acesfull86
Well-known member
For me:
1) Abortion - I don't have a strong feeling about this issue, ie a candidate's stance on it will not make or break whether I support him/her, but I still think it's the most difficult issue to assume a position on. I can certainly sympathize with those who say "it's my body and I don't want the government to tell me what I can/can't do with it." If I was in that position, I'm sure I'd feel the same way. (As an aside, I do wish those women would extend that argument to other issues, but many do not). At the same time, I can sympathize with those who say it's murder. At some point between conception and birth, life begins. Once that point is reached, I do not think an abortion should be legal (unless maybe if the life of the mother was in danger). I feel like most folks would agree witht hat. But who the hell am I, or anyone else, to know where that point is? Some may say 8 months, some 4, some the millisecond after conception. I don't know. The safe position would probably be to assume life beginning earlier rather than later, though I find myself hedging my bets.
2) Taxation - as a libertarian, I think you should basically be able to do what you want unless your behavior causes direct harm to someone else. So murder, rape, theft, etc...no. Get high, get a high paying job while others are impoverished, marry someone of the same sex, etc...yes. It would be naive to suggest however, that the decisions we make in the marketplace never cause externalities. In theory, I think people should have to pay closer to the true social cost of their actions than they do now and taxation in this country would be better served targeting consumption rather than production. Maybe that means gas is an extra $x/gallon to reflect the true cost of the pollution (both emissions, and the decision to clog the road), but folks would keep more of the income they earn. On the macro level, tax receipts would be neutral (though if I had my way they would be much lower). You'd be raising costs on the people's behavior, but you would also be letting them keep more money in their pockets while giving them the choice as to how much to consume, given the true costs of their consumption.
Where I struggle with this idea is that it still involves a large amount of government oversight, plus the potential for manipulation. How do you determine the objective social cost of thousands and thousands of decisions? In theory, I believe one of the legitimate functions of the government is to correct market failures. But do I have faith that our elected officials can identify a legitimate market failure? No, not really. I think for many, the interpretation of "market failure" would be "outcome which doesn't conform to my preconceived notions, or which doesn't match what is in the best interest of my constituents, or which isn't the desired outcome of the labor or business leader who dropped off a bribe, etc, etc."
Further, even if you were able to identify the externality, price it correctly, collect the tax revenues, and move the market equilibrium to D = supply + social cost, there is still the issue of how do you distribute those revenues to those who are enduring the social cost? In some cases that task won't be difficult, but in others it will be easier said than done. And again, I struggle with the idea that government could efficiently and effectively carry this out. I do think it would be an improvement over our current models of taxation if we were to move in this direction, however.
Apologies for the certain typos/lack of eloquence...just killing time on my smartphone before a meeting. Not really looking to start debates, just wondering what political issues folks struggle with internally. I would think for those on the right, drug policy and other issues where freedom of the individual clashes with law and order would be difficult. For Democrats, I've often thought school choice would be a difficult issue to hash out. And for others, the issues I think are difficult might look cut and dry from a different perspective.
1) Abortion - I don't have a strong feeling about this issue, ie a candidate's stance on it will not make or break whether I support him/her, but I still think it's the most difficult issue to assume a position on. I can certainly sympathize with those who say "it's my body and I don't want the government to tell me what I can/can't do with it." If I was in that position, I'm sure I'd feel the same way. (As an aside, I do wish those women would extend that argument to other issues, but many do not). At the same time, I can sympathize with those who say it's murder. At some point between conception and birth, life begins. Once that point is reached, I do not think an abortion should be legal (unless maybe if the life of the mother was in danger). I feel like most folks would agree witht hat. But who the hell am I, or anyone else, to know where that point is? Some may say 8 months, some 4, some the millisecond after conception. I don't know. The safe position would probably be to assume life beginning earlier rather than later, though I find myself hedging my bets.
2) Taxation - as a libertarian, I think you should basically be able to do what you want unless your behavior causes direct harm to someone else. So murder, rape, theft, etc...no. Get high, get a high paying job while others are impoverished, marry someone of the same sex, etc...yes. It would be naive to suggest however, that the decisions we make in the marketplace never cause externalities. In theory, I think people should have to pay closer to the true social cost of their actions than they do now and taxation in this country would be better served targeting consumption rather than production. Maybe that means gas is an extra $x/gallon to reflect the true cost of the pollution (both emissions, and the decision to clog the road), but folks would keep more of the income they earn. On the macro level, tax receipts would be neutral (though if I had my way they would be much lower). You'd be raising costs on the people's behavior, but you would also be letting them keep more money in their pockets while giving them the choice as to how much to consume, given the true costs of their consumption.
Where I struggle with this idea is that it still involves a large amount of government oversight, plus the potential for manipulation. How do you determine the objective social cost of thousands and thousands of decisions? In theory, I believe one of the legitimate functions of the government is to correct market failures. But do I have faith that our elected officials can identify a legitimate market failure? No, not really. I think for many, the interpretation of "market failure" would be "outcome which doesn't conform to my preconceived notions, or which doesn't match what is in the best interest of my constituents, or which isn't the desired outcome of the labor or business leader who dropped off a bribe, etc, etc."
Further, even if you were able to identify the externality, price it correctly, collect the tax revenues, and move the market equilibrium to D = supply + social cost, there is still the issue of how do you distribute those revenues to those who are enduring the social cost? In some cases that task won't be difficult, but in others it will be easier said than done. And again, I struggle with the idea that government could efficiently and effectively carry this out. I do think it would be an improvement over our current models of taxation if we were to move in this direction, however.
Apologies for the certain typos/lack of eloquence...just killing time on my smartphone before a meeting. Not really looking to start debates, just wondering what political issues folks struggle with internally. I would think for those on the right, drug policy and other issues where freedom of the individual clashes with law and order would be difficult. For Democrats, I've often thought school choice would be a difficult issue to hash out. And for others, the issues I think are difficult might look cut and dry from a different perspective.
