food or otherwise (it's a privilege granted by the property owner). No liberty is being denied because these aren't guaranteed rights in the first place. They're terrible situations, yes, but that does not mean that liberty has been denied or rights have been violated; you aren't guaranteed the right to not be discriminated against. To force a business owner to serve someone on their own private property is not only unconstitutional but also an act of aggression and therefore a violation of the non-aggression principle, which I strongly adhere to, as do most libertarians.

Even more than I am anti-regulation, I am indeed anti-corruption. This should come as no surprise. However, problems arise when the only one responsible for the regulations (the government) has no accountability, the inevitable result of which is mass corruption. Let's be clear here. The government does not regulate things, such as the environment, because it is moral to do so; they do it because of monetary kickbacks. That, my friend, is a conflict of interest. Seeing a bureaucracy such as the FDA get in bed with big pharmaceutical companies should not surprise you. I want a clean environment and safe food as much as the next guy, but I would never trust the government to see that end met because of the sovereign immunity they have. To take manage our national parks, for example, I would much sooner trust any non-government naturalist organization, such as the Audubon Society, before I would trust the hapless EPA.

Just because corporations would profit without interference from the government doesn't mean they wouldn't experience interference elsewhere. That is where non-government organizations, such as the aforementioned Audubon Society, come into play. These are the groups that provide actual accountability and transparency, not government bureaucracies like the EPA. You see, it's not that I'm anti-regulation, really; it's more just that I'm anti-government with respect to regulation. The big lie is that the government is the only one who knows how to properly impose regulations, when that simply isn't true at all.

Did you have more thoughts on the weapons ownership issue? Just curious.