1. Jesse Kopelman on November 8, 2005 03:01 PM writes...

Supporting Bush and Microsoft is about whether one believes that greed is good. The idea that the only duty of a corporation (especially one that is publically held) is to grow is an idea that was taken to new heights by Microsoft's old no dividend policy. Bush has shown time and time again that he is commited to helping the rich get richer, no matter the societal cost. Many support Bush because he is against putting any restrictions on corporate behavior. Many use the argument of trickle down econmoics to support this stance (I believe in trickle down myself, but think there is a bigger picture to consider in the case of monopolistic practices). I wonder though, by instituting a dividend is Microsoft illustrating that they are no longer on the same team as Bush? It is harder to drive out competition at any cost when one must pay cash to do so.

2. jorant on November 8, 2005 06:21 PM writes...

what about the illustration is "liberal"? that she has brown skin? are liberals the only ones interested in brown-skinned people? weird.

3. Brad Hutchings on November 8, 2005 06:22 PM writes...

Small l-libertarian, support Bush's international policies, especially free trade and fighting Islamofascism abroad rather than here, wish he was more aggressive privatizing social security, implementing tax reform (first choice: national sales tax, second choice: VAT, third choice: Forbes style flat tax), leary of religious conservatives but not scared of them -- they make great canon fodder for political battles, etc.

Attitude toward Microsoft: Most efficient wealth and value generating machine invented in the history of man, done primarily by the 120 IQ crowd (smart, not brilliant), products bloated, not elegant. Tend to be good enough, not great.

Attitude toward open source: BSD crowd does valuable stuff, has right perspective. GPL crowd annoying and pedantic. I'd take some BSD software over MS if they were only options on a case-by-case basis. GPL is a turn-off though, don't want any part of it.

Prefer my Mac, iPod, and other nice things. Prefer simplicity and elegance in design. Support the concept of intellectual property, I pay for music, etc.

The problem I have with O'Reilly's brand of altruism is that it benefits really dispicable people (as you may define them) as much as it benefits people on your side of things. I prefer to donaate money or volunteer for causes I'm alligned with than donate my work product for the good of everyone. YMMV.

4. Jesse Kopelman on November 9, 2005 03:15 PM writes...

What kind of libertarian supports sales tax? Why should a person be punished for improving the economy? Now, supporting only corporate taxes I could understand. Clearly your preference is preserving individual wealth over collective gain. You sound more like a big-C Conservative to me, Brad.

5. Brad Hutchings on November 9, 2005 05:59 PM writes...

What kind of libertarian supports sales tax?

A national retail sales tax (perhaps with an exception for food/necessities and perhaps with a credit for poor families) in place of graduated income tax is a favorite of any libertarian. Cato, Reason, etc. all endorse it. It's gotten support from former House W&M chairman Bill Archer, etc. It is fair, not punitive, encourages savings the right way, and separates tax policy from politics. A VAT would be acceptable too as a replacement for income tax, but the European experience shows it to be quite prone to politcal tampering. Big C conservatives are more on board with Steve Forbes' or Phil Graham's flat income tax. I see it as way better than status quo, but not idea, as it still taxes production rather than consumption.

If you think my preference is clearly preserving individual wealth over collective gain, you need to Windex your eyes. In supporting a national sales tax, for example, I am all for ditching the home mortgage tax deduction, which certainly doesn't benefit many poor folk in California! If by collective gain, you mean growth of the economy, yeah sure. But I would bet you mean everyone gaining equally, and that's a joke. Production is way overtaxed and way over regulated by the tax code today. A rising tide does lift all boats, but the people who lift it will do a lot more lifting if they aren't punished for achieving.

6. Jesse Kopelman on November 10, 2005 04:05 PM writes...

No, by collective gain I mean growth of the economy. Cato, Reason, and especially Bill Archer are not libertarians they are Conservatives. To claim that taxing consumption is somehow good and taxing production is bad is ridiculous. There is no reason for production without consumption. Allow consumption to be unfettered and production will naturally increase (assuming the market is fair). Obviously, you can make exactly the reverse argument and the fact that you don't indicates that you acknowledge the market is not fair and you prefer to give the advantage to the producers (who have the wealth) rather than the consumers (who generally do not). Again, the real libertarian solution is to avoid all taxes on individuals (sales or income) and tax only corporations. This would give corporations more reason to distribute profits back to investors, pay off debt, or even just pay higher salaries/better benefits and thus create more individual wealth which would offset the reduced tax revenue by reducing reliance on government services.

7. Brad Hutchings on November 10, 2005 05:01 PM writes...

You're absolutely right Jesse. My bad. A windfall profit tax on the oil companies would be a very libertarian start. It's the conservatives who now run Reason post Virginia Postrel -- you know, like editor Nick Gillespie, who has much more of a penchant for articles about free illicit drugs and gay sex and who oppose the Iraq War. Would you call them neo-cons, paleo-cons, or just big C Conservatives? Tough call to make, seeing as they're all pretty much the same.

Anyway, Jesse is right. I don't know what I'm talking about. I apologize to the 5 people reading this for any misunderstanding I might have created and especially to the 4 of those 5 who are completely confused by this post.