Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, rules that make it difficult for incumbents to be re-elected have in fact been implemented in many countries.

In fact, the U.S. incumbent re-election rate is an outlier amongst democracies...in almost all other counties it is far, far lower.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was tongue in cheek, if consequences and outcomes were so predictable then life (and central planning) would be a lot easier.

Lower incumbent reelection rates are not in and of themselves a good thing, there are many ways that the status quo could remain the same or even worsen after laws are passed which attempt to limit them. The issue gets passed and 10 years later people start noting new problems, new incentives that need to be fixed, so more legislation is passed which itself will need to be fixed. The solution to problems for a government is always more government, new government. This is against the libertarian philosophy, skip the whole "government is fixing itself" charade and move on to the real solution. Minimizing its overall influence.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even that won't work because the rent-seekers will find a way.

[/ QUOTE ] Pure assertion.



[/ QUOTE ]

If the money is being collected and getting spent, special interests will *always* find a way to funnel that money in their direction. How could it be otherwise? You are putting people in charge of the distribution and then expecting impartiality?

Think about it this way: who determines what and how to spend the money impartially? Everyone has a different definition of what is the proper use of the public revenues.


[ QUOTE ]
Congress (and state governments) must be stripped of the authority to *spend* most of the revenues they collect. They should have a very narrow scope of what they can spend money on.

[/ QUOTE ] How in the world do we make this happen? Who enforces it? Essentially, how do we institutionalize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest we start by interpreting the Commerce Clause correctly again. Then we follow up with a consitutional amendment severely limiting the scope of what the Congress can spend money on.

natedogg

[natedogg]

BTW, I'm not necessarily opposed to redistribution either, as a hard and fast principle.

In fact, the compromise solution that I advocate actually solves both the problems you listed.

We utterly eliminate the government's ability to *spend* money. The only thing the government can do with its revenues is redistribute them equally amongst all citizens. Everyone gets a check for the same amount.

This solves the #1 complaint of socialists about the right wing, namely that the poor need financial help from the rich. Unless you are an elitist paternalist who fears that the poor are too stupid and irresponsible to use the money you give them to buy the things you know they need, then there really can't be an objection to a cash handout.

Secondly, Congress's shenanigans get nearly eliminated since no special interests can benefit. The only question to congress is how much will you redistribute? There is a balance here as even the rich generally favor some kind of welfare and public schooling, so you can expect the redistribution to be on the order of about 15k is my guess.

natedogg