Tyler Cowen asks, "What is your most absurd view? ... Yes your comment should be crazy but serious too. It should refer to a view which you actually hold, but many other smart people consider untenable and bizarre."
The ensuing comments are interesting, too. But I'm compelled to add my views here. (I sense a meme developing.)
One I've mentioned before, that the federal government could be successfully funded entirely by donations, including maintaining the military at superpower levels.
Here's another, perhaps less contrarian: All drugs could be decriminalized and made available over the counter without making much difference in rates of addiction among the population. Perhaps rates of addiction to the most dangerous drugs would actually drop.
Also, the politics of liberty advance via natural selection, meaning that in spite of popular and political opposition to libertarian politics, the countries which most zealously guard the rights of their citizens are the ones most likely to be successful.
I'm curious to hear from more people on this subject.
I'm not sure if you wanted to hear from us on your comments or hear some of our crazy ideas, but I'll just comment on yours.
I've never heard the suggestion that the government could be funded with donations, and I'm very skeptical of the idea. What would you say to left-wingers claiming that the government would then lean more heavily in favor of the rich, because obviously the lower class and even most of the middle class wouldn't be contributing at this point. At least now everyone can say that we pay our taxes. Just a thought.
Whoo, legalize drugs reduce crime. I agree.
I don't quite understand where you're going with your final comment about "...the countries which most zealously guard the rights of their citizens are the ones most likely to be successful." Is that an absurd view? Is that not the idea of democracy?
Glad to see you're back.
Posted by: Joe at March 22, 2006 07:29 AMThe rich already pay a disproportionate amount of tax. I don't think that proprtion would change much with a donation system. But votes would still count the way they do now, and most politicians care little for courting the votes of the wealthy.
I propose income withholding as the primary means for middle class wage earners to donate, so they would have at least as much opportunity to be a part of the revenue stream as they do now.
The last point, regarding democracy, is that democracies aren't entirely liberty-friendly. Democracies tend, in practice, to vote away liberties by voting in favor of high taxes, heavy regulation and such. The framers of the Constitution didn't envision such a thing. They thought they were setting up, in some important respects, a freer system than what we wound up with.
When someone comes up with a government better able to preserve liberty that government will likely be more successful than ours, with a richer, more dynamic population.
Posted by: Walter at March 22, 2006 02:14 PMI have a couple:
1. Socialize the justice system completely. Elliminate the need for private attorneys by drafting citizens into judicial service for a minimum of two years as a juror. Citizens may choose to remain past two years and serve 4 more years as an advocate. If they have served 4 years as an advocate, they may choose to serve 4 more as a judge.
2. (the view that others find the most bizzare about me) Stretch marks on a woman are a turn-on.
Posted by: Doug Purdie at March 31, 2006 11:54 AM