Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

The taxman might soon be your tax preparer – Morning Brew

The Internal Revenue Service said this week it plans to pilot its own tax prep software next year.

If the plan becomes a reality, it could spell major danger for TurboTax, H&R Block, and the rest of the tax prep industry, which is worth $14.3 billion, according to market research firm IBISWorld. But in the meantime, the project is getting pushback from critics who arent keen on seeing the IRS take on new functions.

The case for making the IRS your accountant

Direct-file advocates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren have long argued that preparing returns through a .gov site would make the process simpler and cheaper for Americans. The IRS estimates it could cost the government just $10 per taxpayer, a steep discount from TurboTaxs cheapest paid option: $69.

With $80 billion in new funding over the next decade courtesy of the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS commissioned the think tank New America to complete a feasibility study on whether the government should provide the service. The groups research, released this week, found that building a direct-file tool is something the IRS can handle. And the group determined that 72% of Americans might use it.

Not everyone is into the new take on tax day

Least thrilled about the direct-file tool are the folks whose bread and butter is your tax return. H&R Block and TurboTax-parent Intuit (both offer a free basic version of their services) spent a combined $35.2 million on lobbying lawmakers about direct file and other issues since 2006, according to the Associated Press.

Intuit spokesperson Tania Mercado told us the IRSs plan is a solution in search of a problem that would unnecessarily cost taxpayers billions of dollars. She also said the governments cost estimate is laughable.

Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers (who generally oppose any expansion of the IRS) see the government playing the dual role of tax collector and preparer as a conflict of interest.

Get the daily email that makes reading the news actually enjoyable. Stay informed and entertained, for free.

Others worry it might not be worth the investment: Low uptake would be the main risk of the program, according to Alex Muresianu, a policy analyst at the Libertarian think tank the Tax Foundation. He points out that only 3% of eligible taxpayers use an existing free tax filing program for low-income people. New Americas report itself referenced a survey showing that, while taxpayers were into the idea in general, there was much less interest in an IRS tool that didnt include state tax returns in addition to federal ones.

Looking ahead though the pilot is in the works, it would be years before the direct-file tool became the tax season companion for millions of Americansif it ever did. Nonetheless, some hope the IRS might one day go even further, with direct filing paving the way for automatic tax deductions with no return required, a reality in places like the UK, Japan, and Germany.SK

See original here:
The taxman might soon be your tax preparer - Morning Brew

Breaking: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to accept campaign donations in Bitcoin – Cointelegraph

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will be the first presidential candidate in United States history to accept campaign donations in Bitcoin, he announced during his first appearance as a presidential candidate at the Bitcoin 2023 conference. He praised the cryptocurrency as a symbol of democracy and freedom during the event.

The candidate who is challenging President Joe Biden has been sharing his libertarian views about cryptocurrencies on Twitter. In a post on May 3, RFK Jr. stated that crypto technologies are a major innovation engine," adding that the U.S. is hobbling the industry and driving innovation elsewhere."

Kennedy Jr. is the nephew of 35th President of the U.S. John F. Kennedy.

By attending the Bitcoin event, RFK Jr. is not only targeting voters but also a potential source of millions of dollars in donations. During last years midterm elections, Sam Bankman-Fried, former CEO of now-bankrupted crypto exchange FTX, donated $40 million in support of candidates.Crypto exchange Coinbase has also been actively lobbying for legislation regulating the crypto space in the country.

RFK Jr.s increased commitment to cryptocurrencies coincides with a tight regulatory environment in the U.S.,spreading uncertainty among players and harming an already battered industry.

The candidate believes the U.S. economy could be more resilient if it has a diverse ecosystem of currencies:

Excerpt from:
Breaking: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to accept campaign donations in Bitcoin - Cointelegraph

A Flawed Attack on "Libertarian Elitism" About Voter Ignorance – Reason

When I first started writing about political ignorance in the late 1990s, many academics and political commentators were inclined to dismiss the problem. Even if voters knew little about government and public policy, it was often argued, they could still be relied upon to make good decisions through a combination of information shortcuts and "miracles of aggregation." Since the rise of Donald Trump and similar right-wing politicians in many European nations, such complacency has diminished. The same recent history has given new credence to libertarian critics, such as Bryan Caplan, Jason Brennan, and myself, who argue that voter ignorance is a fundamental structural flaw of democratic processes, one that can only be effectively ameliorated through various types of constraints on the power of democratic majorities.

In two recent articlesan academic paper in the American Political Science Review and a popular piece in Democracy, political scientists Henry Farrell, Hugo Mercier, and Melissa Schwartzberg (FMS) try to push back against those they label as the "new libertarian elitists" (primarily Brennan, Caplan, andpossiblyme). Unlike more traditional academic defenders of the wisdom of democratic decision-making, FMS properly recognize that voter ignorance is a serious problem and thatat least in many situationsit is not likely to be overcome through simple information shortcuts or "aggregation" mechanisms in which voters' errors conveniently offset each other. But they still attack what they call libertarian critics' "elitist" approach, and also argue that democratic decision-making can be reformed to greatly alleviate the challenges of ignorance.

Unfortunately, they misconceive key elements of the libertarians' position, and underestimate the scale of the problem of voter ignorance. Let's start with the charge of "elitism." Almost by definition, a true political elitist wants to concentrate power in the hands of a small groupthe elite! This is pretty much the opposite of what Caplan and I propose. As we explain in our respective works on political ignorance, we advocate limiting the power of government such that more decisions can be made in the market and civil society. I also contend that some of the same benefits can be achieved by decentralizing many functions of government to the state and local level, thereby enabling people to make more decisions by "voting with their feet," rather than at the ballot box.

How does this address the problem of political ignorance? By changing incentives. The infinitesimal chance of any one vote making a difference in an election leads most voters to be both "rationally ignorant" about political issues, and severely biased in their assessment of the information they do learn. By contrast, when people vote with their feet, that's a decision that is highly likely to make a difference by actually determining what goods or services they get or (in the case of interjurisdictional foot voting) what government policies they get to live under. For this reason, foot voters are generally better-informed than ballot box voters and less biased in their evaluation of information.

Empowering ordinary people to "vote with their feet" is the very opposite of elitism. It actually reduces the power of political elites rather than increases it. In the status quo, where national governments exercise power over a vast range of activities, and the electorate is highly ignorant, political elites (such as politicians and bureaucrats) get to control many aspects of our lives with little or no supervision by ordinary people. The latter are often either unaware of the existence of these policies or have little understanding of their effects.

Expanded foot voting can significantly reduce that power. In addition, foot voting can empower ordinary individual citizens to make decisions that actually have a decisive effect on their lives, while ballot-box votingeven in the best case scenarioonly gives them a tiny chance (e.g.about 1 in 60 million in a US presidential election) of affecting the outcome.

Caplan and I have proposed a variety of measures to expand foot-voting opportunities, such as ending exclusionary zoning and breaking down barriers to international migration. In addition to their other advantages, these reforms would also reduce the power of political elites over ordinary people, by enabling more of the latter to reject policies they opposeincluding those enacted by elites.

Perhaps there is some elitism in the mere notion that political knowledge matters, and therefore people with greater knowledge can make better decisions than others. FMS take Brennan and Caplan to task for believing that experts are likely to make better decisions on public policy than laypeople. But, if so, FMS are themselves guilty of the same sin, in so far as they recognize that knowledge matters and that some people may be more biased in their evaluation of political information than others.

FMS are right to emphasize that experts (and other relatively more informed people) suffer from biases of their own (I have made similar points myself). But they overlook the fact that Caplan (including in a study coauthored with me and others) has tried to correct for this by controlling for various sources of bias, such as ideology, partisanship, income, race, gender, and more. Even after such controls, there are still large gaps between experts' views on many issues, and those of the general public, which suggests that the superior knowledge of the former does matter. Similar results arise in many studies that compare more knowledgeable members of the general public with less-knowledgeable ones (while also controlling for likely sources of bias), such as the work of political scientist Scott Althaus.

In any event, Caplan and I do not claim that political power should be transferred to experts or even to some subset of more knowledgeable voters. Rather, we contend that the big difference in views between more and less knowledgeable people is one of several indicators that political ignorance is a serious problem, one that should be addressed not by giving more power to a small elite, but by limiting government power (and, in my case, also decentralizing it).

Jason Brennan is a more complicated case, as he advocates "epistocracy"the idea that decision-making authority should be in the hands of the "knowers." But, as he explains in some detail in his book Against Democracy, and other works, that does not necessarily require giving power to a small elite. Rather, he proposes a variety of strategies for empowering more knowledgeable voters while still maintaining a large, diverse electorate.

I am very skeptical that these ideas can actually work. But they are not inherently elitist, unless you conclude that any knowledge or competence-based limitations on access to political power qualify as such. If so, you must also condemn the many competence-based restrictions on the franchise that already exist, such as the exclusion of children and many of the mentally ill, and the requirement that immigrants must pass a civics test that most native-born Americans would fail (at least if they had to take it without studying).

In fairness, FMS are not entirely clear on the issue of whether I come within the scope of their condemnation of "libertarian elitists" or not. In the APSR article, they seem to count me in the same category as Brennan and Caplan. In the Democracy piece, by contrast, they differentiate me from them, as "more willing than Brennan or Caplan to acknowledge limits to [his] claims and to entertain possible doubts." Either way, I think the key point is that advocating limitation and decentralization of government power as a response to the problem of political ignorance is not elitist, but the very opposite. In addition, PMS fail to consider the reasons why Caplan and I conclude that foot voters and market participants are likely to make better-informed decisions than ballot box voters, and overlook most of the supporting evidence we cite.

In addition to misunderstanding libertarian thinkers, FMS also understate the scope and severity of the problem of political ignorance itself. Decades of survey data show that most voters often don't know even such basic things as which party controls which house of Congress, which branches and levels of government are responsible for which policies, how the federal government spends its money, and much else. On top of that, they also routinely reward and punish incumbents for things they didn't cause (such as short terms economic trends, droughts, and even local sports team victories) while ignoring more subtle, long-term impacts of government policy. Voters also tend to be highly biased in seeking out and evaluating political information, often only using sources that align with their preexisting views (such as conservatives who only rely on Fox News, or liberals who watch MSNBC), and rejecting or downplaying information that contradicts them. Committed partisans are also prone to accepting delusions and conspiracy theories that fit their preexisting biases. The belief of many Republicans that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump is just one particularly egregious example of that tendency. Such widespread ignorance and bias are not limited to Trump supporters, or to any one side of the political spectrum. I cover all this in much greater detail in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance, which is just one part of a vast literature documenting these phenomena, most of it by non-libertarian scholars.

The problem of ignorance is exacerbated by the enormous size and scope of modern government. In most advanced democracies, government spending consumers one third or more of GDP. In addition, the government extensively regulates almost every type of human activity. Effectively monitoring a government of this size and scope requires either extensive knowledge, truly amazing information shortcuts, or a combination of both.

Any solution to the problem of political ignorance must take account of both the vast depth of the ignorance itself and the enormous complexity of the government rationally ignorant voters are expected to monitor.

The evidence FMS cite falls well short of this challenge. They are right to point out that, in some situations, survey respondents in experimental settings are willing to adjust their views in the face of new evidence. That's good news! But, to significantly undermine the critiques offered by Brennan, Caplan, and others, it has to apply to a vast range of issues, and to deal with the reality that real-world voters rarely make much effort to seek out opposing views at all.

If you want to seriously address the problem of voter ignorance, while avoiding both "elitist" solutions (such as giving more power to experts) and imposing much tighter constraints on government, you have to find ways to increase voter competence across a vast range of issues. If such increases are impossible or unlikely to occur anytime soon, then elitist and libertarian solutions are likely to be your only realistic options. Expanding the domain of foot voting can transfer more decisions to a sphere where people have better incentives to be informed. Reducing the size and scope of government can help reduce the knowledge burden on voters. If the state had only a few relatively simple functions, a small amount of voter knowledge might be enough!

I don't completely rule out the possibility that we can achieve significant increases in voter knowledge, at least in some respects. While I think some combination of expanding foot voting and cutting back on government power is by far the most promising strategy for addressing the dangers of voter ignorance, I do not suggest it is the only thing that can be done or that it can fix the entire problem by itself. In my book and elsewhere, I have suggested (to little avail!) that the idea of simply paying voters to increase their knowledge levels deserves greater consideration. Perhaps others will have more success in developing this idea than I have. I also recognizeand have repeatedly stressed in various worksthat the problem of political ignorance isn't the only factor that must be considered in assessing the appropriate size and scope of government, and in determining the relative value of foot voting and ballot box voting.

Neither FMS' articles nor this post are likely to resolve the longstanding debate over political ignorance. But the discussion will be better if participants take due account of the enormous scope of the problem, and properly distinguish between "elitist" proposed solutions and those that are not.

See the article here:
A Flawed Attack on "Libertarian Elitism" About Voter Ignorance - Reason

Libertarian candidates seek municipal seats in New Albany – Evening News and Tribune

NEW ALBANY Four candidates have filed to run as Libertarians in New Albanys municipal election.

The Libertarian Party of Floyd County is looking ahead to the November election as they push for a stronger presence for the third party in the City of New Albany. The local Libertarian candidates say they want to reach across party lines.

June 30 at noon is the deadline for an independent or minor party candidate to file a petition of nomination with the voter registration office, and July 3 at noon is the deadline for the Libertarian Party to present a convention to nominate candidates or fill ballot vacancies.

New Albany City Councilman Josh Turner recently switched from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party. He currently represents District 5, but in the 2023 general election, he is running as a Libertarian for an at-large seat on the city council.

I think theres a big push [toward the Libertarian party] because people, just in the national climate, theyre tired of seeing the red versus blue, and they need a third option, Turner said. I think the Libertarian gives everybody that option, because it matches up with what we stand for, and it really aligns with both sides.

In the general election, Turner will be facing Republican candidates Stefanie Griffith, Jay Papp and Scott W. Whalen, and he will face Democratic candidates Maury Goldberg and Don Unruh.

Turner said he was concerned about the focus on jockeying for power in the Republican party, which contributed to his departure from the party.

One thing youll see about these parties is that they are eating themselves alive by their infighting, he said. We are united, and we are a united voice for the people.

Jeffery Mayott, Josh Turner, Andrew Nicholson and David Logan are the four Libertarian candidates running in New Albanys municipal election.

Andrew Nicholson is the Libertarian candidate for New Albany City Clerk. He said when people ask whether he is a red or blue candidate, he describes himself as purple.

He notes that he supports term limits for municipalities, saying the only way to keep anything a city, an organization, a business up and coming is to try to get fresh, new blood every eight years.

Nicholson will face Democratic incumbent Vicki Glotzbach in the race for city clerk.

Turner said the local Libertarian Party is focused on transparency and accountability, and he notes that he and Nicholson have streamed public meetings on social media.

Libertarian Jeffrey Mayott is running for District 2 on New Albany City Council. He feels that the presence of the third party in local elections offers an open-minded option.

We have broad views amongst ourselves and the party, so I think that will bring a lot of people who havent been involved in politics before because they see the option of people running who have open minds, he said.

He feels that many people are looking for a change on the city council.

Mayott will face Democratic incumbent Adam Dickey and Republican Dan Coffey in the District 2 race.

David Logan is a Libertarian candidate for District 1 on the New Albany City Council. He said the two-specific-party system is not working, and he is excited to see the effort from the Libertarian candidates in New Albany.

And having us kind of come in really kind of emphasizes that we see both viewpoints, but were not biased to one or another, were more open, more suggestive to changes whereas [the major party candidates] seem like theyre very, very set in their viewpoints, he said.

Logan will face Democratic incumbent Jennie Collier in the District 1 race.

Read more here:
Libertarian candidates seek municipal seats in New Albany - Evening News and Tribune

The Case Against the Public Property Rationale for Immigration … – Reason

One standard rationale for immigration restrictions is that governments have a right to exclude people much like the owner of a private house does. I have critiqued this argument here, and in greater detail in Chapter 5 of my book Free to Move: Foot, Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. Among other things, this theory, if taken seriously, is a rationale for a quasi-totalitarian state that can suppress speech, religion, and other liberties, at will. It also ends up undermining actual private property rights, by blocking property owners from renting to immigrants, hiring them to work on their land, and so on.

But there is a different, less well-known, property rights rationale for immigration restrictions, one that focuses on public property specifically. I have not seen a serious academic defense of it. But it's increasingly common on social media, and elsewhere, and has particular appeal to immigration restrictionists.

The public property theory (at least implicitly) concedes that the government cannot justly prevent immigrants from accessing the property of willing private owners. But, so the argument goes, it can prevent them from using public property. After all, the state does own public property, and therefore can regulate it as sees fit. Or, alternatively, public property is collectively owned by the state's citizens, and they can use democratic political processes to restrict access as they wish.

Under current law, public property includes almost all major roads, most air space, and most significant waterways (including coastal waters). Therefore, if the government is entitled to restrict access to public property as it wishes, it can effectively bar nearly all immigration, or as much of it as it wants. And it can do so without directly restricting anyone's private property rights! One can readily see why this argument has appeal to people who consider themselves libertarians (and therefore advocate strong private property rights), but also support sweeping immigration restrictions.

Unfortunately, the public property rationale for migration restrictions turns out to have illiberaland anti-libertarianimplications almost as dire as those of the house analogy. Libertarian political philosopher Christopher Freiman explains how:

Sometimes "bordertarians" argue that the state may restrict immigration because it may dictate how public propertyspecifically public roadscan be used. On this view, if the state decides that immigrants may not travel on public roads, then immigrants may not travel on public roads.

This is a bad view. I doubt that many of those who endorse it would grant that the state may prohibit citizens from traveling on public roads with books defending libertarianism in their car. States don't have carte blanche to violate people's liberties so long as they're located on public property. This is (one reason) why the "public property" objection to freedom of immigration failsthe state may not violate people's freedom of association or movement simply because they happen to make use of public roads.

If the governmentor a political majoritycan restrict access to public property however they wish, they can use that power to suppress a wide range of civil and economic liberties. For example, they could bar travel by critics of the government (or bar the distribution of their writings through public property). They could similarly bar adherents of religions they disapprove of (no more Jews on the roads; or no more Muslims!), and so on. Even if you think that real-world democratic governments would stop short of going this far, the public property theory suggests they would have no moral obligation to refrain from taking such measures (at least if they were backed by a majority of citizens).

The implications of the public property rationale for migration restrictions are particularly dire for libertarians. After all, we believe that people have a right to engage in a wide range of unpopular activities! On the public property theory, the state would be entirely justified in forbidding the use of public property to distribute any product it wishes to bar, whether it be drugs, alcohol, fatty foods, vaping products, or anything else. And, just as immigrants can be effectively barred from a nation if they cannot use public property, the same goes for virtually any good or service, so long as its distribution relies on the use of roads, aircraft, or public waterways.

Many of the libertarians sympathetic to the public property rationale for immigration restrictions also favor free trade. But the former can easily be used to destroy the latter. If the government can bar foreign people from roads and airways, the same goes for foreign-produced goods.

It isn't just libertarians who have strong reason to reject the public property theory, due to its dire implications. The same goes for liberals of any stripe who believe people have a right to engage in at least some unpopular activities that government might choose to suppress. After all, given the ubiquity of public property in modern society, almost any human interaction can be blocked by preventing people engaged in it from using roads, airways, and so on. For example, a homophobic society could use this power to bar gays and lesbians from the roads (thereby making it difficult or impossible for them to form relationships). If the house analogy is a direct path to a near-totalitarian state, the public property theory gets there by a back dooror perhaps by a back road!

It doesn't necessarily follow that libertarians (or anyone) must endorse the view that there should be no restrictions on access to public property. Freiman, I think, has a good approach for how to think about these issues:

So what's a better view of public property? Here's a first take: the state is justified in enforcing only those restrictions on the use of public property that are needed to ensure its functioning, assuming that the function of that property is, in itself, morally permissible. (Clearly the state is not justified in using public property in ways that directly violate rights, just as citizens are not justified in using private property in ways that directly violate rights.)

For instance, a public library may restrict your freedom to check out books by requiring that you have a library card because that restriction is needed to ensure that the lending system functions properly. But the library would not be justified in prohibiting those wearing [Dallas] Cowboys shirts from entering the library because that's not needed to ensure that the library is able to do its job.

Similarly, the state may restrict your freedom to drive on a public road when, for instance, it's being repaired. That's needed to ensure that the road functions properly. But the state would not be justified in prohibiting you from transporting particular books or people in your car.

No doubt this account will need some refinement, but I think it's at least the start of an answer to a hard question for libertarians.

As Freiman notes, the theory needs much more refinement. But it's at least a good start.

Immigration restrictionists can potentially argue, under Freiman's approach, that barring (at least some) immigrants from the roads is justified in order to ensure that they are not overused, or to prevent migrants from overburdening the welfare state, increasing crime, spreading harmful cultural values, and so on. But then the focus of the debate properly shifts to whether immigrants really do cause these harms, andif sowhether that justifies restricting migration (including by perfectly innocent people), as opposed to imposing "keyhole" solutions. In that event, the public property argument will no longer be doing any meaningful work.

One can argue that the danger of overuse of public property is more closely linked to its functions than some of these other issues, and therefore provides a stronger rationale for limiting immigrant access to roads and the like. But even if overuse is a genuine risk, it should not be addressed by restricting access based on morally arbitrary criteria of ancestry and place of birth (as immigration restrictions do). We can instead impose nondiscriminatory numerical limits, assess tolls, and the like. Moreover, some of the vast additional wealth created by immigration canif necessarybe tapped to build new infrastructure and finance the repair and upgrading of existing systems.

This entire issue might go away if you believe, as some libertarians do, that all or nearly all currently public property should be privatized. But if that's your view, you should also be opposed to the state using its current control over public property as leverage to impose sweeping restrictions on libertyincluding those of immigrants and natives who wish to engage in interactions with them.

Read more:
The Case Against the Public Property Rationale for Immigration ... - Reason