Ron Paul and Murray Sabrin are Split on Steve Lonegan for NJ Governor

[rockandrollsouls]

Obama's plan doesn't amount to tax cuts. The budget is substantially higher than it was before the change in tax policy. The only true tax cuts are ones that coincide with budget cuts. Lonegan will cut the budget, which means everyone will benefit from the tax cuts.

If you don't understand how raising taxes on the poor but massively cutting taxes for everyone else and cutting the budget actually helps the poor then you need to visit mises.org.

And thats the last reply you'll get from me knightskye. This thread is done, you guys dont want to support someone who has pledged to cut the budget and cut taxes at a time when NJ desperately needs someone to do these things, and thats fine with me, bye.

Mises.org does not have ONE article that suggests raising taxes on ANYONE is beneficial. Link to one and stop spewing garbage because you're pulling lies out of your ass now. The mises.org website has many articles that says cutting taxes for everyone and cutting the budget is beneficial. It even explains how a free market in various industries and the elimination of welfare is beneficial to the poor, which is absolutely true. But it NEVER states raising taxes on them is beneficial, and you should be ashamed for saying so. Not to mention, the very thought of raising taxes on anyone is absolutely contrary to the Austrian school.

I'd suggest you back up your arguments with some substantial evidence rather than saying "go to mises.org" because I basically live on that site, I live economics, and I'm very well schooled in the subject and you're just some punk kid trying to save face.

 

[jmlfod87]

From Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty"

Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal. It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal. Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty. But such a course, given the state of the world in the past, present, and foreseeable future, is vital if the victory of liberty is ever to be achieved.

Let us consider, for example, a transition demand set forth by various libertarians: namely, that the government budget be reduced by 10 percent each year for ten years, after which the government will have disappeared. Such a proposal might have heuristic or strategic value, provided that the proposers always make crystal clear that these are minimal demands, and that indeed there would be nothing wrong

Government activity must be reduced whenever and wherever it can; any opposition to a particular tax—or expenditure—cut is impermissible for it contradicts libertarian principles and the libertarian goal.

We conclude this part of the strategy question, then, by affirming that the victory of total liberty is the highest political end; that the proper groundwork for this goal is a moral passion for justice; that the end should be pursued by the speediest and most efficacious possible means; that the end must always be kept in sight and sought as rapidly as possible; and that the means taken must never contradict the goal—whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, or by failing to seize any opportunity to reduce State power or by ever increasing it in any area.

That took me about 5 seconds to find, just by typing in "budget cut" into the search engine.

Rothbard explains that no true libertarian can oppose a reduction in state power. Lonegan's plan is a reduction in state power. He plans to chop off billions of dollars in the state's budget. To oppose it on the techanicality that "some will pay more and some will pay less" is anti-libertarian. Liberatrians always support shrinking the size and scope of the State.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

From Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty"









That took me about 5 seconds to find, just by typing in "budget cut" into the search engine.

Rothbard explains that no true libertarian can oppose a reduction in state power. Lonegan's plan is a reduction in state power. He plans to chop off billions of dollars in the state's budget. To oppose it on the techanicality that "some will pay more and some will pay less" is anti-libertarian. Liberatrians always support shrinking the size and scope of the State.

You clearly can't read. You just fully owned yourself.

"and that the means taken must never contradict the goal—whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, or by failing to seize any opportunity to reduce State power or by ever increasing it in any area.

Do you know what gradualism is? Where you said you were for slow changes? What about "ever increasing it in any area." Wouldn't any area consist of state power in the form of raising taxation on individuals? He says very clearly the means taken must never contradict the goal? You don't think raising taxes on some contradicts the goal to get them lower taxes? Are you illiterate?

Rothbard is basically denouncing your viewpoint, but it seems you can't understand his language. He also condemns failing to seize the opportunity, which would be failing to vote for Kaplan in this case. Now, are you going to provide an article from an Austrian economist that promotes raising taxes on some to reach an end goal?

 

[muzzled dogg]

...

 

[jmlfod87]

You clearly can't read. You just fully owned yourself.

"and that the means taken must never contradict the goal—whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, or by failing to seize any opportunity to reduce State power or by ever increasing it in any area.

Do you know what gradualism is? Where you said you were for slow changes? What about "ever increasing it in any area." Wouldn't any area consist of state power in the form of raising taxation on individuals? He says very clearly the means taken must never contradict the goal? You don't think raising taxes on some contradicts the goal to get them lower taxes? Are you illiterate?

Rothbard is basically denouncing your viewpoint, but it seems you can't understand his language. He also condemns failing to seize the opportunity, which would be failing to vote for Kaplan in this case. Now, are you going to provide an article from an Austrian economist that promotes raising taxes on some to reach an end goal?

You are misinterpreting Rothbard's view on an increase in state power. The State already has the power of taxation on all individualsd. By cutting the budget you are reducing the state's power. Just because some taxes are raised, as long as taxes in general are reduced that is an overall reduction in state power.

Rothbard wasn't entirely against gradualism, as I pointed out:

Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not,

Ron Paul has based his entire career on gradualism. He believes we can't become a free society overnight, so we must take transitional steps. Thats why he has a bill for auditing the federal reserve, which will actually increase state power, in hopes that it will ead to an overall reduction in state power once the Fed's policies are revealed to be counterproductive.

The way you are interpreting Rothbard would suggest that you are opposed to HR1207, because it gives the state power to conduct an audit. Your view of state power is obviously cock-eyed.

And I already gave you an austrian economist. In fact I gave you two: Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. As you have already stated, you don't care for their opinions. So why should I bother hunting for more austrian economists?

Wasting resources on Kaplan when they could be appropriated to someone can win is folly. Rothbard left the LP for a reason, because he knew it was a waste of time.

EDIT: Is Bob Murphy Austrian enough for you? http://pacificresearch.org/docLib/20080505_Flat_Tax.pdf

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You are misinterpreting Rothbard's view on an increase in state power. The State already has the power of taxation on all individualsd. By cutting the budget you are reducing the state's power. Just because some taxes are raised, as long as taxes in general are reduced that is an overall reduction in state power.

Rothbard wasn't entirely against gradualism, as I pointed out:

Ron Paul has based his entire career on gradualism. He believes we can't become a free society overnight, so we must take transitional steps. Thats why he has a bill for auditing the federal reserve, which will actually increase state power, in hopes that it will ead to an overall reduction in state power once the Fed's policies are revealed to be counterproductive.

The way you are interpreting Rothbard would suggest that you are opposed to HR1207, because it gives the state power to conduct an audit. Your view of state power is obviously cock-eyed.

And I already gave you an austrian economist. In fact I gave you two: Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. As you have already stated, you don't care for their opinions. So why should I bother hunting for more austrian economists?

Wasting resources on Kaplan when they could be appropriated to someone can win is folly. Rothbard left the LP for a reason, because he knew it was a waste of time.

EDIT: Is Bob Murphy Austrian enough for you? http://pacificresearch.org/docLib/20080505_Flat_Tax.pdf

1. Your notion that Ron is a Gradualist is false. You're grasping for straws. He had a bill to abolish the fed before the bill to audit it.

2. Ron is not an economist. Peter is not an economist. He is an economic commentator that happens to be the owner of a brokerage firm. His micro predictions have also been wrong and he admits it. If I recall correctly, he has degrees in accounting and finance. You are wrong.

3. You use Rothbard to support your viewpoint, but when I break it down for you and show you that you just wrecked your argument you discount him and the party he supported for many years. Furthermore, you're once again spewing garbage by claiming Rothbard left the party because "it was a waste of time." He left because of the moderates diluting libertarian ideals. Furthermore, I'm very well read on Rothbard and the Austrian school. It is apparent you are not. Do not try and distort Rothbard's words because you just got served. He was very clear and precise about what he meant and how you meant it. Don't put words in his mouth by saying he'd be okay for some taxes.

4. http://mises.org/story/3316 Refer to number 1. This is an article written by Robert P. Murphy. I quote, "Eliminate the personal and corporate income tax. Don't put in a flat tax or a fair tax or a VAT or any other cute name for a very uncute process."

It does not sound like he is advocating a flat tax in any form there.

In conclusion, I once again prove you are full of shit and that you talk out of your ass. Will you do some research and give me a fact supported response this time?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

No response? Any takers?

 

[Knightskye]

Obama's plan doesn't amount to tax cuts.

So people won't actually pay less money? Really?

If you don't understand how raising taxes on the poor but massively cutting taxes for everyone else and cutting the budget actually helps the poor then you need to visit mises.org.

Link to a specific article.

And thats the last reply you'll get from me knightskye.

Can't stand common sense, get out of the fire.

This thread is done

You obviously don't understand property rights, yet you argue with me over libertarianism.

you guys dont want to support someone who has pledged to cut the budget and cut taxes at a time when NJ desperately needs someone to do these things, and thats fine with me, bye.

Actually, we are. Ken Kaplan pledged to do both, as well as reform zoning laws.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

So people won't actually pay less money? Really?



Link to a specific article.



Can't stand common sense, get out of the fire.



You obviously don't understand property rights, yet you argue with me over libertarianism.



Actually, we are. Ken Kaplan pledged to do both, as well as reform zoning laws.

He has been making up lies to support his post and I completely shelled him in my last response. I'm waiting for him to actually respond. The worst is how he claimed Rob Murphy was for the Flat tax when he's denounced it fervently. JM is absolutely pathetic.....lie and hope for the best; throw a hail mary to try and support a flawed argument. Ridiculous.

 

[Annihilia]

Dr. Paul is not a gradualist, but he does understands how to win through strategy. A sudden call to abolish the fed will gain zero co-sponsors as we have seen in the past. An audit, however, is more palatable to normal folk, and will illuminate the Fed and all of its shady dealings, making it easier for people to see why abolishing it might be a good idea.

Similarly, I don't for a second believe that the masses in NJ are ready to vote a Libertarian Party candidate in without understanding what that even means. Kaplan has no presence and minimal grassroots support. I think Lonegan is a good, electable stepping stone at this critical juncture and will serve as an example to the people how less government benefits them.

To me, this isn't simply about the here and now. Here we are presented with the odd electable candidate who shares many of our views and has RP's blessings, but just happens to not go as far as we'd like. If we choose to ignore this strategic opportunity and vote for the unelectable, obscure candidate, we may feel good about ourselves, but that amounts to nothing if we're still living in a tax burdened nanny state hellhole. If we elect a guy who meets us half way, it will be much easier to reach our ultimate goal. We will be able to point to a real world Jersey example of how tax reductions benefit everybody to rally popular support around Kaplan next time.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Dr. Paul is not a gradualist, but he does understands how to win through strategy. A sudden call to abolish the fed will gain zero co-sponsors as we have seen in the past. An audit, however, is more palatable to normal folk, and will illuminate the Fed and all of its shady dealings, making it easier for people to see why abolishing it might be a good idea.

Similarly, I don't for a second believe that the masses in NJ are ready to vote a Libertarian Party candidate in without understanding what that even means. Kaplan has no presence and minimal grassroots support. I think Lonegan is a good, electable stepping stone at this critical juncture and will serve as an example to the people how less government benefits them.

To me, this isn't simply about the here and now. Here we are presented with the odd electable candidate who shares many of our views and has RP's blessings, but just happens to not go as far as we'd like. If we choose to ignore this strategic opportunity and vote for the unelectable, obscure candidate, we may feel good about ourselves, but that amounts to nothing if we're still living in a tax burdened nanny state hellhole. If we elect a guy who meets us half way, it will be much easier to reach our ultimate goal. We will be able to point to a real world Jersey example of how tax reductions benefit everybody to rally popular support around Kaplan next time.

Now this is an opinion I can respect. Personally, I will be voting for Kaplan but it's apparent you understand your position and why you prefer Lonegan. JM has just posted immense amounts of misinformation about Lonegan and the Austrian School and it was way out of hand.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you (JM) try to bullshit me into supporting your candidate I'm going to call you on it

 

[jmlfod87]

hahaha, that was the point i've been making the whole time. and austrian economics has always been on my side.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

hahaha, that was the point i've been making the whole time. and austrian economics has always been on my side.

No, it's not. Why don't you respond to my clearly numbered post, in list form. I think it's simple enough that even you can address every point I've laid out.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Hey, JM, I'm waiting for a supported response rather than you wrongly and falsely stating you're right. Let's go.

 

[Knightskye]

Lonegan needs to fix his tax plan. I'm against collectivism. His tax plan favors certain groups and punishes others. Fix that, and I could probably vote for him.

 

[jmlfod87]

No, it's not. Why don't you respond to my clearly numbered post, in list form. I think it's simple enough that even you can address every point I've laid out.

to be honest i didn't even read that last list you posted, and i dont intend to. if you don't understand how cutting budgets and giving tax cuts to producers helps the poor then you simply need to brush up on your econ. i'm not here to educate you.

why don't you send an emailt o one of the austrian economists on lewrockwell.com or mises.org and ask them what they think of lonegan's tax plan? I've already given you 3 Austrians and you still dont believe me.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

to be honest i didn't even read that last list you posted, and i dont intend to. if you don't understand how cutting budgets and giving tax cuts to producers helps the poor then you simply need to brush up on your econ. i'm not here to educate you.

why don't you send an emailt o one of the austrian economists on lewrockwell.com or mises.org and ask them what they think of lonegan's tax plan? I've already given you 3 Austrians and you still dont believe me.

Well I suggest you read it and respond considering you completely lied about Bob Murphy's position on the flat tax and used a study to put words in his mouth when he's very clear tax reform is against the platform of austrian economics.

You have NOT given me 3 austrians and I've provided ARTICLES and QUOTES that CONTRADICT what you've said.

Stop making things up to support your flawed argument. You haven't provided ANYTHING. I've given you Bob Murphy, the same one you CLAIM to have quoted, WHO FLAT OUT SAYS THE FLAT TAX SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN PLACE OF THE INCOME TAX.

You are simply making things up, I called you on it and provided evidence, and now you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la la la" as to not hear that you are wrong, and you're ignorant and arrogant enough to completely ignore it all.

You've never even posted in the econ section and you're a college kid not even majoring in econ and you claim to know the austrian school and economics and you can't even use the search function on mises.org

There isn't ONE article on that site that supports a flat tax, and Lew and Bob and Lawrence have railed against it. You're simply ignorant and can't admit you're wrong. You should stop saying the austrian school is for the flat tax when every austrian I've read has railed against it completely.

Edit: Please read this article that destroys the myth of the flat tax, written by a prominent austrian economist. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/flat-tax-folly.html

Edit Two: A flat tax has never been a platform of the Austrian School of economics. The austrian school promotes the abolishment of the income tax. Furthermore, the "flat tax" is not flat and is more progressive than our current system.

You are wrong. If you'd like, I'll provide more articles from Robert Murphy and Lew Rockwell and Rothbard and Mises and even Hayek.

So in conclusion why don't you provide proof of ONE austrian economist advocating a flat tax. You're not educating anyone; you're closing your eyes and shutting your ears to the truth and evidence i've provided for you. Now you're just trying to act like you've won and brush off my wealth of information because you know you're wrong and you know you got sodomized. Put your money where your mouth is because you don't know the first thing about the Austrian school of economics and you don't have ONE PIECE of austrian literature to back your claim.

 

[Knightskye]

The tax cuts could create new job opportunities, but that would be for the unemployed poor, who don't pay taxes. But then once they have a job, they would have the rate twice as high as it used to. And the poor who have jobs would get a tax increase.

Even spelled out like that, I don't like the idea. Why can't we treat people as individuals and lower everyone's taxes?

 

[Imperial]

The tax cuts could create new job opportunities, but that would be for the unemployed poor, who don't pay taxes. But then once they have a job, they would have the rate twice as high as it used to. And the poor who have jobs would get a tax increase.

Even spelled out like that, I don't like the idea. Why can't we treat people as individuals and lower everyone's taxes?

Because state governments are so screwed up you start getting into the problem of figuring out where to find things to cut. Lonegan it seems would be cutting alot but he is having to figure out the best way possible.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Of course none of the lonegan supporters, including JM fold, will respond to my post in defense of the true principles of Austrian economics. Whatever. Turn tail and run when you lose.