Category Archives: Transhuman News

Philosophical interactions

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the right-libertarian movement, particularly libertarianism in the United States. Many right-libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1]

Some right-libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy, but rather is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[2] but that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggression axiom".

Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists hold that government requires non-voluntary taxation to function and that in all known historical cases, the state was established by force rather than social contract.[3] Thus, they consider the establishment and maintenance of the night-watchman state supported by Objectivists to be in violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand, Rand believed that government can in principle be funded through voluntary means.[4] Voluntary financing notwithstanding, some libertarians consider that a government would by definition still violate individual rights (commit aggression) by enforcing a monopoly over a given territory.[5]

In her biography Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, Jennifer Burns notes how Rand's position that "Native Americans were savages" and that as a result "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights" was one of the views that "particularly outraged libertarians".[6] Burns also notes how Rand's position that "Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism" was also a controversial position amongst libertarians, who at the time were a large portion of Rand's fan base.[6]

Libertarians and Objectivists have disagreed about matters of foreign policy. Following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are practically nomads". She said Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent" and referred to the Israelis as "civilized men fighting savages". Later Objectivists, such as Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, and Yaron Brook, have continued to hold pro-Israel positions since Rand's death.[6][7][8]

Most scholars of the right-libertarian Cato Institute have opposed military intervention against Iran,[9] while the Objectivist Ayn Rand Institute has supported forceful intervention in Iran.[10][11]

United States Libertarian Party's first candidate for President John Hospers credited Rand as a major force in shaping his own political beliefs.[12] David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, described Rand's work as "squarely within the libertarian tradition" and that some libertarians are put off by "the starkness of her presentation and by her cult following".[13] Milton Friedman described Rand as "an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good".[14] One Rand biographer quoted Murray Rothbard as saying that he was "in agreement basically with all [Rand's] philosophy" and that it was Rand who had "convinced him of the theory of natural rights".[15] Rothbard would later become a particularly harsh critic of Rand, writing in The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult:

The major lesson of the history of the [Objectivist] movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.[16]

Some Objectivists have argued that Objectivism is not limited to Rand's own positions on philosophical issues and are willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified with David Kelley (who separated from the Ayn Rand Institute because of disagreements over the relationship between Objectivists and libertarians), Chris Sciabarra, Barbara Branden (Nathaniel Branden's former wife) and others. Kelley's Atlas Society has focused on building a closer relationship between "open Objectivists" and the libertarian movement.[17]

Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism.[18] Rand regarded Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system. In contrast, libertarianism is a political philosophy which confines its attention to matters of public policy. For example, Objectivism argues positions in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics whereas libertarianism does not address such questions. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.[19]

Of libertarians, Rand said:

They're not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers. [...] Most of them are my enemies. [...] I've read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandledi.e., the teeth pulled out of themwith no credit given.[18]

In a 1981 interview, Rand described libertarians as "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose".[18]

Responding to a question about the Libertarian Party of the United States in 1976, Rand said:

The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact oppositewith religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can findand call themselves libertarians and run for office.[20]

Ayn Rand Institute board member John Allison spoke at the Cato Club 200 Retreat in September 2012,[21] contributed "The Real Causes of the Financial Crisis" to Cato's Letter[22] and spoke at Cato's Monetary Conference in November 2011.[23]

On June 25, 2012, the Cato Institute announced that Allison would become its next president.[24] In Cato's public announcement, Allison was described as a "revered libertarian". In communication to Cato employees, he wrote: "I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists".[25]

On October 15, 2012, Brook explained the changes to The American Conservative:

I dont think theres been a significant change in terms of our attitude towards libertarians. Two things have happened. Weve grown, and weve gotten to a size where we dont just do educational programs, we do a lot more outreach and a lot more policy and working with other organizations. I also believe the libertarian movement has changed. Its become less influenced by Rothbard, less influenced by the anarchist, crazy for lack of a better word, wing of libertarianism. As a consequence, because were bigger and doing more things and because libertarianism has become more reasonable, we are doing more work with them than we have in the past. But I dont think ideologically anything of substance has changed at the Institute.[26]

Read more from the original source:
Objectivism and libertarianism - Wikipedia

Your complimentary articles

Youve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

Some believe that humans have free will; others that each of our actions and choices is caused byprior events. Compatibilism is the theory that we can be both caused and free. It is advocatedby many modern philosophers, including the prolific and influential Daniel Dennett. But compatibilismis nothing new.

Hobbes famously said that man was as free as an unimpeded river. A river that flows down a hill necessarilyfollows a channel, but it is also at liberty to flow within the channel. The voluntary actions of peopleare similar. They are free because their actions follow from their will; but the actions arealso necessary because they spring from chains of causes and effects which could in principlebe traced back to the first mover of the universe, generally called God. So on this view, to be at libertyis merely to not be physically restrained rather than to be uncaused. For Hobbes, to be free is to actas we will, and to be un-free is to be coerced by others.

Hume was also a compatibilist. He said that we conclude that nature is full of necessity, in thatwe infer that one thing follows another from necessity. We also know that people have a nature, and thattheir actions follow from their nature. We act in the world from motives such as ambition or friendship,and history teaches us that this was always so. If peoples motives were not understandable, ourexperience would not help us in our dealings with them. People are fairly similar and we can also cometo understand the nuances of the characters of particular people. It can be difficult to see why someonedid something, but then it can also be difficult to see why a machine stopped working. This does notmean that there was no reason. We accept that carriages are mechanisms, but if anything the drivers aremore reliable than the carriages. Sometimes the carriages break down but the drivers always wish to bepaid.

Of course as individuals when we undertake an action from some motive we imagine that in the exactlythe same circumstances we could have chosen to do something else. We do not think we act of necessity.But, as Hume notes, if we try to prove our absolute liberty by doing something unpredictable thenwe are still acting from a straightforward motive: our motive is the desire not to be seen to be actingfrom predictable motives. When we look at other people and fail to predict their behaviour, particularlysomeone we know well, then we assume that we are ignorant about some fact, and that their behaviour isin principle intelligible and predictable, rather than that the person has suddenly become incomprehensible.For Hume and other compatibilists, liberty means being free to act as we will, but this does not meanthat our actions come from nowhere: our passions, motives and desires provide us with the impulse whichour reason (prudence) tries to satisfy. To be at liberty cannot mean acting without a motive, becausethats the definition of madness.

Dennett defends this broad thesis of motivated freedom with a range of interesting arguments. Considerfor example the difference between a human being and the Sphex wasp. If this wasp is repeatedlydisturbed during its egg laying it will simply continue its instinctive behaviour, apparently unawareof the source of the interruption or the likely futility of continuing with the egg laying. Yet humanscan respond flexibly and imaginatively to equivalent difficulties, which indicates that we have a kindof freedom that a simple creature like the wasp does not have.

For Dennett there is also a meaningful distinction between determinism and inevitability. The Earth,for example, has undergone a recent explosion of evitability. Once it might have been in evitablethat the Earth should be struck by an asteroid. But the planet has, perhaps deterministically, evolvedhuman beings, who may conceivably destroy an incoming rock. It is no longer inevitable, so it is evitable.In the same way it is not inevitable that those disposed to heart disease will go on to develop it. Wehave, perhaps deterministically, produced an understanding of the causes of heart disease, and we canmodify our behaviour on this basis. Again, what was once inevitable is no longer so.

So we may not have what Dennett calls behavioural choice,the absolute and unimpededGod-like ability to choose out of nothing but we can flexibly respond to and change our environment,an environment that among other things contains knowledge of how other people have acted and thought.

There are some major difficulties in compatibilism, which I think damage it irreparably.

Take Hobbes claim, largely accepted by Hume, that freedom is to act at will while coercionis to be compelled to act by others. This does not give us a sure reason to choose this freedom.

Imagine that you were a free-floating spirit, equal to God in your capacity to choose. God gives youthe unwelcome news that shortly you are to be placed on Earth, and that you will be endowed with a rangeof fundamental passions, chosen entirely at the caprice of God. Would you choose to be free, in Hobbessenseof acting at will, or might you consent to being coerced?

It is very far from clear that you would automatically choose to be free. Much would depend on thenature of the coercion. If you did not know what your fundamental desires were going to be, you mightwell decide to hedge your bets and back the field. It might be far better to be coerced by others (perhapsmost people are good) than to be free to pursue un-chosen but possibly dubious desires. A free-floatingethically-minded spirit that feared an imminent endowment of psychopathic desires would certainly wishfor an alert constabulary and swift incarceration: this spirit would wish to be coerced.

This thought experiment makes it clear why coercion by others might be morally preferable to beingcaused to act upon ones desires. It seems very odd, though, that we might have good reasons tochoose what compatibilists define as coercion, and reject what they claim to be freedom.

Nor is it obvious that if we were on Earth with a range of un-chosen passions, we would choose tohave the intellectual ability which Dennett thinks characterises human freedom, as opposed to the mindlessbehaviour of the Sphex wasp for instance. Imagine that, rather than for laying eggs, one had a dispositionfor random acts of extreme violence. Is one better off by having the wit to see that the .357 Magnumis overrated and that the 9mm is similarly effective, but with more shots? If one had the murderous impulsesof an Eichmann or a Himmler, is ones situation necessarily improved by being able to flexiblyrespond to the logistical problems of machine-gunning large numbers of people? Is the murderous intelligenceinvolved in industrialising genocide ever a gain? Similarly, if we knew that we were going to have passionsthat we have not chosen, is it obvious that we would ask for the ability to pursue these passions flexiblyand imaginatively? Perhaps if we knew that we were to have unknown passions and be held responsible forour actions, we would choose to be incompetent. Perhaps the priority would be first to do no harm: onecould not risk being good at being bad.

It is not obvious then that we would choose to be caused by our own desires rather than coerced byothers; and nor is it obvious that we would choose to be able to successfully pursue our desires if wedid not know what those desires were to be.

It is interesting to note that a compatibilist would presumably have to accept that the Terminatoras played by Arnold Schwarzenegger is free, in that it has a desire (to kill John Connor) which it pursueswith flexibility, insight and intelligence. It is certainly hard to see why the Terminator is un-freesimply because it was given its (programmed) passion by an identifiable individual, as opposed to takingpot luck from God or genetics.

As to Dennetts claim that the planet has evolved evitability, it seems obviousthat if strict determinism is true then human evolution is also one event after another, and the destructionof asteroids by humans follows inevitably from cause and effect, given the first composition of the universe.If we destroy an asteroid, for the strict determinist it was inevitable that we would. Indeed it is quiteconceivable that humans are minor characters in a game played by the gods, involving striking planetswith asteroids. Perhaps one of the moves in the game is to seed a target planet with humans to preventyour opponent successfully striking it with his asteroid. It is hard to think of an absolute reason whydeterminism might not be our lot. There seems to be no meaningful distinction to be drawn between whathappens and what might have happened, on which we can hang some third theory of human existence to sitalongside determinism and libertarianism.

It seems that we are either caused, and our actions are caused events, or we are free. The middle,compatibilism, is excluded.

Dr Craig Ross 2007

Craig Ross teaches at Langside College in Glasgow.

Read the original:
Compatibilism | Issue 62 | Philosophy Now

How many readers of this column have read the Little House series by Laura Ingalls Wilder or watched the television series that was based on the books either when the episodes first premiered or through reruns? If you have, then you may not realize that you have read a book series or watched a television series that has a strong connection to the American Libertarian movement.

How can a beloved book and television series be connected to Libertarianism? That answer is very simple. It all has to do with one particular relative of Laura Ingalls Wilder: her own daughter, Rose Wilder Lane. Like her mother, Lane was a writer, but she was also a journalist and a political theorist. She was even said to have helped her mother edit the Little House books after the rough original manuscript of Pioneer Girl, the original autobiography about her mothers life, was rejected numerous times.

Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

kAm{2?6 H2D G6CJ 4C:E:42= @7 us#[ E96 }6H s62=[ 2?5 E96 5C27E E92E @44FCC65 5FC:?8 ((xx[ 2?5 DEC@?8=Jk^Am

kAmAC@>@E65 96C =2:DD6K72:C6 2?5 2?E:C24:DE G:6HD 😕 96C H66<=J HC:E:?8D :? %96 !:EED3FC89 r@FC:6C[ H9@D6 C6256CD H6C6 >@DE=J p7C:42?p>6C:42?D] $96 D@@? 3642>6 2 G6CJ DE2F?49 @AA@?6?E @7 4@>>F?:D> 27E6C EC2G6=:?8 E96 $@G:6E &?:@? H:E9 E96 #65 rC@DD[ 2?5 >@DE=J 7@4FD65 96C HC:E:?8D @? 3@E9 :?5:G:5F2=:D> 2?5 4@?D6CG2E:G6 8@G6C?>6?E] $96 D@@? AF3=:D965 %96 s:D4@G6CJ @7 uC665@>i |2?D $ECF88=6 p82:?DE pFE9@C:EJ 😕 `hcb[ 2?5 96C =:36CE2C:2?32D65 3@@< H2D ;@:?65 3J EH@ @E96C 3@@6? H:E9 DEC@?8 {:36CE2C:2? G:6HD 2D H6== %96 v@5 @7 E96 |249:?6 3J xD236= !2E6CD@?[ 2 7C:6?5 @7 {2?6D[ 2?5 %96 u@F?E2:?9625 3J pJ? #2?5[ E96 A6CD@? H9@ H@F=5 56G6=@A E96 A9:=@D@A9:42= DJDE6>[ ~3;64E:G:D>[ H:E9:? :E 2D H6== 2D 96C >28?F> @AFD[ pE=2D $9CF8865] p== E9C66 =25:6D H@F=5 =2E6C @? 36 6C:42? {:36CE2C:2? >@G6>6?E]k^Am

kAm(96? {2?6 A2DD65 2H2J 😕 `heg[ E96 C:89ED E@ E96 {:EE=6 w@FD6 D6C:6D H6?E E@ #@86C |24qC:56 2D D96 925 ?@ 49:=5C6?] $96 H2D 3@E9 2? 25@AE65 8C2?5>@E96C 2?5 >6?E@C E@ 9:>] }@H[ E9@D6 72>:=:2C E@ E96 9:DE@CJ @7 E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJ >2J C64@8?:K6 E96 ?2>6 #@86C |24qC:56] w6 H2D E96 72:E9=6DD 6=64E@C 😕 ':C8:?:2 E92E 82G6 9:D 6=64E@C2= G@E6 E@ E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJD 7:CDE AC6D:56?E:2= E:4<6E @7 y@9? w@DA6CD 2?5 %@?:6 }2E92?[ >2<:?8 }2E92? E96 7:CDE H@>2? E@ 86E 2? 6=64E@C2= G@E6]k^Am

kAm*6D[ E96 D2>6 >2? H9@ 82G6 9:D G@E6 E@ E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJ :?DE625 @7 }:I@? H2D E96 @H?6C @7 E96 C:89ED 7@C E96 {:EE=6 w@FD6 3@@2?FD4C:AE @7 {2FC2 x?82==D (:=56CD %96 u:CDE u@FC *62CD E92E H2D =67E E@ 9:> 3J {2?6] (:E9:? E96 D2>6 J62C E92E 96 3642>6 2 72:E9=6DD 6=64E@C[ 96 82G6 E96 7:=> 2?5 E6=6G:D:@? C:89ED E@ E96 {:EE=6 w@FD6 ?@G6=D E@ }qr[ H96C6 96 6G6?EF2==J 4@4C62E65 2?5 4@AC@5F465 E96 H6==2?J A6@A=6

kAmxE 😀 23D@=FE6=J >:?53=@H:?8 E@ 6C:42? {:36CE2C:2?:D> 2?5 E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJD 9:DE@CJ[ 2?5 :ED 2== 4@??64E65 E@ #@D6 (:=56C {2?6] %9@F89 J@F >2J ?@E D66 {:36CE2C:2?:D> H:E9:? 6:E96C E96 3@@2?J 86?6C2E:@?D E@52J] %9:D 😀 H9J >2?J A6@A=6[ 6:E96C :7 E96J C625 E96 3@@@G6>6?E 3642FD6 E96J >:89E ?@E 6E9:?8 E96J 6?;@J65 >2J ?@E 92G6 366? A@DD:3=6 H:E9@FE {:36CE2C:2?D]k^Am

Nolan Schmidt is an independent filmmaker, and serves as Vice Chair for the Guadalupe County Libertarian Party.

The rest is here:
Schmidt: Little House connected to Libertarianisms start

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) Greg Baldwin wants more options on his election ballots.

The state chairman of the South Dakota Libertarian Party is happy his political party, officially recognized by the Secretary of States office, will be able to give voters another option.

Libertarian candidates will be on the November ballot for statewide races U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor, secretary of state and state auditor. In the case of the U.S. House race, Libertarian candidate Collin Duprel is the only candidate challenging Republican incumbent Dusty Johnson.

It seems were in desperate need of more voices, more choices on the ballot, Baldwin told KELOLAND News. Competition breeds innovation. Steel sharpens steel. The more people you have on the ballot, the better. Youre going to get debates and youre going to get people talking about the issues.

Baldwin admitted hes rather new to South Dakota politics, only getting involved with the Libertarian Party when it became officially recognized by the state in 2016. Baldwin said the Libertarian Party has existed in the state for 30 years dating back to 1992, but the party continued to lose ballot access and then lose registered voters.

A lengthy lawsuit won by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party helped ease the path for the partys candidates to qualify for the ballot. In 2018, a federal judge ruled South Dakotas ballot access laws were too restrictive for newly-qualifying parties.

Part of the argument was new parties didnt have enough time to gather the required amount of signatures in the time frame allowed (Jan. 1 to the final Tuesday in March).

The legislature had to go back and write a subsequent law, which ended up being South Dakota codified law 12-5-25, Baldwin said. That allows us to nominate candidates at our annual state convention.

Baldwin said if the Libertarian Party had multiple candidates, it would hold a primary similar to the elections involving many Republicans on Tuesday. He noted independents are not part of any official political party and are left out of primary elections. Baldwin said independent candidates also face a tough road for ballot access because theyre not an official political party.

They dont get the same protections or benefits that the other political parties do. So their signature thresholds can actually be higher, Baldwin said. Our Libertarian party has opened the doors. Were willing to work with people. If we can agree on eight out of 10 issues, we can work with them. We hope South Dakota voters listen to what our candidates have to say.

According to the secretary of states office, Independent candidates would need to gather 3,393 signatures for U.S. Senate, U.S. House or governor. Thats far more than the 1,730 for Republicans or 1,615 for Democrats for the same spots.

The breakdown of registered voters in the most recent election in South Dakota was 286,331 Republicans, 150,933 Democrats, 141,076 independents, 2,651 Libertarians and 1,380 listed as other.

From May to June, Baldwin said he noticed a dip in the number of registered Libertarian candidates.

I couldnt help but wonder, did those few people decide they wanted to vote in the Republican primary, Baldwin suggested. On my ballot, there was nothing to vote on other than Constitutional Amendment C.

Registered Democrat and independent voters also decreased from May 1 to June 1 ahead of the primary election. Democrats lost 677 registered voters and independents lost 118 registered voters. Registered Republican voters increased by 2,715 in the same month.

Baldwin said with more than 140,000 South Dakotans deciding not to call themselves a Republican or Democrat, there needs to be ballot options.

Im in favor of more options, more independents. I wish the Constitution Party still had ballot access, Baldwin said. Theres so many seats running unopposed and we need more options. Thats just the bottom line.

For the 105 seats in South Dakotas Legislature, Baldwin pointed out how many are already automatically given to Republican candidates because of a lack of opposition.

In the Senate, 21 Republican candidates only had primary opponents or were unopposed. In the House, there are 18 seats with Republican-only candidates.

Will these 39 people go out and do some sort of campaigning this summer, even though they dont have an election? Will they go out and talk to voters? Baldwin asked. We desperately need more candidates and cant rely on the Democrats to field all the (other) candidates. So I would have loved to see a lot more candidates come out of the Libertarian Party. If we can double our numbers and start filling some of these gaps, I think itll be great.

Republicans held a 94-11 advantage in Pierre the past two years.

The South Dakota Democratic Party has said it would have liked to have more candidates. Officials also told KELOLAND News the party also wanted to target newly created districts from the redistricting process.

With Duprel being the only other candidate running against Johnson, Baldwin said the Libertarian Party will continue to get great exposure in the voting booth. In 2020, Johnson had to beat Libertarian Randy Uriah Luallin 81% to 19%. Baldwin said the Libertarian Party is taking pride in being the only party challenging Johnson.

And despite only having just more than 2,600 registered members, Baldwin bragged about the growing numbers of the Libertarian Party.

In six years, weve managed to about double the size of the party, Baldwin said. Its not near enough and not fast enough for our liking, but were a small party. Theres so many people that dont know who or what the Libertarian Party in South Dakota is.

Baldwin encouraged interested people to visit the partys website lpsouthdakota.org and visit Libertarian Party candidate websites ahead of the November election.

As a goal, Baldwin said the party is really aiming to get a legislator elected. He pointed to Nebraska where state Senator Laura Ebke switched parties to Libertarian and 12,000 registered voters followed suit.

If we could do something like that in South Dakota, prove that were viable and prove that we can get people elected, the people will follow, Baldwin said. It scares me when you have super majorities. They can do whatever they want.

The rest is here:
SD Libertarian Party wants to give voters options - KELOLAND.com

The situation in Argentina is nothing short of desperate. No other country in the world has suffered such a steep economic decline over the last 100 years. At the beginning of the 20th century, Argentinas GDP per capita was among the highest in the world. The expression riche comme un argentin rich as an Argentinian was a commonly heard expression at the time.

A comparison of economic data for 1913 and 2018 shows that real GDP per capita has hardly increased. In fact, Argentina has the worst figures of all countries for which data are available for both years. Inflation is particularly alarming.

I visited Buenos Aires and other Argentine cities last month, talking to economists, politicians, representatives of think tanks, journalists and young people. Heres what I discovered.

Soaring inflation and the Blue Dollar

I realise what inflation actually means when I pay my hotel bill. I dont want to pay with my Visa card, because your credit card payment is based on the official exchange rate from the peso to the dollar or euro. You get twice as many pesos for a dollar on the free market which is illegal but tolerated by the authorities. This unofficial rate is known as the blue dollar, the parallel exchange rate of the US dollar in Argentina, which represents the cost of buying and selling a physical dollar bill on the black (or blue) market. In reality, my hosts explain, it is much more complicated than that because there are at least four different dollar variants.

The authorities tolerate the existence of so-called cuevos (literally, caves), where you can go to exchange dollars or euros into local currency. On the street you are frequently approached by people known as arbolitos (Spanish for little trees), who show you the way to one of the manycuevos. Officially, these are pawn shops or places where you can buy and sell jewellery or gold, but in fact they are clandestine Blue Dollar trading houses.

Every Sunday: Read the weeks most read articles, watch Iain Martins Authors in Conversation series, listen to The Reaction podcast & receive new offers and invites.

Argentinians use thesecuevosto exchange pesos in the hope of getting even more pesos for their dollars a few weeks or months later. In a country with such rampant inflation, money has lost its function as a store of value and only serves as a means of payment. However, this is not always easy. You cant always get large denomination bills in thecuevos. Only about a fifth of the 250,000 pesos that my interpreter and I have to pay for four days at the Sheraton in Buenos Aires are in thousands. The rest comes in small banknotes. At the hotel, it takes more than two hours to pay. I ask why they dont use their bill counting machine. I realise its because they first have to check the authenticity of every single banknote with a pen and count the money by hand. Once they are finished with the lengthy process of counting the bills by hand, they eventually run the money through the bill counter.

For Argentinians, inflation is nothing unusual. I meet Fausto Spotorno, chief economist of the Centro de Estudios Econmicos of the consultancy OJF. He presents impressive statistics confirming that since 1945 Argentina has almost always had at least double-digit inflation with the exception of the 1990s, when Carlos Menem pegged the currency to the US dollar, which eliminated inflation for a decade but had a negative impact on exports as Argentinian goods were no longer competitive.

Anarcho-capitalist Javier Milei

Inflation also happens to be the main theme of the libertarian movement around Javier Milei. The 51-year-old, who describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist, used to be the goalkeeper for the Chacarita Juniors soccer club, went on to study economics and then became a chief economist at private financial consulting firms and a government advisor.

In 2021, Milei was elected to represent the city of Buenos Aires in the Cmara de Diputados de la Nacin Argentina after gaining 17per cent of the vote for the La Libertad Avanza party. Everyone expects him to be a candidate in the 2023 presidential election.

I talked to the libertarian activist and vice-president of Mileis party, Lilia Lemoine. This extremely attractive 41-year-old, who I would have guessed to be 30 at most, is a cosplayer, model and actress and major social media figure with hundreds of thousands of followers. Her website features a photo, wearing a top emblazoned with a fist and the wordsLibre Mercado (free market economy).

Lemoine is full of enthusiasm for Milei, who is formally the partys honorary chairman. She is famous all over Argentina, and when we go to eat, the waiter immediately asks if he can take a selfie with her. Mileis supporters are mostly young, poor and male, she says. She explains that the belief that poor people dont want to work and have become accustomed to state benefits, which we often hear here, is a lie: That is only true for very few. Most of them would very much like to work, but the state, by imposing such high taxes and regulations, does not give them a real chance. These poor people are desperate, especially because of inflation. They have pinned their hopes on our libertarian movement.

That is what is special about Argentina: desperate poor people in other countries are often more in favor of socialism and bigger government or else right-wing extremists. There are not many other countries where you will find poor people who want more capitalism.

Milei has attracted a lot of attention by launching a lottery. Anyone who signs up on social media is entered into a lottery to win Mileis monthly salary as a deputy of the Cmara de Diputados. In May 2022, that was 350,000 pesos, or about $1,800. Considering that the income of an average Argentinian is roughly 60,000 pesos, this is an attractive sum. In the first three months alone, Lemoine says, two million Argentinians have taken part in the lottery, with which Milei wants to show: I didnt get into politics for the money. Each participant has to provide an email address and phone number, and at first I think this is a very cheap way to get peoples contact details for campaign advertising. Lemoine, meanwhile, assures me that the data will only be used for the lottery. Either way, it is a very effective marketing method.

I meet the congressman Ricardo Lpez Murphy. He too hopes for a free-market turnaround, but is not as radical as Milei, who wants to abolish the central bank, for example. Lpez Murphy, who cooperates also with the German Naumann Foundation, is an economist and was Minister of Defense and Economics during Fernando de la Ras presidency. Since 2021, he has been the leader of the Republicanos Unidos party, which he founded in 2020 and which is part of the JTC Juntos por el Cambio (Cambiemos) alliance. He is also regarded as a potential presidential candidate. What would he do if he were in charge in Argentina? Above all, he would fight protectionism, cut red tape and regulations (e.g. in the labour market) and radically reduce taxes. Currently, companies with at least 200 employees are forced to sell a certain percentage of their products at prices set by the state. A major problem he and others are addressing: Because of the high tax burden, the informal economy, i.e. undeclared work, is extremely important, he explains. It is estimated that more people are working illegally today than are in official employment, says Lpez Murphy.

We need a capitalist revolution

Lpez Murphy is one of the figureheads of Argentinas free market movement. Another is Jos Luis Espert. Like Milei and Lpez Murphy, Espert is also an economist and is convinced that more capitalism is the solution for Argentina. He has been a deputy in Buenos Aires province for the Avanza Libertad coalition since 2021. We need a capitalist revolution, he tells me. And he is optimistic: Libertarian ideas are really taking off in Argentina, says Espert. Milei, incidentally, used to be a member of Esperts party before he founded his own party. What would Espert change in Argentina if he could? First of all, he mentions the issue of trade freedom, i.e. the fight against protectionism and excessive taxation and for more deregulation. He also thinks that several corrupt trade union leaders should be put in jail to deter others.

I was surprised when I meet three young women in Buenos Aires. They belong to LOLA, Ladies for Libertad. Valentina is 21 years old, speaks fluent English and seems very self-confident. She comes from the city of Mendoza, started her own recycling business at the age of 13 and made it official at 18. But the first few years were really hard: Every day, robbers came to my company to steal from me. I called the police, who even put the thieves in jail once, but only for a few hours before releasing them again. The police do not protect me. And the state takes almost everything I earn with its extreme taxation. And she doesnt like the mentality of many compatriots who prefer to live off the state rather than work themselves: Its so hard to find employees, she complains.

Thats why she became a libertarian. At 17, she joined the Students for Liberty. At 19, she founded her own libertarian group. The group grew quickly, attracting many members who opposed the governments Corona measures: We had a seven-month curfew, you were only allowed out of the house for three hours on certain days to go shopping. These measures led more and more members to their group.

They meet in apartments and restaurants and compare, for example, MarxsCommunist Manifestowith HayeksRoad to Serfdom. It is a group for women who describe themselves as liberal feminists, in distinction to traditional feminists who according to Valentina are mostly Marxists. Their hero is Javier Milei.

Adrina is 27 years old. She fled Venezuela because she was sentenced to prison after joining the protests against the socialist regime. She studied law in Venezuela, but in Buenos Aires she works as an IT programmer. She got involved in politics when her sister and brother-in-law were sent to prison after protesting against the socialist dictatorship. Her parents fled to Peru to escape the economic catastrophe. Adrina now lives in Buenos Aires and is involved with LOLA. I realise: just as it is considered cool for many young people in western countries to be left-wing, it is cool here to be libertarian. Even in Tucumn, a provincial town in the north where there is little to see apart from crumbling houses and poverty, I give a lecture to 70 young people who attend courses at a libertarian think tank. They are against the establishment, against the over-reaching state and live firmly in the hope that more capitalism will solve their problems.

Dr Rainer Zitelmann isa Berlin-based historian and sociologist.His book, The Power ofCapitalism, was released in 2019.

Excerpt from:
Desperate Argentinians pin their hopes on more capitalism - Reaction

Nearly three dozen independent candidates have filed to run for Congress in New Jersey, the most since 67 independents ran in 1992.

The total 34 could go up by one if Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-Ringoes) wins an upcoming legal battle to overturn the states ban on fusion voting as the candidate of both the Democratic and Moderate parties.

The Libertarian Party has fielded a full slate of twelve candidates for Congress in New Jersey, the first time any minor party has done so since the Libertarians ran candidates for all 13 House seats in 1992.

While candidates typically need 200 signatures to get on the ballot as a congressional candidate in a primary or general election, an obscure 1948 statute allows independents running only in a congressional redistricting year to file with just 50 signatures.

The law came at a time when there was a mad rush to get on the ballot in redistricting years between the approval of the congressional map and the filing deadline. In those days, the deadline for independent candidates was the same as for those running in the primary. That was changed about 25 years ago,after minor parties filed a lawsuit.

The 2022 independent candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, with the slogans:

1st District: Allen Cannon (Cannon Fire); Patricia Kline (For the People), Isaiah Fletcher (Libertarian). Kline was the Republican candidate for State Assembly in 2021.

2nd District: Michael Gall (Libertarian); Anthony Parisi Sanchez (Not for Sale). Sanchez ran against Jeff Van Drew for State Senate in 2017 and Congress in 2018.

3rd District: Gregory Sobocinski (God Save America); Christopher Russomanno (Libertarian); Lawrence Hatez (Returning Your Rights).

4th District: Jason Cullen (Libertarian); Hank Schroeder (No Slogan); Pam Daniels (Progress with Pam); and David Schmidt (We The People). Cullen was the Libertarian candidate for governor in 2009 and finished sixth in a field of 12 candidates with 2,869 votes statewide. Schroeder has lost seven races in nine years: governor in 2013, U.S. Senate in 2014 and 2018; State Assembly in the 30th district in 2015 and 2019; and Congress in 2016 and 2020.

5th District: Louis Vellucci (American Values); Jeremy Marcus (Libertarian); David Abrams (Stop Israel Boycotts); Trevor James Ferrigno (Together We Stand).

6th District: Tara Fisher (Libertarian); Eric Antisell (Move Everyone Forward); Inder Jit Soni (New Jersey First).

7th District: Clayton Pajunas (Libertarian); Veronica Fernandez (Of, By, For). Fernandez ran for U.S. Senate in 2020 and won 32,290 votes, less than one percent.

8th District: Pablo Olivera (Labors Party); Dan Delaney (Libertarian); David Cook (The Mediator/People Over Parties/Vote Real Change); Joanne Kuniansky (Socialist Workers Party); and John Salierno (Truth and Merit). Kuniansky was her partys candidate for governor in 2021. Olivera has lost his twelve previous campaigns: State Senate in the 29th district in 2003, 2013 and 2017; Newark City Council in the North Ward in 2010, 2014 and 2018; Essex County Freeholder in 2011; U.S. Senate in 2013; and State Assembly in 2015; and Congress in 2012, 2014 and 2016.

9th District: Sean Armstrong (Libertarian); Lea Sherman (Socialist Workers Party).

10th District: Cynthia Johnson (Jobs and Justice); Kendal Ludden (Libertarian); Rev. Clenard J. Childress, Jr. (The Mahali Party); and Dorothy Jane Humphries (Together We Can). Childress has lost nine races for State Assembly in the 34th district.

11th District: Joseph Biasco (Libertarian).

12th District: Lynn Genrich (Libertarian).

Of the 34 independent congressional candidates, 20 of them filed with under 100 signatures something that makes them susceptible to a petition challenge and only one, Genrich in NJ-12, filed with 200 signatures or more. Two candidates, Hatez (NJ-3) and Humphries (NJ-10), filed with exactly 50 signatures.

The deadline to repair technical deficiencies on petitions is 4 PM today; candidates may not add additional signatures past the June 7 filing deadline

The deadline to challenge the petitions of independent candidates is 4 PM on June 13. Administrative Law judges move quickly; the deadline to decide challenges to the petitions is June 16.

In 2012, 29 independent candidates filed, the same as in 2016. There were 24 independent House candidates in 2014 and 2018, and 15 in 2020.

No independent candidate has been viewed as a spoiler in a New Jersey congressional race since 2000, when Rep. Rush Holt (D-Hopewell) won re-election to a second term by just 651 votes against former Rep. Richard Zimmer (R-Delaware). In that race, 8,269 votes went to three independent candidates: Carl Mayer, a former Princeton Township Committeeman running on the Green Party ticket, received 5,811 votes, while NJ Conservative Party nominee John Desmond took 1,233 votes and 1,225 went to Worth Winslow, the Libertarian candidate.

See the original post:
34 independent candidates file to run for Congress in New Jersey, most in 30 years - New Jersey Globe | New Jersey Politics

Last week, a federal district judge struck down Louisianas new congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to a racial gerrymander and ruled that it must be redrawn. In a related redistricting case, the Supreme Court issued a provisional stay in February regarding Alabamas newly drawn congressional map, overturning a lower court ruling that had invalidated the map. Utahs new congressional map is also being challenged in the courts.

This political process comes like clockwork every 10 years: States redo their congressional and state legislative maps following a census. A round of boisterous political theater follows, in which incumbents fret about their future and whether theyll relocate to another district or engage in a full-scale primary or general election war with another incumbent. And then come the inevitable litany of lawsuits. These are brought by a variety of groups, including political outfits such as the National Republican Redistricting Trust and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, putative civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and NAACP, and, occasionally, the federal government, all complaining that the new congressional maps are unfair.

The process of redistricting, in which congressional maps are redrawn and adopted by state legislatures determined by partisan political majority, has become derisively and inextricably linked with the idea of gerrymandering. The term originated in 1812 from a Boston Gazette political cartoon suggesting that a nascent district resembled a salamander. The map was signed by Massachusetts Gov. (and later vice president) Elbridge Gerry, hence the name gerrymander. Gerry and the Democratic Republicans got what they wanted from the new maps: success at the ballot box. Albeit, that win did come at Gerrys expense, as he lost statewide election the next year.

Gerrymandering has since become the belle of the redistricting ball. Political parties use it to ensconce and harden their power, which lasts right up until a states electorate shifts enough to benefit the other major party. Geographical commonsense takes a back seat to this mission, and salamanders are among the more diffuse shapes to be concocted to serve political purposes. Democratic California Rep. Phillip Burton famously called his gerrymandered congressional maps of the early 1980s my contribution to modern art. Fellow Democratic congressman Howard Berman told the Christian Science Monitor in 1982 that the gerrymandering system was imperfect but still preferable to the alternatives because at least the politicians drawing the districts can be held accountable on Election Day.

History shows that Bermans defense of gerrymandering is based on a lie. These gerrymanders for Congressional purposes are in most cases buttressed by a gerrymander of the legislative districts, wrote President Benjamin Harrison to Congress in his 1891 State of the Union, explaining that a layer of unaccountable action serves as a barrier between the gerrymander and the voters, thus making it impossible for a majority of the legal voters of the State to correct the apportionment and equalize the Congressional districts. A minority rule is established that only a political convulsion can overthrow.

Harrisons solution to the gerrymandering problem involved a federal commission put together by the Supreme Court. Nonpartisan in its membership and composed of patriotic, wise, and impartial men, to whom a consideration of the question of the evils connected with our election system and methods might be committed with a good prospect of securing unanimity in some plan for removing or mitigating those evils, he said to Congress. This commission should be charged with the duty of inquiring into the whole subject of the law of elections as related to the choice of officers of the National Government, with a view to securing to every elector a free and unmolested exercise of the suffrage and as near an approach to an equality of value in each ballot cast as is attainable.

The plan, like most of Harrisons civil rights proposals, went nowhere.

Individual states picked up Harrisons proposal almost a century later. Colorado started using a somewhat partisan commission to put together its state legislative districts in the 1970s. It moved to a more nonpartisan redistricting commission in 2021.

I think sort of philosophically partisan folks are more likely to support commissions when they're not certain that they're gonna have all the votes, said Julia Jackson, redistricting analyst for Colorados Independent Redistricting Commissions, when asked about the 2018 ballot initiative creating the redistricting commission. She said Coloradans were tired of state courts drawing up maps instead of the elected legislature doing so. We are now a state where one party controls the legislature and the governor and most of the statewide offices, but that hasnt historically been the case. So, I think both sides had reason to think, We don't know for sure that well win in a partisan mapmaking process.

Colorados commission features four Republicans, four Democrats, and four nonaffiliated members. A supermajority is required for passage that includes two nonaffiliated commissioners. Jackson believes this increases bipartisanship. You either have to cross parties, or you have to get all four of the unaffiliated on your side, too, to pass something, she said. So, I think that really sort of shaped the discussions, knowing right from the start that if only one party likes the map, youre probably not gonna get it through.

Not everyone was pleased with Colorados redistricting process. The Libertarian and Green parties of Colorado felt that they were excluded because no third-party members were on the commission. Green Party co-chair Andrea Merida Cuellar told Reason in 2018 that the ballot initiatives were a desperate attempt for the status quo for relevance in Colorados political landscape. The Libertarian Party unsuccessfully argued that third parties should get at least one commissioner seat should they reach 5% registration in the state. Their membership would increase to two seats if they reached 10% and three seats at 20%, meaning the 12-member panel would be split four ways.

Jackson is unconvinced. The numbers of third-party voters are like under 4% total, she said, commenting that 40% of Colorado voters are unaffiliated, while Democrats and Republicans enjoy an estimated 30% enrollment each. I think the argument against including them was just that it would give extra representation to a very small portion of the electorate.

The congressional map remains similar to the map approved in the last decade, albeit with the newly established 8th Congressional District. That could be extremely competitive this fall even though the winner will likely be a Republican or a Democrat instead of an independent or third-party candidate. Its a disappointment for the Libertarian and Green parties. Colorados new maps will be tested this November.

Marylands redistricting attempt didnt have the same success as Colorado. Republican Gov. Larry Hogan put together the nine-member Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2021. It included three registered Republicans, three registered Democrats, and three unaffiliated voters.

[The independents] were kind of a token of the fact that if anyone did feel partisan, they werent going to have anyone near majority anyway, observed commission co-chair Walter Olson over the phone. Hes a registered Republican in Frederick County but works for the libertarian Cato Institute. Its yet another disincentive to being partisan, is that you try to be partisan, and the independents are still going to make sure that youre not close to a majority.

Olson suggested that excluding elected officials on the commission reduced polarization. He believed that elected officials tend to push the individual partys agenda, an issue that throttled both the Ohio and Virginia redistricting commissions. The Maryland commission kept things congenial, even when disagreements popped up. On the issue of multimember districts, that was as close as we got to polarization because the Democrats did all favor the multimember district, while the Republicans did all have sympathy for single member districts, which kind of faithfully reflects the testimony we were hearing and the opinions from our different parts of the state, he said. The commissions compromise involved giving urban areas multimember districts, while rural areas received single-member districts.

Everything seemed to be going swimmingly. Commissioners unanimously approved the state Senate and delegate maps, while the congressional maps received an 8-1 vote. It was in the Maryland legislature where things fell apart. Democrats approved their own congressional maps, rejecting the commissions compromise boundaries. Princetons Gerrymandering Project gave the maps an F grade (the commissions map received an A) before a federal judge called them unconstitutional.

The legislature eventually came up with a new map deemed fairer by Hogan, who signed it into law. Fair Maps Maryland, which is co-chaired by Democrat James Brochin and Republican Doug Riley, called the map extreme gerrymandering and blatant voter suppression. Politics appeared to ruin everything.

Commissions arent necessarily the universal redistricting solution. New Yorks so-called Independent Redistricting Commission collapsed into partisan bickering and produced two separate maps. The New York Legislature passed its own maps that were thrown out by the courts due to gerrymandering. Ohios redistricting commission approved maps later rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court. A federal court rescued those maps last month. Theres evidence that California House Democrats worked with the national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to taint the redistricting commissions independence.

Its worth noting, however, that maps drawn by independent commissions tend to face fewer court challenges. Of the 25 redistricting lawsuits currently being fought, only six involve redistricting commissions, according to the Brennan Center. Independent commissions appear to be a step in the right direction, as long as they truly remain nonpartisan and encourage more competitive races.

Taylor Millard is a freelance journalist.

Read more:
The map wars - Washington Examiner

opinion

Charles W. Milliken| The Daily Telegram

From time immemorial, human societies have been run by elites.Someone has to decide who does what, with whichand to whom. Exactly how these elites evolve is lost in the mists of time, but evolve they did, and have been with us ever since.

Presumablyelites represented the smarter, stronger, more ambitious elements of a given band.The basic deal then, and now, is that the non-elites will turn over a disproportionate share of the production of society in return for elites running society reasonably competently.In other words, as long as I get the basics, you can have the surplus.If matters proceed like that, stability reigns.

Problems arise, however, when the elite class loses its competence.History is full of examples of what happens when those on the bottom no longer feel those on the top deserve to be there.Revolutions and rebellions and general unrest are frequent occurrences, ending even the longest periods of stability.

The underlying cause is the problem of succession.Elites, just as the rest of us, are mortal.As has been said, graveyards are full of indispensable individuals.For most of history, the great bulk of elites are succeeded by birth.Boys succeed their fathers (history is sexist and patriarchal, alas). What guarantee is there that the boy will grow into the man his father was? None, obviously.

Dynasties rose and fell on the strength, or weakness, of inheritance, to be overthrown by new dynasties that exhibited greater intelligence, strengthor cunning. A classic example was the Merovingian kings of France being overthrown by the high official who functioned as the officer who actually ran the show.His son was Charlemagne, who ended up ruling most of Europewho, in turn, sired a collection of incompetents, who mostly lost it all.Suleiman the Magnificent, a contemporary of Henry VIII, was arguably the last competent ruler of the now defunct Ottoman empire.

So, if inheritance becomes a DNA crapshoot, and sooner or later the dice lose, how are elites to be chosen? There must always be elites, anarchists and extreme libertarians notwithstanding. A tried-and-true method has been the emergence, especially in recent history, of dictators. When enough discontent is present, men emerge (always men, although I see no reason why a woman cant be a dictator) who distill the discontent and recruit sufficient followers to replace the existing elites. Think Napoleon. Lenin. Hitler. Mao.Castro.

In the United States we have tried a different method of choosing elites, a method still evolving.George Washington could have become a dictator a king but had the character to choose otherwiseand with our currently much-derided Founding Fathers thought limited self-government would be a better option, with elites emerging not by birth or not from the saddle of a white horse, but by merit. Those who would be elites had to place themselves before their fellow citizens and stand for office.

But, dont you just know it, elections dont guarantee competence.So, starting about a 120 years ago, with the dawn of the Progressive Era, elites decided to divorce themselves from the whims and vagaries of the electorate and relied instead on self-selection by appointment. Experts with the right credentials, from the right schools, and often from the right families (inheritance isnt obsolete yet), and of course with the right Progressive beliefs, began to fill the proliferating agencies, boards, departments and the whole bureaucratic apparatus almost all of whom being insulated from the populace they rule.

Is this method also reaching the end of its tether? Consider the current baby formula mess. How hard can it be to disinfect a factory? How hard can it be to see that shutting down 20% of an absolutely necessary item is going to cause serious problems?

Considering all the messes America is currently suffering, you dont have to look far to see the elites at the heart of all of them. Maybe it is time to try a different selection method.

Charles Milliken is a professor emeritus after 22 years of teaching economics and related subjects at Siena Heights University. He can be reached at milliken.charles@gmail.com.

Read more here:
Societies always have been run by the elite class - Monroe Evening News

Kelcey Patrick-Ferree and Shannon Patrick| Press-Citizen opinion writers

A mans taxes are what he pays for the protection of his life and property, and for the conditions of public prosperity in which he shares. He ought to pay his just portion of the expense of government. To endeavor to avoid this, and to throw the burden upon others is unjust and mean. Joseph Alden, "Christian Ethics"

This sentiment, that taxes are a public good that bring civilization, prosperityand glory for ones state or country, was common in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Taxes were a responsibility of citizenship, and shirking them was shameful, not something to flaunt.

People who did better were expected to contribute more to their communities. The highest earners contributed the most to paying for schools, roadsand other common goods. Our tax system reflected those expectations: we had many tax brackets and top marginal tax rates up to 92% even at the peak of the anti-Communist "Red Scare."

That civic commitment stands in stark contrast to our governors signature legislative achievement this year: cutting tax brackets and chopping the top rate.

What are tax brackets? They are like a series of buckets.

The first bucket holds the first money you make. Lets say it holds $10,000 and is taxed at 1%.

The second bucket might hold your next $10,000 of income and be taxed at a higher rate, 2%.

As you make more money, you fill more buckets, with each one taxed at a higher rate.

So when the top marginal tax rate was 92%, the richest people were not paying 92% of their income as taxes. Instead, it meant that those whose incomes were absurdly high ($2.6 million in 1952, which equals $28.4 million today), sent 92% of their earnings in the last bucket to our communities.

During the 1980s, the tax code was simplified by reducing the number of tax brackets. At the same time, the top marginal tax rate was reduced from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1989.

Between the simplification and the lower rates, the U.S. revenue from taxes barely budged, when adjusted for inflation, between 1980 and 1989. At the same time, our national debt soared, and wealth inequality began to increase.

There was virtue in reducing the number of tax brackets when taxes were prepared with pencil, paperand endless tax rate charts in IRS booklets. But when most people use software to prepare their taxes, cutting taxbrackets overwhelmingly benefits only the wealthy.

And in benefiting the wealthy alone, weve lost the plot when it comes to promoting the general welfare of the United States and its citizens. With the rise of libertarianism and the myth of the self-made billionaire, weve allowed the wealthy to turn their backs on us, their fellow-citizens, on our common good, and on their just portion of the expense of government.

In Iowa, our Republican Legislature continues to mindlessly choke off our states income. Their new tax scheme rushed through so that it could be a talking point in the State of the Union rebuttal will eventually result in a tax rate of 3.9% for all Iowans.

That burden will fall far more heavily on minimum wage earners than CEOs. The cuts to state income eliminate billions that we could have invested in Iowas prosperity and ensure that our public school funding and public school ranking will continue their downward slide.

Instead of investing in our future, our Legislature has heaped tax credits on corporations like John Deere, which repay the favor by moving jobs to Mexico. Its past time we remember that our state and country are public projects: everyones benefit and everyones responsibility.

Lets elect people this November who will focus not on slavishly cutting taxes but on the fundamentals: meeting every Iowans basic needs and getting us back to supporting the public schools that support our future. Anything less would be uncivic.

Kelcey Patrick-Ferree and Shannon Patrick live in Iowa City.

Here is the original post:
Opinion: Reynolds' 'flat tax' is just a ruse to let the rich avoid their civic duty - Iowa City Press-Citizen