Progressive lawyer, online pundit, and internet troll Matt Bruenig has a question forlibertarians: My first question for Cato and libertarians more generally is this: What is upwith Hans-Hermann Hoppe?[1]

I wish I could respond, Who? Alas, I am well aware of Hoppe. Many libertarians and other readers, though, may have just that response. Fortunately, Bruenig hasprovide an introduction:

For the unacquainted, Hoppe is a very prominent libertarian academic, certainly well knownwithin intellectual libertarian circles. He ironically works at the University of Nevada as aneconomics professor, making him a public employee. He publishes frequently in libertarianacademic journals, is a Distinguished Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded theProperty & Freedom Society, is frequently referenced by other libertarians as one of them, and[authored a] 2001 book Democracy: The God That Failed. It is a tad on the long side, but itsreally good, the [following] quotes especially.[1]

We will look at Bruenigs quotes later. For now it is enough to say that, while Hoppe does have followers who self-identify as libertarians, many if not most libertarians who know of him want nothing to do with him.

Here is an assessment of Hoppe that I suspect many libertarians who have read him or his admirerswould accept:

The errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe are regrettable for two reasons: Firstly, Hoppe is a highlyintelligent and well-educated economist who for whatever reasons fails to notice when he doesdamage to the values of freedom and property, which he claims to support. This is the tragicpersonal side of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. But it is also tragic for academic discussions: At a timewhen we are surrounded by ever growing welfare states we badly need thinkers like Hoppe to showus how to tackle todays problems. But instead of doing that, Hoppe prefers to take refuge in hispipe dreams of a so-called natural order, which rather resembles the abyss of a variation ofright-wing totalitarianism. For all these reasons, for all his errors and mistakes and for hiswrong-headed methodology we may expect Hoppes ideas to remain a footnote in the history ofpolitical thought. And it may well be better this way. An effective strategy of liberation wouldlook very different. If Hoppe continues to use the terms liberalism and freedom for hisauthoritarian and pseudo-liberal agenda, it is time for the true liberals to claim back theseterms from him.[2]

It is only necessary to add that (1) the very idea of libertarianism that Bruenig claimslibertarians should be following (2) is not only compatible with, but looks like it would result in,Hoppes theorized libertarian society of the future; furthermore, while (3) Hoppes account of that societysuffers from serious flaws and errors, (4) Bruenigs account of that future society, being based on his reading of Hoppe, has the same flaws and errors. Making those four points is easy enough, but demonstrating them requires a bit more work.

Bruenig believes that libertarians should advocate for an ideal state of affairs that he calls Grab-what-you-can world or Grab World. He claims that this is the only possible world compatible with thelibertarian core belief (or set of beliefs) that are referred to under the label of the Non-Aggression Principle or NAP:

The world which follows the non-aggression principle is the one Roderick Long calls the grab-what-you-can world' this quote [from Long] clearly describes the only world that followsthenon-aggression principle the grab-what-you-can world satisfies the non-aggressionprinciple andno other world does almost everyone opposes following the non-aggressionprinciple as itrequires the grab-what-you-can world the grab-what-you-can world is theworld that follows thenon-aggression principle.[3]

This claim follows from Bruenigs definition of force, which is not the standard libertarianone. By his definition, theft, embezzlement, fraud, looting, and other property offensesshould not be considered uses of force: a property offense involves no force (strictly defined) becauseno body has been attacked.[4] By this definition that force is just attacking other peoplesbodies Bruenig reasons his way to Grab World:

Its simple: 1) grabbing pieces of the world does not, by itself, involve initiating forceagainst other people (if it did, then all resource use would be considered aggression), and 2)attacking someone for grabbing up a piece of the world does involve initiating force againstother people.[3]

In Grab World, there is only one law, the Basic Rule: You may not act upon the bodies of otherswithout their consent.[4] Everything else, including the property crimes listed above, wouldbe legal.From this Rule follows the idea of Grab World, as envisioned by its creator, Roderick Long (thelibertarian philosopher from whom Bruenig grabbed the idea):

Imagine a world in which people freely expropriate other peoples possessions; nobody initiatesforce directly against another persons body, but subject to that constraint, people regularlygrab any external resource they can get their hands on, regardless of who has made or been usingthe resource. Any conception of aggression according to which the world so described is free ofaggression is not a plausible one.[5]

Plausibly or not, Grab World is free from aggression (the initiation of force) as Bruenig definesit: in the libertarian set, there seems to be severe difficulties with distinguishing betweenwhat we might call Actual Initiation (defined as who touched who first) and IdeologicalInitiation[6]. What [libertarians] actually mean by initiation of force is not some neutral notionof hauling off and physically attacking someone.[7]

David S. Amato points out that Bruenigs criterion of Actual Initiation as touching would not includepointing a gun at someone else: even the mugger doesnt, underBruenigs Actual Initiation standard, initiate force against his victim, at least notnecessarily. Pointing a gun at someone, with the desired goal of taking his money or possessions,doesnt require the mugger to touch the victim, to make any actual, physical contact.[5] Nor, for that matter, would pulling the trigger. But to be charitable,that conclusion should probably be chalked up to Bruenigs sloppy writing rather than his actualbeliefs; it is reasonable to think that he includes shooting and threatening people with guns,bows and arrows, and bombs as examples of the use of force as well as mere touching.

What seems less reasonable is to imagine the Grab World state of affairs obtaining in reality.Grab World would require a society of pacifists (as, by stipulation, nobody initiates forcedirectly against another persons body). But while difficult to conceive, it is not logicallyimpossible. As a youth I read a speculative fiction novel by Damon Knight, Rule Golden, in whichthe galactic overlords unleashed a gas upon earth which caused everyone who physically hurt another personto experience the victims pain; those who killed others would die.[8] Anyone with enoughimagination could probably think of other ways for Grab World to be instantiated.

So far, so good. But Bruenig makes assumptions about Grab World that do not look so reasonable.Among them:

(1) It is more or less communism, yes.[9] No, it is not. It may resemble the ultimate communistsociety that Karl Marx envisioned; but it rules out any chance to establish the dictatorship of theproletariat that Marx saw as being necessary to get there. In the dictatorship stage, which isall that every self-proclaimed Communist regime has ever reached, there is plenty of property; itjust all belongs to the state. Property rules against trespass, theft, and the like have alwaysbeen enforced by the states violence and bloodshed (as Bruenig likes to call it) under thoseregimes just as strongly as in states with private property; even more violently and bloodily, in many cases.

(2) there is a state that is preventing people from assaulting and battering and the like.[9]Wrong again. States require a division of labor society which in turn requires an exchangeeconomy: since those enforcing the Basic Rule are losing the opportunity to grab or produce goodsand resources or themselves, they must be supported by those who are doing the latter. ButBruenig forecasts that, on grab world, exchange would initially break down completely:

there is no such thing as a non-coercive trade. All trades rely upon violent coercion. I onlytrade with someone because they have a violence voucher that they will redeem [from the state] if I decide to actupon the piece of the world without doing so. They only trade with me for the same reason. If yougot rid of the coercion, which is to say you got rid of violence vouchers, no trading wouldoccur.[6]

Without the possibility of exchange, production of consumer goods would grind to a halt; whowould buy them, when one could just loot for them? But with nothing being produced, at a certainpoint people would start running out of stores to loot; then where would a state get its tools ofviolence, its guns, handcuffs, police cars, prisons, tanks, fighter planes, and all the rest?Given Grab Worlds universal pacifism, those are not things they could go around and grabfrom just anyone.

Even if the state did get manage to get supplied with its tools of violence, it could not usethem, as that would be acting on the bodies of others without their consent, just as it is today.No one could be physically detained, arrested, or held at gunpoint (much less shot) in Grab World. No one couldbe jailed or placed under house arrest awaiting trial, physically compelled to attend a trial(including witnesses or jurors as well as defendants), or punished physically, including byimprisonment, if convicted.

Since Bruenigs Basic Rule forbids anyone to act on the bodies of others, it forbids its ownenforcement. All a state could do to anyone violating Bruenigs Rule, without itself violating the Rule, would be to grab things from him; in other words, the Basic Rule would forbid anyone fromtreating those who violate it any differently from non-violators. That would mean the end of thestate as we know it, and as we have known it for all of recorded history.

(3) It is a propertyless society.[9] There is no reason to think so. As Bruenig admits, there is nothing in Grab World stopping people from developing their own rules and conventions, which could include rules against taking each others property, invading each others homes,killing each others pets, and the like. Those rules could of course include standard libertarianrules respecting property rights, as they would be consensual, and therefore could include allowing others to useforce in response to cases of theft and so on.[11]

Since in communities with such rules, and those communities only, people would be able to produce and tradegoods, it is reasonable to imagine them as coming into immediate being in actual communities;villages and small towns where people know and trust each other. Only such communities could givepeople the property security, and the division of labor, necessary to maintain a more-thanstarvation existence after the cities were looted. However, they could do so only byinstantiating property rights through voluntary community covenants.

It is easy to imagine these proprietary communities expanding to the size of whole counties,walled or fenced off and guarded against outsiders. It would be easy enough (and not necessarilyinvolve any touching) to restrict admission only to those who consented to the community rules onforce. One can even imagine a flood of refugees to them from the cities, all of whom were admitted would haveconsented to the standard libertarian view of defensive force.

Outsiders like Bruenig would still have the negative liberty to invade and loot communities, andsome might do just that; but there is no reason communities would have to merely let them do it.Non-consenters could climb fences, or cut holes in them, to get in to do their looting; but toget out again they would have to let go of their loot; at which point a community police or possecould simply grab it all back. Would-be looters could also tunnel under fences; but communitydefenders could simply destroy the tunnels. (Question for any Bruenig Bros reading: woulddestroying a tunnel with looters in it count as attacking them?)

I have written elsewhere on this evolution.[10] To sum up:rather than a propertyless society, Grab World looks like it would evolve into thestateless world of proprietary communities envisioned by Hoppe, where political power isstripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces,cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners andtheir voluntary associations.[1]

However, the vision of those libertarian communities imagined by Hoppe looks completely flawed,riddled with conceptual errors. Those errors in turn inspire Bruenig to adopt a similarly flawedaccount filled with the same errors. Documenting that assessment, though, must wait for now.

[1] Matt Bruenig, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarian Extraordinaire, Demos, September 11, 2013. http://www.demos.org/blog/9/11/13/hans-hermann-hoppe-libertarian-extraordinaire

[2] Oliver Hartwich, The Errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Open Republic Magazine (Dublin) 1:2 (October 2005). Web, June 9, 2017. https://oliverhartwich.com/2005/10/10/the-errors-of-hans-hermann-hoppe/

[3] Matt Bruenig, What a World Following the Non-Aggression Principle Looks Like, Demos, January 29, 2014. http://www.demos.org/blog/1/29/14/what-world-following-non-aggression-principle-looks

[4] Matt Bruenig, The Lesson of Grab What You Can, Demos, June 3, 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20140606193500/http://www.demos.org/blog/6/3/14/lesson-grab-what-you-can

[5] David S. Amato, Against Grab World, Libertarianism.org, October 15, 2015. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/against-grab-world

[6] Matt Bruenig, Violence Vouchers: A descriptive account of property, Matt Bruenig Politics, March 28, 2014. http://mattbruenig.com/2014/03/28/violence-vouchers-a-descriptive-account-of-property/

[7] Matt Bruenig, Can you sustain an economic philosophy solely by begging the question?. Matt Bruenig Politics, October 7,2015. http://mattbruenig.com/2015/10/02/can-you-sustain-an-economic-philosophy-solely-by-begging-the-question/

[8] Damon Knight, Rule Golden, Three Novels. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Print.

[9] Matt Bruenig, Comment, June 23, 2014, to Bruenig, Pick-up basketball and grab what you can. Matt Bruenig Politics, June 22, 2014. http://mattbruenig.com/2014/06/22/pick-up-basketball-and-grab-what-you-can/

[10] George J. Dance, Grab World, Nolan Chart, May 26, 2017. https://www.nolanchart.com/grab-world

Read the original here:

When Worlds Collude: Hoppe, Bruenig, and their shared vision of the libertarian future (I) - Nolan Chart LLC

A few weeks back, the Mohave County Libertarian Party was meeting on a Thursday night at Kingmans Black Bridge Brewery, and we were talking about the array of misconceptions about the Libertarian Party.

We decided that theres a lot of misinformation out there, so I took it upon myself as the Treasurer of the Mohave County Libertarian Party to write this to get a few things straight.

I believe that theres a lot of misinformation. It has been suggested that we Libertarians are in the same realm as the resistance, also known as the indivisible group. Two groups that, from my understanding, decided the Democratic National Committee was too conservative, and theyre a fringe sect to the left of conventional DNC thinking.

Often people see the word libertarian and think liberal the word libertarian actually derives from the word liberty; not so coincidentally, one of the symbols often used by the Libertarian Party is the Statue of Liberty.

Generally the Libertarian party has a platform of the following: Small or almost nonexistent government; limited, if no taxes whatsoever; unfettered individual rights; people taking individual responsibility; noninterference with foreign nations issues; and open and free markets. This is to name a few of the basic principles of the Libertarian Party. It can be boiled down even further to the following notion: We leave you alone, you leave us alone. The Libertarian Party has also been described as socially liberal, fiscally conservative, which I suppose is fair. Our party is relatively new, formed in 1971, but were growing. The 2016 election saw many new registered Libertarians and although we didnt have any federal wins our win was the fact that we received 4.5 million votes, or in other terms, 3.2 million more votes than our last go during the 2012 general election. That speaks volumes 3.2 million fed-up voters.

We simply want this great Republic to once again be for the people not the select few elected to office. If you want to hear more about what were all about, please come join us for a beer at 6 p.m. on the second Thursday of every month at Black Bridge Brewery in Kingman.

Treasurer, Mohave County Libertarian Party

Read more:

Jacob Story: Mohave County Libertarians clear up some misconceptions - Today's News-Herald

By now most of us have read the articles and laughed, and some of us have watched the videos and guffawed. A drunken strumpet having a bad hair day gets booted from a comedy club, then arrested, and then lays into the cops in slurring, vitriolic invective. She [it was a woman] attempts to parlay her status as a television reporter into some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card it doesnt work. Another comedian at the club records her performance art on his phone and posts it to the internet. The following day she claims, though her family attorney, to have been drugged. She was fired from her television reporting job anyway.

It was a classic object lesson in the negative aspects of self-important, anti-social tantrum. She was charged with disorderly conduct, criminal mischief [whatever that is], and resisting arrest. Resisting arrest is the pile-on feel-good charge offered up when cops dont really have anything substantive. We never see murderers or armed robbers charged with murder or armed robbery and resisting arrest. Whenever resisting arrest is announced, its fairly prima facie that the major issue is that the cops ego was bruised, the poor dears.

The essential sequence of events is this: * Drunken strumpet heckles performer * Performer cant handle heckler * Club employees escort drunken strumpet from venue to public sidewalk where cops were waiting * Cops confront drunken strumpet about her actions inside venue * Drunken strumpet lambastes cops for being, well, cops * Cops cuff drunken strumpet * Drunken strumpet continues to berate cops * Cops eventually haul her away

What happened next, though, is Grade-A statist apologism and rationalization. People the nation over cheered and huzzahed. Many manly he-men volunteered assorted fisticuffs to punctuate their disapproval of her actions. It would be one thing and completely understandable, if still distasteful were these statist apologists the standard democrats and republicans who celebrate hyper-reactive government involvement in nearly every aspect of human interaction. But they werent.

They claimed to be libertarians, which makes it inexcusable.

The worst part about it, none of those professing to possess libertarian sensibilities could understand why their hairy chest-pounding was putrid statism.

The first and most common excuse offered up is that the woman at the center of the nothingness assaulted someone by spitting. First there was nothing in any of the written accounts that asserts she definitively spit on anyone. Second were supposed to be libertarians here. Spitting is, under the worst of circumstances, little more than a second graders preferred method of making the girls in class run screeching, next to eating bugs and turning eyelids inside out. Big-girl panties, guys; pull em up.

To be fair, there were multiple accounts stating that the cop-denouncing woman and I will quote from one of those accounts appeared to attempt to spit, but the target of her expectoration changed from version to version, rendering the accusation suspect at best and contrived at worst. I have no doubt, though, from what I remember about my, and observed in others, bouts of pronounced drunkenness that more than a few people in her vicinity were hit with spittle from the volume and relentlessness of her tirading. But spray is not the same thing as hocking a loogie.

Yet it was over this assault-by-saliva claim that most of the ahem libertarians offered to deconstruct the orthodontics her parents had paid for. Self-defense, more than one suggested.

Sorry, no. Self-defense, under law, permits only those actions which are necessary to prevent another similar assault, while using the minimum force available. Someone spitting at you is not justifiably met with a punch to the teeth any more than it is justifiably met with a folding chair across the shoulders or a gunshot to the torso. Minimum necessary force to prevent being spat upon a second time by a woman handcuffed by police consists of moving out of loogie-range, and not a lot else.

Self-defense against projectile saliva under libertarians holy Non-Aggression Principle, however, would be a different matter. Does the NAP justify disproportionate response? Dunno. A quick straw poll of libertarians on US self-defense against terrorists knocking down some really tall buildings in 2001 and the 16-year war waged since then might prove illuminating.

The relevant question is: what would the NAP allow as self-defense against the appearance of an attempt to perform juvenile micro-aggression? Would it allow more than the appearance of an attempt at self-defense?

The follow-on statist argument made by non-libertarian libertarians is, Yabbut spitting is assault, and attempting to spit is attempted assault. Both are crimes!

The State defines many things as crimes, including not buckling up, not buying health insurance, and smoking herbage. The State does these things because it can and because not enough people call them on it. Courts certainly arent about to do their duty and nullify laws made in excess of the governments defined power to make law. Not without a revolution waiting in the wings. Were supposed to be libertarians here; we understand that just because The State calls it a crime doesnt mean squat to libertarian political philosophy.

Assault-by-saliva is one of those crimes. It is childish and repulsive; nothing more.

Other excuses made for the arrest of this drunken strumpet over her outburst are that she was drunk in public, which is a crime. Again, just because The State calls it a crime

She was a possible danger to herself. But were still libertarians; The State is not defined to be our Mommy.

The government has an obligation to provide public safety. Apart from providing public safety being impossible without locking everyone up because theyre suspicious, it is only actually attempted by a police-state. A free country housing free citizens requires that the government only pester those who have actually committed crimes falling within the legitimate authority of that government to define crime, and then only when there is enough evidence to support pestering them over it. This drunken strumpet had done nothing that reached that lofty elevation; at most the police should have shooed her to a cab, or taken her home themselves.

She was asked to leave the comedy club; she was therefore trespassing. No, crime cannot retroactive, and trespassing is no different. She was escorted out of the comedy club to the sidewalk. where she stayed. partly because she was almost immediately handcuffed, but still. Among the crimes that she had not committed was especially trespassing.

Its real simple, here: were libertarians. We do not advise or condone the involvement of The State merely because of a squabble between self-interested private parties. In this case, the self-interests were a drunken strumpet who couldnt hold her liquor and a comedy club whose comedian couldnt handle a heckler. Liberty requires the freedom to squabble and the freedom to handle those squabbles privately, without The State.

If you want police in the vicinity just to make sure nothing gets out of hand fine. Hey, there mightve been a few barrel-chested libertarians wanting to take the opportunity to slug a drunken strumpet appearing to attempt to hock a loogie. But unless things do get out of hand, the cops are there, just like everyone else, to eat popcorn and watch the squabble.

Nor does being libertarian and reducing the involvement of The State to observer status mean that we condone anti-social behavior and immature outbursts. Even if those outbursts are First Amendment-protected and when directed at the cops largely accurate and deserved. It means we take videos on our smart phones and post them on the internet to serve as an object lesson in knowing ones upper limit on alcohol.

Non-state social sanction is, in the long run, a far better deterrent to these tantrums than heavy-handed police-statism if only because it deters a state becoming a police-state. Again: were libertarians; were supposed to live and breathe this philosophy. So live it and breathe it; own your philosophy. I shouldnt have to keep reminding everyone what they claim to stand for.

Follow this link:

Diogenes, the Libertarian - The Libertarian Republic

For the fourth consecutive election cycle, theLibertarian Party of Arkansasplans to deliver petitions to the Arkansas Secretary of States office on Monday to become a new political party for the 2018 election.

Because the party failed to win 3% of the electoral vote in the 2016 presidential race that swept Republican nominee Donald Trump into the White House, Arkansas law requires a new political party to collect 10,000 valid voter signatures during a 90-day period.

Party chairman Michael Pakko, an economist at the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Institute for Economic Advancement, said the party finds itself in the position again of having to register as a new party when it has participated in the last four presidential elections. Pakko said the performance of the candidate at the top of the ticket should not be the only measuring stick for ballot access. Despite being considered a new party under the law, Libertarians fielded a candidate in all four congressional races, while the Democrats only contested the 2nd District. The party was also the only competition in eight of the 34 contested state House races.

Our performance was definitely improved, Pakko said. We are giving voters a choice and voters are making that choice and voting Libertarian.

According to Pakko, party officials collected more than 15,000 signatures for the 2018 ballot after former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson fell short in the 2016 presidential race with only with 2.63% of the Arkansas vote. Thats an improvement from 2012, when Johnson won 1.52% of the vote. His vote total rose from 16,276 that year to 29,611 this year. If the partys gubernatorial candidate wins 3% in 2018, it wont have to collect signatures in 2020.

By not winning 3% of the vote, the party will again have to qualify for the ballot in 2018, a process Pakko has said required six months of work as well as about $33,000 in costs in the 2016 cycle. Because the primary was moved up to March 1, a state law required the party to select its candidates at the end of 2015. Pakko said the party will try to change the states law defining a political party in the 2017 legislative session while working toward the 2018 election.

During the recent legislative session, the party did not get enough support to change the states law defining a political party ahead of the 2018 election.

And as the nation is riveted with former FBI Director James Comeys testimony before Congress and an obstruction of justice investigation of President Donald Trump by independent counsel Robert Mueller, Pakko said there is a high level of mistrust between American voters and Republican and Democratic parties.

There remains a low-level of trust in government and the two-party system, Pakko said. We see the constant bickering between the two major parties and I think one thing that Libertarians would like voters to know is there is another choice and another option out there.

Pakko said Arkansas voters should take a closer look at the Libertarian Party in 2018 at all levels.

We have a specific set of principles that we believe and we put emphasis on the rights of individuals, and that individuals should be free to live their lives as they see fit without as little interference from the government as possible, said the Libertarian leader and economic forecaster. Keep the government out of peoples lives and out of their pocketbooks.

After party leaders deliver petitions to the Secretary of States office next week and the signatures are validated within 30 days, Pakko said the party will immediately begin to recruit new candidates for the next major election that is now less than two years away.

See the article here:

Libertarian Party To File Petitions As 'New Political Party' For Fourth Time - KUAR

In general, when one goes to the polls, they are given a list of items to vote yay or nay on. More funding for project X? Yes or no. Slight tax increase for reason Y? Yes or no.

Nick or Kevin for position A1-Z1000? (Because apparently the whole government needs to be voted on even though its so huge and no one really knows who is who anyway.)

Many of these items are a decision of who you want to represent you in a given branch of government. Who do you want to run the state executive branch? Who do you want to represent you in the state legislative branch? But the ones that worry me the most are the measures that require funding. I recently read an article about rejecting utopianism that brought up a good point.

Sometimes the market doesnt do what we like. This got me thinking. Voting day always tries to do something we dont like, and if more than 50% of the votes are yes, I have to pay for it. Wouldnt it be great if voting was done the same way the market works, to vote with your dollar?

Lets say that instead of a single yes or no vote, you get a dollar amount vote. You can vote yes as many times as you like, as long as you have the money. That way, if you really want it, you can hedge your bet. Want more funding for public schools? How much, 50 bucks? Okay, write a check to the state on your way out, etc. Want that new public road connecting I-10 to the I-5? How much do you want it?

Voting day could happen several times per year, and it wouldnt have to be verified so you could do it online. If some foreign entity wants to fund our roads and schools, awesome!

As it stands, every vote you make for a special project, tax increase, or government subsidy, is in and of itself worth hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars of someone elses money. Its easy to get someone to spend someone elses money irresponsibly. You dont even have to read about the project your funding. The project doesnt have to convince you it will do any good, the title just has to sound good. For all you know, the project is being completed by the mayors nephews new business that just started last week before the polls opened.

If you change the funding to a voluntary money-based voting system, taxes would decrease, projects would have to prove themselves to voters, and probably have to show progress to continue getting funding, waste would decrease, and taxation wouldnt be theft.

This money-based voting system wouldnt work for everything, but I think it would eliminate the vast majority of the spending bills that always come out every 4 years when all the naive millennials get around to the polls and dont have time to do research before wasting more of our tax dollars on nice sounding titles of pet projects that are worthless.

* Micheal Tarr Jath is an avid outdoorsman and lover of freedom. He is a conservative libertarian who believes that libertarianism is the bridge that can reconcile the differences in the ideologies of Americanism. You can find him at Libertarian Mastermind on Facebook.

Like Loading...

Read the original here:

The Libertarian Voting Process - Being Libertarian (satire)