Why The GOP/Ryan Budget is a Non-Starter for Libertarians

It grows the size, scope, and spending of government.

After Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released the Republican budget plan for 2014, he received public kudos from small-government groups such as Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). He won praise despite proposing a 42 percent increase in annual federal spending over the next decade and locking in tax increases pushed by President Obama.

AFP sent around an email with the subject line, "AFP Supports Ryan Budget." While urging the GOP to "reject the $620 billion in new taxes negotiated by the Obama Administration during the fiscal cliff deal," the group's president Tim Phillips nevertheless said, “Our hope is that the Senate...look to the Ryan plan as a framework for their own proposal.”

ATR's mass email was slugged "ATR Applauds House GOP No Net Tax Hike Balanced Budget Plan," which is a particularly curious statement given that the GOP budget incorporates the tax increase in the fiscal cliff deal. Arguably more problematic, while Ryan's budget zeroes out all spending on Obamacare, it keeps many of that plan's taxes. Those new levies are expected to raise about $800 billion in revenue over the next decade and include:

a new 3.8 percent tax on capital gains and dividends on households that earn more than $250,000 a year, 0.9 percent additional Medicare taxes on all household income over $250,000 a year, a new 2.3 percent tax on medical devices and a 10 percent tax on tanning salon services. 

Apart from the revenue side of the Ryan/GOP budget plan, there is, of course, spending. As I noted yesterday, the budget calls for $3.5 trillion in federal spending in 2014. But by the end of its projection period - 2023 - the feds would be spending $5 trillion a year, or an increase of about 42 percent. If Milton Friedman was on to something when he said the true measure of government is the amount of money it spends, the GOP budget massively expands the size, scope, and (obviously) spending of the federal government.

The 2014 GOP budget is essentially an update of the past couple of years' plans (also called The Path to Prosperity). The primary difference is the attempt to balance the budget in 10 years rather than 30 or 40 years. That revision relies not on proposing sharp cuts or workable reforms to the major drivers of spending - Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending - but by either ignoring them completely (Social Security), obfuscating relevant details (defense), or calling for modest changes beginning in 2024 (Medicare). The revenue projections are taken from the CBO's completely fantastic and never-before-seen scenario in which receipts grow on average by 4.5 percent year over year for 10 years. Good luck with that.

So, despite the endorsement of two high-profile groups that regularly assail increased government spending and taxes, the Paul Ryan/GOP budget does both. On top of that, it is filled with obvious contradictions, annoying diversions, and phony assumptions.

It didn't have to be this way. Due to a variety of reasons, real spending has been flat for the past several years without Americans starving to death or being overrun by Islamic fundamentalists or neo-Soviet invaders. More important, the political establishment should understand that voters respond to politicians whose actions and policies stem from principle rather than from expediency. Was it only a week ago that a handful of senators led by Rand Paul (R-Ky.) created one of the most stirring moments in recent political memory simply by refusing to conduct business as usual? In standing up to a chief executive, an attorney general, and the man who now heads the CIA over questions of transparency and executive power, Rand Paul and his colleagues didn't just show a spine and a vision sorely lacking in the typical Washington "statesman," they spoke for voters who are rightly worried and concerned about the people who rule them. Whatever plaudits the filibuster partiicipants won, they also were widely attacked by the nation's leading editorial boards and even senior members of their own party (John McCain memorably - and sadly - dubbed them "wacko birds").

Would that the crew behind the House Republican budget had one ounce of the same spine and ideological fervor of folks such as Rand Paul. If they did (or if they dared to include people such as Justin Amash in the budgeting process), they might have produced a document that would actually address out-of-control government spending and a future that is overwhelmed not simply by red ink but by slow economic growth caused by debt overhang.

Sure, "The Path to Prosperity" will be "better" than the Senate's long-awaited plan - at four years in the making, you've got to wonder if the ghost of slow-poke film director Stanley Kubrick is guiding that sad-sack document. And it will surely be "better" than the president's - already late in turning in this year's document, Obama has signaled that he's not signing on to anything that doesn't reverse the sequester's cancellation of White House tours and other core functions of government.

But being "better" than plans that will be put forth by political opponents shouldn't be mistaken for being "good," or even worthy of support. The fact is that the GOP budget plan, apart from its first two years on the spending side, in which it slightly reduces outlays from the current amount, is nothing to celebrate. There are workable alternatives out there, including plans floated by people such Paul, Sen. Tom Coburn, and the Republican Study Committee. While none of these proposed reform agendas represent a turn-key operation, they all have the benefit of actually grappling with the actual issues that are both at hand and about to slam the American people in a few years' time.

Indeed, in its unwillingness to confront directly near-term and long-term issues with the size and scope of government, the GOP budget is simply one more example of how similar both major parties really are. For all the talk of historically high levels of polarization and acrimony in D.C., this latest budget season will almost certainly prove yet again that the two parties have far more in common than either side wants to admit.

Republicans and conservatives more generally are never slow to bitch and moan about how libertarians refuse to get in line and support a first-best or second-best or even third-best option. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and all that. But by any serious measure, the GOP budget simply doesn't give those of us who - like a persistent majority of Americans - want a government that does less and spends less much get excited about. Winning the broadly defined libertarian vote - a growing demographic that includes people who are generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative - isn't difficult or complicated or hard to do. But it seems beyond the grasp of a party that doesn't seem to fully understand or trust its own limited-government rhetoric.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    But by any serious measure, the GOP budget simply doesn't give those of us who - like a persistent majority of Americans - want a government that does less and spends less much get excited about.

    You might get a persistent majority of Americans who want a government that spends less on other people.In standing up to a chief executive, an attorney general, and the man who now heads the CIA over questions of transparency and executive power, Rand Paul and his colleagues didn't just show a spine and a vision sorely lacking in the typical Washington "statesman," they spoke for voters who are rightly worried and concerned about the people who rule them.Spine and vision != results.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    In standing up to a chief executive, an attorney general, and the man who now heads the CIA over questions of transparency and executive power, Rand Paul and his colleagues didn't just show a spine and a vision sorely lacking in the typical Washington "statesman," they spoke for voters who are rightly worried and concerned about the people who rule them.

    Spine and vision != results.

    Is getting Preview work really that difficult?

  • $park¥||

    What's wrong with the preview button?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    It sends me to a page with my name as an email link.

  • $park¥||

    Huh, weird. I don't think I ever had an issue with it through the new format transition.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah, I get that it's not universal.

    I haven't gone back through all the browsers I have installed, but on this MacBook using Chrome it hasn't worked since the transition.

  • $park¥||

    I believe Chrome is the browser of choice for others that have complained of the issue. I've been using Firefox right along and I'm not sure if I've heard others using it with the preview issue.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If Firefox had a reasonable plugin, I'd switch. The preview issue is frustrating, but not nearly as frustrating as going through a couple hundred posts looking for new ones without their being highlighted. Tradeoffs and whatnot.

  • Jordan||

    I use Chrome and Preview like a boss. I believe your problem is that you're renting hardware from Steve Jobs.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Mr. Jobs, he dead.

  • Jordan||

    The specter of Steve Jobs still haunts us.

  • Zeb||

    Works fine on my Mac in Chrome.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    OS 10.8.2 and Chrome Version 25.0.1364.172?

  • grey||

    Whose knead th e praview buttom?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    No, I believe the problem is that the Reason developers have been given the OK to ignore the Mac OS (and iOS). That's fine, it's their choice. However, it's current hardware with a current OS and a reasonable market share, so I don't think the MacBook or iPad hardware is the problem.

  • ||

    I actually did some experimentation with this when I first started commenting. If your ID is linked to an email address then you get the bullshit preview fail page, if it is not then you preview normally. Notice $park¥ and Jordan don't have a problem, but NEM, kinnath and myself have a problem. Zeb links to a blog instead of his email. Anybody want to add more data points to this?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That makes sense. I didn't start linking to an email until after the transition, which is probably why I never saw a problem on my PC before, but see it now that I almost always use the MacBook to read Reason.

    That makes the failure to fix it even dumber.

  • kinnath||

    Preview has never worked for me since the major remodeling was done at Reason.

    I have IE8.

  • R C Dean||

    a persistent majority of Americans - want a government that does less and spends less

    At best, you can say that Americans claim to want smaller government.

    Stated preference v. revealed preference. Until they vote that way, they don't really want it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The budget's a non-starter just because it makes so many unrealistic assumptions. It shows in pretty stark terms that Team Red isn't serious about the country's fiscal situation.

    Number one, Obamacare isn't going to be repealed. The states might nerf it by refusing to set up the health exchanges (and indeed, pushing all these increasing healthcare costs onto the states is liable to bankrupt them), but it's not being repealed unless Team Red gets a supermajority and the presidency. Short of a complete economic collapse by 2016, that's not going to happen.

    Secondly, Ryan's budget assumes steady economic growth for ten years. Given that recessions happen on a 7-10 year cycle, this assumption is laughable.

    Its basically just a game of "pretend" that shouldn't be taken seriously.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They don't need a supermajority and the presidency. Just a majority and the presidency. With a supermajority, they wouldn't need the presidency, in fact.

  • KDN||

    He means a Senate supermajority I'm sure.

  • John||

    Number one, Obamacare isn't going to be repealed

    Regardless of whether that is true, it can be defended and that is all Ryan's budget does. And further, would funding Obamacare be more realistic in your view?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Reality is important to consider when critiquing, but not important to consider when suggesting alternatives.

  • Zeb||

    "defended"

    Did you mean "defunded"?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ryan's new budget also permanently retains the Obamacare tax hikes.

    It is another fraud from a proven liar.

  • John||

    But the person who was responsible for passing those taxes in the first place is just great. Suck that Obama cock shriek suck it hard.

  • $park¥||

    If you weren't such a Team Red shill, John, you'd see that Obama is the greatest libertarian president of our time.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, that was indisputably Carter - who did almost nothing but deregulate.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The Department of Education laughs at the irony that you didn't learn about it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    All Carter did was change the name from HEW and isolate it so that it could be killed (which five GOP admins never did).

    You can't win this argument.

  • $park¥||

    You can't win this argument.

    Is this the online equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    A. I'm not defending five GOP admins.

    B. Even implying that Carter isolated it so that it could be killed is just mind-numbingly disingenuous.

    C. Check out the increase in spending since the mere "name change."

    D. I can't win it because you can't be reasoned out of a position you didn't reason yourself into, but that's not my problem.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Dept of Education has seen its biggest expansion under Bush (sorry to name him) and NCLB, not Carter.

  • John||

    All Carter did was change the name from HEW and isolate it so that it could be killed

    So he created the department so he could kill it. Just go die in a fire you fucking idiotic retarded fuck. Just because you are irredeemably stupid and dishonest, doesn't mean the rest of us are. Good God, that is so stupid and dishonest it has created a vortex of idiocy that threatens to destroy Reason.com.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Idiot. I didn't say who would kill it. Obviously no one wants to yet.

  • $park¥||

    Jimmy Cahtah? The peanut guy? All I remember is something about gas and Iranians.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Pay for your shit, John! That is something Bush never understood.

    If Bush had been just a poor president instead of the worst ever the GOP would still be in power.

  • John||

    Pay for your shit. It is a good thing Obamacare isn't going to add $1.3 trillion to the deficit or anything.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/healt.....z2K9k04alE

    God you are a lying retard.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    From your link:

    The CBO has concluded that healthcare reform, in spite of its price tag, will ultimately reduce the deficit because of revenue-raisers within the bill.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healt.....z2NQx79yYz
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  • John||

    So exploding the government is being "fiscally responsible". And Ryan is being a liar and irresponsible for keeping the taxes that you so claim to love.

    We know Shreek, Obama is such a libertarian president. Nothing says libertarian like spending trillions of dollars.

  • Tony||

    Ryan is a liar and there is no room for interpretation. His budget retains the Obamacare Medicare cuts that he attacked relentlessly during the campaign as Obama stealing from Medicare.

    I never hold Republicans in too high esteem but this level of mendacity coming from someone with a few ostensible principles was pretty amazing.

  • Mr. Soul||

    that's how I read it too. Ryan's budget is a "non-starter" because OCare is a "reality" but when his budget accepts the "reality" of the Ocare taxes, he's wrong too. It would be nice if people wanted to get out of this mess.

  • $park¥||

    It is another fraud from a proven liar.

    Uh, we're talking Washington DC here. This is what they ALL do.

  • R C Dean||

    The budget's a non-starter just because it makes so many unrealistic assumptions.

    No kidding. When your assumptions about economic growth are way above anything we've seen in 65 years, you're trying to pull a fast one.

  • grey||

    Could a case be made that the 7-10 year cycle may not be a realistic assumption this time around?

    Considering the debt, deficit spending, eventual QE fallout, etc. A case may be made that the federal monetary and fiscal policies will bake in Euro style 'growth', resulting in a lengthened recession. Not to mention the recession is preceeding the explosion in unfunded mandates, belly of the snake baby boomers retirement, etc. So right when we must have economic growth is there a possibility that the inflation chickens come how to roost?

    We also have some very key states, like California, that may implode toward the end of that 7-10 year cycle. Like nuclear fallout, would it be reasonable to expect these liberal state implosions to blow about and hurt more fiscally conservative states?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Could a case be made that the 7-10 year cycle may not be a realistic assumption this time around?

    Considering the debt, deficit spending, eventual QE fallout, etc. A case may be made that the federal monetary and fiscal policies will bake in Euro style 'growth', resulting in a lengthened recession.

    That would make us Japan, which currently brings in only enough revenue to pay for social security and interest on the debt.

    In either case, we're finished fiscally. In 2012, healthcare spending by the government was over $1 trillion. Total revenue brought in for those programs was $201 billion. We're literally spending five times the revenue we're bringing in. Healthcare costs are going to be the thing that brings the edifice down, because even with "single-payer" our narcissistic populace will demand every treatment under the sun because "HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT!" When .gov tells them they can't in fact get their motorscooter to lug their fat, lazy ass around Walmart, it will get ugly quick.

  • grey||

    Good point about health care, which is a great example of people expecting a benefit from government, but not wanting to pay for it. I've long argued there is no such thing as 'medical insurance' anymore. Nothing operates like free market 'risk management' insuranc - no part of the system allows us to freely associate and hedge against risk. We are not even allowed to define our own risk thresholds.

    Apparently not just 'treatment', but also just plain stuff. Breat pumps, really? There is no insurance in the US market, it's all just redistribution, whether directly from the government or in the crony-corporate capitalist insurance market.

  • CE||

    Attempting to balance the budget in 10 years is a big improvement over attempting to balance it in 40 years, or not at all.

    But why not implement some real austerity? Cut spending across the board by 5 percent a year for the next two years, then cap spending at that level. That's not very radical at all.

    When Rand runs in 2016, I hope he proposes a budget that will balance in one 4-year term, or at least 8.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Nick, I have an improved-upon image you could use.

  • ||

    You know, the people of Cheron must have had a hard time with mirrors.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's an excellent point. They must've banned mirrors and replaced them with cameras that displayed a non-reversed image to the viewer.

  • ||

    Or, in an earlier technological age, right-angle corner mirrors.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Or, during their nanny-state stage, no reflections at all.

  • $park¥||

    They knew deep down inside which side was which.

  • RPR2||

    did their mulattos look like a chicago cops hat?

  • Pro Libertate||

    They were checkered.

  • John||

    So basically Nick is saying that anything short of 100% victory is unworthy of support. There is some merit to that idea. But the experience of liberalism and how we got into this mess would argue otherwise. Liberals are the masters of relentlessly pursuing small incremental over decades. Perhaps there might be some lessons to be learned from that experience when we go about reversing the process.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "So basically Nick is saying that anything short of 100% victory is unworthy of support"

    I thought just yesterday he said any proposal that didn't capitulate in order to pass was "baloney". I wonder if he argues amongst his selves.

  • sarcasmic||

    The process will never be reversed because there is no incentive to repeal shitty legislation or regulation.
    The logical conclusion of responding to shitty rules with more shitty rules is a totalitarian state, which is exactly where we are headed.

  • R C Dean||

    So basically Nick is saying that anything short of 100% victory is unworthy of support.

    I wouldn't go that far, but the Ryan proposal is basically a fraud.

    The fact that the Democrats will propose a worse budget doesn't really change this.

  • John||

    I seriously doubt any budget that would have any hope of passing would ever get Nick's support. I also imagine if the Ryan budget were being proposed by a Democrat, Nick would be telling us how wonderful it is to see Dems finally willing to face the entitlement crisis.

  • sarcasmic||

    Red Tony!

  • John||

    Truth hurts. If the Ryan budget were the Bachus budget, there would be orgasms in the reason staff meetings.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sure Red Tony. Whatever you say.

  • John||

    You forgot to make a fat joke sarcasmic. Come on, you only have one schtick, you should at least do it correctly.

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean I should be like Red Tony and get all defensive when any criticism is directed at Republicans?

  • grey||

    Isn't the definition of 'false choice' Reason often crows about personified in the Ryan Budget? This idea that we should support what Red Team considers fiscal sanity is exactly the shit that kept me voting Red Team for a decade longer than I should have.

    Right now, with limited political outlets for my ethical views, all I have as a Libertarain is my principles; I don't agree I should give those up and go back to picking one of the false choices.

  • John||

    It is not that Reason are Democrats sarcasmic. It is that they really want to be Democrats and constantly hope and look for reasons to believe they some day can be.

  • sarcasmic||

    Mmmm hmmm Red Tony. Whatever you say.

  • John||

    What an amazing and unexpected come back? Did you stay up late last night crafting it? Please tell us all. It is always interesting to get into the mind of a genius. I really don't know how you come up with this stuff without ever being tiresome and boring and completely unable to make a rational argument.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nick criticized a Republican? He's a Democrat! Always has been! He's not a libertarian! He's a closet Democrat! Anyone who criticizes Republicans is a Democrat! I am Red Tony and I have spoken!

  • Zeb||

    Seems to me that they are quite happy to be neither Democrats or Republicans.

  • $park¥||

    Seems to me that they are quite happy to be neither Democrats or Republicans.

    You're obviously mistaken.

  • sarcasmic||

    either/or neither/nor you ignoramus

  • Zeb||

    Because there is no way you could possibly make sense of that sentence without another n in there.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nope. No way in hell. It makes no sense. I'm calling the Grammar Police on you. I hope they beat you senseless.

  • ||

    And we all know what "n" stands for.

  • robc||

    It is the party of Jefferson.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah, it's unrealistic for Ryan to assume Obamacare repeal, but it's realistic for Gillespie to assume actual cuts can be made, despite the squealing over decreases in the rate of increase in spending. Whatever.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't mind the ObamaCare repeal nonsense.

    Its the hilariously ludicrous assumptions about economic growth, and selling this as a document that cuts spending, that makes it a fraud.

    Spending won't be cut.

    The budget won't balance, because the economy won't and can't grow as fast as they assume.

    This is not a "balanced" budget that "cuts" spending. Selling it as such is fraud.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Its the hilariously ludicrous assumptions about economic growth"

    And exactly what alternative ludicrous assumptions should be used then? The CBO projections have been used for 30 years now. Should everybody just make up their own baselines?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And exactly what alternative ludicrous assumptions should be used then?

    Average revenue and spending to GDP rates and projections of economic growth based on recent history.

    And having more than one budget scenario on the plate wouldn't hurt, either. If these guys are going to make shit up, they might as well use some realistic numbers to give it a patina of legitimacy.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah, it's a clown show from someone who had previously had flashes of being serious about the problem. I don't have a problem with Ryan's being raked over the coals for ludicrous assumptions. My problem is more with the ludicrous assumptions Gillespie constantly makes about his proposed solutions. They aren't any more likely than Ryan's assumptions.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...you've got to wonder if the ghost of slow-poke film director Stanley Kubrick is guiding that sad-sack document...

    Considering it's boring as hell as well as slow, Jim Jarmusch would be a better choice.

  • dalewalt||

    Nick, I hope these were Obama's words and not yours: "sequester's cancellation of White House tours and other core functions of government"

    Equating White House tours and 'core functions'?

  • Jordan||

    We like to call those "jokes".

  • wareagle||

    those of us who - like a persistent majority of Americans - want a government that does less and spends less much get excited about.

    time to call bullshit on this alleged majority that wants less govt. No, it loves the notion of "less" in the abstract, on the whimsical notion that the concept of less does not touch it in any way. Human nature being what it is, people acculturated to perceived freebies or goodies are not going to voluntarily give them up.

    It's why bullshit polls showing majorities favoring tax hikes on the rich are intellectually dishonest. Lots of people favor raising taxes on other folks and too many Americans are economically clueless about how higher taxes on one person may also effect them. The last election proved that there is no majority in favor of smaller govt, less intrusive govt, or less expensive govt, not if it costs them a thing.

  • grey||

    "Well, I ask the impartial reader, is it not childishness, and more than that, dangerous childishness? Is it not inevitable that we shall have revolution after revolution, if there is a determination never to stop till this contradiction is realized: - To give nothing to government and to receive much from it?' - Bastiat

  • grey||

    We've come far from anything that resembles fiscal sanity or ethical government. There are times I hate being a Libertarian, it's like being the only guy that knows or cares they are in a government slave labor camp. While all the prisoners chat ignorantly about how the warden needs resod the yard, I'm wanting to get up and scream: Do you see the fucking men with guns in the guard tower, how about the bars, what about the complete lack of respect for your right to keep the rewards of your own labor?

    But alas they only talk about the smooth hand of government and not the rough hand that takes and points guns. WTF, I feel like the poor guy from Flowers for Algernon, someone please restore my ignorance.

  • sarcasmic||

    aye

  • Tony||

    So stop being a libertarian, and learn to love poor and old people not starving in the streets.

  • RPR2||

    my budget cutting priorities would differ from yours. I'd cap government salaries at 5 figures and public pensions at median income as a first resort instead of last. it would have the added progressive benefit of reducing income inequality where your plan of cutting food stamps first would exacerbate it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Speaking of childish ways of thinking...

  • grey||

    So one only loves poor and old people if they support a government stealing from one person and handing it to another? You don't the know the first thing about my own charity. Besides, it's because I care about human life, liberty, and prospertity that I am a libertarian. The definition of a Democrat is that they don't care about liberty, human life, or real poverty.

    Just because you want 'government' to do your killing and stealing does not make your hands any less bloody or your character any different than that of a thief.

  • wareagle||

    and today's false analogy is brought to you by the letters t o n y. Everyone knows that being a libertarian means wanting children roaming the streets, eating old people.

  • ||

    wareagle:

    Everyone knows that being a libertarian means wanting children roaming the streets, eating old people.

    Hey: one set is hungry. The other consumes lots of medicine and resources.

    It's a utilitarian win-win.

  • DenverJay||

    old people have a duty to die AND taste like chicken!

  • CE||

    Because no one would ever help the less fortunate if government didn't compel them to do so?

  • ||

    Right. Yet, democracy results in government by the "will of the people."

    Apparently, it's the will of the people to force themselves to be more charitable then they really want to be.

    I'm pretty sure there's a self-contradiction in there, but my friends keep telling me that there isn't.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    So stop being a libertarian, and learn to love poor and old people not starving in the streets. Polly wants a cracker!

  • sarcasmic||

    Assuming that there is a fixed amount of work, your argument might be valid. But your premise is false.

  • robc||

    He thinks libertarians are utilitarian, which is even funnier.

  • ||

    LOL!

    "If you're not utilitarian, you're evil! Thanks for admitting you're evil!"

    God, that's hilarious. It's like talking to a stupid person who thinks they're really informed and clever.

  • ||

    Is open borders libertarianism going to create more prosperity for Americans or not?

    I think the prosperity of Americans is a lot more complicated than open borders. Therefore, it would be impossible for open borders to create more prosperity. So, the answer is no. However, I'm pretty sure you're going to run with that somewhere stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    Is open borders libertarianism going to create more prosperity for Americans or not?

    Do you still beat your wife?

  • robc||

    Is open borders libertarianism going to create more prosperity for Americans or not?

    I dont care.

    It is the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do.

    That is the way morality fucking works.

  • Randian||

    If it makes people crossing the border Americans, sure.

    Besides, government is not there to enact your mercantilist, protectionist fantasies.

  • ||

    American3rdAccount:

    My America, the America I was born in, is not a fantasy.

    Yeah, but it's a country, and you're talking about the past. So, that's pretty fucking abstract and nonexistent, even if it's not fantastic.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is definitely an inverse relationship between one's understanding of economics and the likelihood that they are a liberal/progressive.

    This may help to cure you of your ignorance.

    http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/

  • sarcasmic||

    Regardless of what webzine you read, you still need to cure yourself of your painfully obvious ignorance of economics.

  • sarcasmic||

    So painful it hurts.

  • ||

    American3rdAccount:

    I saw nothing in there that proves that natural resources are just an illusion, or whatever.

    Judging from the time stamps, you looked at many pages of text in about 3 minutes.

    Maybe you didn't see anything in there because you didn't read most of it?

    You should go back and read it all, word for word, and get back to us. I'm sure ecologiciocial resources are in there somewhere.

  • ||

    well, I guess it's true: they can explain it to you, but they can't make you understand.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can lead a moron to knowledge, but you can't make him learn.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you did indeed read it, which I seriously doubt, you did not learn anything from it.

  • grey||

    This has to be a joke, isn't this directly out of Napoleon's failed socialist policies? It's like some sort of set-up to allow us all to show reasoned arguments from basic economics.

    Are you mixing up utility and productivity?

  • ||

    Oh, I think ecologiociocial resources have everything to do with it. And high IQs, too.

  • Randian||

    Increasing the supply of labor would make its price(people's wages) go UP.

    Actually, wages would go down, which means costs in the form of labor inputs goes down, which means prices go down.

    Why you want to artificially maintain high labor costs is beyond me. Maybe you should go join one of those old racist dirtbag unions or something.

  • grey||

    The secondary question would be why he would want to artificially maintain high consumer prices? The construct of a few wise men setting labor costs, necessitates a few wise men setting consumer price, which also requires restricting goods from foreign countries. It's a nasty contorted system of 'control' that builds a steamy pile of North Korean economics.
    Starvation for everyone!

  • grey||

    I really do need to preview better. The Secondary question would be why would he want to artificially maintain high consumer prices?

  • sarcasmic||

    People want less government. They just don't want to cut the part that benefits them. Since everything government does benefits someone (at the expense of everyone else), it is politically impossible to cut anything.

  • ||

    Really? Because I couldn't care less.

  • ||

    No, it's more like stalking Nick Gillespie really doesn't matter to me.

    Whatever floats your boat, though: go for it.

  • Randian||

    Sounds like your problem is with the forced subsidies. Welcome to the club!

  • Danno||

    Hyperinflation 2014.

  • DarrenM||

    a persistent majority of Americans - want a government that does less and spends less much

    What's more relevant is what a majority of *voters* want.

  • BigWillieStyles||

    When asked about specific programs, the public consistently says "no" to cuts.

  • sydneyrechard||

    my buddy's aunt makes $64/hour on the computer. She has been out of work for ten months but last month her pay check was $14072 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more
    http://jump30.com

  • Alex the wolf||

    From the WSJ:

    The Patty Murray budget: A $975 billion spending cut and a $975 billion tax increase.

    The Paul Ryan budget: $4.6 trillion of spending cuts and no new taxes beyond the fiscal-cliff increases.

    Conclusion:

    Before writing one article against the Ryan Budget you should have writtien 10 articles agaist the Democrat article. And what do you care if someone accuses you of being a Republican?

  • Alex the wolf||

    I mean the democrat budget

  • ||

    If you think Victoria`s story is flabbergasting,, 3 weaks-ago my friend made $4441 putting in a ninteen hour week an their house and they're roomate's ex-wife`s neighbour has done this for nine months and earned more than $4441 in their spare time from a computer. the guidelines available at this link, http://www.fly38.com

  • BigWillieStyles||

    This article ignores that it is the best budget we can hope for as long as the Democrats control both the Senate and the White House. And the repeal of Obamacare makes it a non-starter for Obama and likely the Democrat-led Senate.

  • BigWillieStyles||

    The public is also stupid, masters of cognitive dissonance. They say they want a smaller government but also don't want anything specific cut. Everything that needs to be reformed or eliminated entirely is so widely popular that none of them poll well when asked "Should we cut this specific thing?"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement