Hacker News Reader

Comment by winter_blue | Hacker News Reader

> This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit.

This. Libertarians live in some sort of idealistic fantasy, where most humans are intrinsically good, and inclined to do good, like help the poor and needy around them. That is emphatically not the nature of the average human. We absolutely need to force and coerce people to do good, under the threat of violence (for non-payment of taxes).

View on HN

Who are "we, the good people, who force others" then?

If democracy is the rule of majority and the majority of people are "not good", then you're ruled by people who are "not good".

If government enforced people to do "good" (not smoke marijuana, preventing gay people from reproducing, allowed building with asbestos), and then the changed their mind (allowed to smoke marijuana, allowed gay people are to reproduce, banned asbestos), did they enforce the "good"?

If most humans are _not_ intrinsically good, why do we have leaders who have vast amounts of power? Unless you're suggesting that all the leaders are the 'good' people?

I'm not sure that's an accurate characterisation of Libertarians. More typical would be to argue the poor and needy need to pull themselves together rather than living on handouts. I don't think the 'intrinsically good' thing enters much.

If most people aren't good, why do they vote for governments that take away part of their money to give to the poor?

(By the way, I don't think most people would give more if not taxed, at least all else being equal, but not because they're "not good". There are many incentives at play.)

Deleted comment

There's no such thing as 'trickle down'. Cite me one serious economic paper which has referenced it. It's one of those things that through shear force of repetition people believe that it is a real theorem.

Plenty of politicians pushed trickle down.

http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/trickle-down-economi...

Politicians with their own self interests. It's not an actual serious economic theory.

I never said it was. But it was pushed as an economic theory by politicians. It failed. I'm not sure what your point is, but I am sure that you're missing mine.

I was assuming you were the parent commenter, who has since deleted their comment.

I was. That comment just said "the failure of trickle down doesn't persuade you [...]"

Trickle down was pushed by many politicians, and it failed. whether it's a real theory or not is totally irrelevant to the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com