Step One: Stop increasing spending. You don't have the money. You're borrowing money from future generations to pay for current consumption.
Step Two: Determine what the role of government is. The core functions. Be open about it, and be open about what government shouldn't be doing.
Step Three: End funding for anything inconsistent with what you determine in step two.
Step Four: Look again at the role of government, look at what incentives and impacts your involvement in any portfolio creates. End funding for anything negative.
Step Five: Change local government legislation to require it to do the same.
Step Six: Remember that when some areas of the economy are taxed less than others (e.g. property) that means that you should cut taxes in other areas. The lower, the flatter the taxes, the less distortions.
Step Seven: When you run out of ideas to cut spending, look at Hansard from 1999 to 2008. You voted against just about every spending increase Labour introduced, why don't you show some damned backbone and convictions, and reverse the lot. By simply doing that you'd eliminate the budget deficit and have enough surplus to cut taxes.
Step Eight: When you run out of backbone, remember this....
TAXES ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY, THEY ARE LEGALISED THEFT
Say this every single night 100 times
It might just help you realise who your employers.
4 comments:
Not sure I go quite as far as legalized theft (a lot of socialists enjoy paying tax provided someone is paying more tax than them; additionally, I'm prepared to pay for core government services, and agree we need to define those)
Otherwise, yep, I'm in.
Disclaimer: I may also call it legalised theft from time to time when thinking of the excessive over-spending.
The legalized theft line...while true, is actually harming Libs and their credibility with voters.Most people do think the State needs funding and so accept that taxation is nessessary for that.
What Libs need to do is explain and show that the State is way out of bounds and shouldn't be getting the funds it is to do what it shouldn't and what can be better provided by the free market.
Of course you first have to educate the noddies who think we have a free market now...
James, the education comes via the mantra "tax is theft". If anyone ever had a doubt that libertarianism is just cargo cult with the goodies being provided by unfettered market forces then go to
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
for a down to earth look at just what these people believe and how easily their beliefs are put to the sword. Lots of great links too. Ian
Ian, either engage in debate on this blog or just go away. That article is nonsense. It makes all sorts of unsubstantiated assertions and offers nothing as an alternative. Libertarianism is simply an approach to the role of the state, it is not a philosophy of values and on its own is grossly inadequate. That is why I am also an objectivist.
It's all very well to decry the non-initiation of force principle, but why not justify the alternative?
I don't welcome smearing here, I welcome those willing to engage in robust debate.
Meanwhile, you might start by explaining why the state should have rights that the individual citizens which it serves are not entitled to?
Post a Comment