I stand corrected. You are right that seeing taxation as a necessary means to keep an orderly civilization should, in principle, confine objections to how taxes are collected. However, the Hayek school regards any form of taxation which is not a flat tax as discriminatory. A flat tax also means way simpler system of collection. Surely not the nightmare of regulations described in the theatre of the absurd above.
That's awful but I want to push back on the connection with libertarianism. I know that's kinda a throwaway line and I would have used the same title but I think a big part of why we have so much unnecessary regulation is because we encourage this false dichotomy that suggests it's either libertarianism or accepting regulatory burden. But, in fact, you can both believe in the need for appropriate state action and regulation and still agree that there is a huge cost imposed by unnecessary overhead.
I mean this gives you reason to hate the fact that tex-prep companies have captured our tax system and a greater appreciation of how much overhead unnecessary regulations can create but I'm not sure it makes one much more of a libertarian. I mean once you grant that you need taxes to at least fund defense you need to collect them some way and that's an issue for the libertarian and non-libertarian alike and the libertarian doesn't get to be alone disliking unnecessary paperwork.
I suspect we could make better progress on this if we convinced people on the right and left it was ok to make combating inefficient regulations part of their political goals as well.
I am inclined to disagree, as a libertarian, with your sweeping assertion that libertarians hate paying taxes for the legitimate role of government in ensuring our safety (law and order and defense). While there is a sect of anarcho-libertarians, a free market libertarian following Hayek and the "austrian" economic model, just like to restrict government bureacracy to these roles, reflecting way lower taxes and way smaller government and way, way fewrer regulations. Nothing in this nightmare of bureacracy of hiring a nany confroms to that model.
I didn't mean to make that assertion at all and don't believe I did. Just the opposite, I assumed that libertarians accepted the need to pay some taxes. Thus, the libertarian has no *special* reason to be upset about the situation with nannies -- everyone (libertarian or not) dislikes it because the tax scheme is unduly complicated and difficult (likely bc of capture by tax prep).
Exactly because the libertarian *doesn't* say all taxes are theft they can't say "well it would all be fine if we had a libertarian system". It's not a matter of more or less government it's merely a matter of collecting those taxes you do collect in an efficient way which I assume everyone can agree on whether or not they are libertarian.
I stand corrected. You are right that seeing taxation as a necessary means to keep an orderly civilization should, in principle, confine objections to how taxes are collected. However, the Hayek school regards any form of taxation which is not a flat tax as discriminatory. A flat tax also means way simpler system of collection. Surely not the nightmare of regulations described in the theatre of the absurd above.
I faced the same problem trying to get permission to repair the wall in from of my house that collapsed, blocking the sidewalk. Over two months! [And the _people_ I dealt with were individually friendly and helpful!]
The problem is that it is too easy to see and say how stupid and counterproductive much of the regulation is. Trying to figure out exactly what is NOT stupid and counterproductive would, like Socialism, "take too many evenings."
I stand corrected. You are right that seeing taxation as a necessary means to keep an orderly civilization should, in principle, confine objections to how taxes are collected. However, the Hayek school regards any form of taxation which is not a flat tax as discriminatory. A flat tax also means way simpler system of collection. Surely not the nightmare of regulations described in the theatre of the absurd above.
Like the trials of Job.
That's awful but I want to push back on the connection with libertarianism. I know that's kinda a throwaway line and I would have used the same title but I think a big part of why we have so much unnecessary regulation is because we encourage this false dichotomy that suggests it's either libertarianism or accepting regulatory burden. But, in fact, you can both believe in the need for appropriate state action and regulation and still agree that there is a huge cost imposed by unnecessary overhead.
I mean this gives you reason to hate the fact that tex-prep companies have captured our tax system and a greater appreciation of how much overhead unnecessary regulations can create but I'm not sure it makes one much more of a libertarian. I mean once you grant that you need taxes to at least fund defense you need to collect them some way and that's an issue for the libertarian and non-libertarian alike and the libertarian doesn't get to be alone disliking unnecessary paperwork.
I suspect we could make better progress on this if we convinced people on the right and left it was ok to make combating inefficient regulations part of their political goals as well.
I am inclined to disagree, as a libertarian, with your sweeping assertion that libertarians hate paying taxes for the legitimate role of government in ensuring our safety (law and order and defense). While there is a sect of anarcho-libertarians, a free market libertarian following Hayek and the "austrian" economic model, just like to restrict government bureacracy to these roles, reflecting way lower taxes and way smaller government and way, way fewrer regulations. Nothing in this nightmare of bureacracy of hiring a nany confroms to that model.
I didn't mean to make that assertion at all and don't believe I did. Just the opposite, I assumed that libertarians accepted the need to pay some taxes. Thus, the libertarian has no *special* reason to be upset about the situation with nannies -- everyone (libertarian or not) dislikes it because the tax scheme is unduly complicated and difficult (likely bc of capture by tax prep).
Exactly because the libertarian *doesn't* say all taxes are theft they can't say "well it would all be fine if we had a libertarian system". It's not a matter of more or less government it's merely a matter of collecting those taxes you do collect in an efficient way which I assume everyone can agree on whether or not they are libertarian.
I stand corrected. You are right that seeing taxation as a necessary means to keep an orderly civilization should, in principle, confine objections to how taxes are collected. However, the Hayek school regards any form of taxation which is not a flat tax as discriminatory. A flat tax also means way simpler system of collection. Surely not the nightmare of regulations described in the theatre of the absurd above.
The simplest way to liberate yourself from these bureaucratic complexities is to hire your wife to raise your offspring.
More!
I faced the same problem trying to get permission to repair the wall in from of my house that collapsed, blocking the sidewalk. Over two months! [And the _people_ I dealt with were individually friendly and helpful!]
The problem is that it is too easy to see and say how stupid and counterproductive much of the regulation is. Trying to figure out exactly what is NOT stupid and counterproductive would, like Socialism, "take too many evenings."
maybe Musk can point the way?