tough question. many expressed libertarian (or classical liberal) views on a range of issues. Yet I am dubious that more than a tiny %, and perhaps none, would consistently favor, e.g., the full set of positions I outlined. maybe it was easier historically because one did not have to address both social and economic issues; government was not yet intervening so much on the social side.
I see no need to scale back the social insurance system, but however much or little it is scaled back, pay for it with a VAT No borrowing for non-investent.
Do you think Van Buren’s the closest we’ve come to this (cf. Hummel 1999; https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_04_2_hummel.pdf)?
tough question. many expressed libertarian (or classical liberal) views on a range of issues. Yet I am dubious that more than a tiny %, and perhaps none, would consistently favor, e.g., the full set of positions I outlined. maybe it was easier historically because one did not have to address both social and economic issues; government was not yet intervening so much on the social side.
Good article. I especially related to your plea to reduce federal spending. Please see:
https://tommast.substack.com/p/federal-debt-risks?r=b29s7
Tom Mast
It would be a dream come true.
What do you think about Javier Milei?
I have minor quibbles on a few policies, but overall he seems to be delivering as promised and focusing on the right things.
I see no need to scale back the social insurance system, but however much or little it is scaled back, pay for it with a VAT No borrowing for non-investent.