FYI - Your healthcare nor your education is free, thats why you pay taxes.  The only thing you really have is less say in what you get for that money, next time you get annoyed with high prices in the EU relative to other regions you should remember that.

If people want to support this idealogy thats their choice, but lets not call it what it isn't.  And it most certainly isn't free.

I agree with most of the Libertarian platform. I can't line myself at all with what the Republican party is today. They can't claim to really be conservative at all. They're just the red Democrats in my mind.

 Unfortunately, I don't think this guy has much of a shot.  I really hope I'm wrong.

@Nick

Ron Paul may not win. We will know by how he does in New Hampshire. It is the most pro-freedom state in America and has the 1st primary. If he doesn't finish very well in NH, Ron Paul has no chance. I have given to the local Ron Paul meetup group and have held a sign for him in NH. NH is the big push and anyway you can help get his message out in NH would do wonders for Ron Paul.

Without our help, he is certain to lose. But with it, there is a chance.

Another Ron Paul supporter here. I'm registered independent, so I can't vote in the primaries, but he's got my vote in a moment if he wins the primary. (Yeah, fat chance of that, sadly...)

Liberalism is a great thing and I really like what I read in the article, so I really have respect for this guy even if he is a republican.

His ideas on taxes, however, I don't appreciate too much. Getting rid of income taxes and raising the sales taxes instead is highly unsocial, because it means everyone has to pay the same amount of taxes theoretically, and not only the same amount in percentage but in absolute numbers.

This guys sounds awesome.  But it also sounds like he would never be elected president, and even if he was he'd only end up vetoing half the legislation congress puts in front of him (which might be a great thing).

How does this work out?  I assume by "unsocial" you meant not progressive, or possibly regressive - neither of which seems true to me.  I was under the impression that buying more with sales tax = paying more.  If this policy works how I think it does then it might be great for America because you'd have a greater incentive to save your money (as opposed to spending it where you face a sales tax), and might help raise America's low saving rate.

The problem is that also poor people have to buy things, and they'll end up paying more taxes than they had with the income tax because there is no progression.

There are two things that make income taxes social:
One is that you pay taxes in percentage of your income and not an absolute amount. This might would happen with sales taxes too, but I don't think that you can assume that poor family with half the income of a richer family also buys exactly half as much things as the richer family; it would be more like 2/3 I guess. For example, the poor family probably won't go on holiday, while a rich family may will travel to a foreign country where they don't have too pay the american sales tax.

The other thing is the progression, and this would fell flat completely with a sales tax of course.


Of course there are ways to make a sales tax social, for example you can free food from the tax. But the question is if the tax brings enough money for the state if such things are done.

Way to patronize the guy. Do you honestly think he doesn't know how his own tax system works?

In the case of Parokki, yes, it is technically ‘free’, because he hasn't paid a lot of tax yet. But that's not the point of Socialism, obviously. The system exists primarily for the less fortunate - because they would never be able to pay for private services - as well as a means for the government to regulate how society grows and works. Yes, over here (Scandinavia/Europe), the government isn't considered evil. So, for those who pay very little taxes (they exist, of course, and enjoy a much superior life to their American-poverty brethren), it's ‘free’. And those who do pay for those people, well, they can afford it.

Now, Americans deluding themselves into thinking their country/ideology/garden/whatever is actually superior to others, rather than a functioning one... That’s another matter. Me? I don’t favour any system, but (Chinese) Communism is clearly where it’s at if you want progress.

Also, when I complain about prices, I complain about the difference after the VAT has been accounted for. Needless to say, it's still quite monumental, and is mostly a result of corporate greed.

 I was going to write the same thing... To word it differently, basically pay your education after you have your degree and have got a job, and that's also the point, when you start paying your healthcare and for your future retirement.

Chinese communism if you want progress? You call that capitalism.

While I want the Republican Party to pay libertarians more attention, his economic policies are complete and utter madness, so I hope he doesn't get elected.

Flat sales tax and no income tax means one thing: You'll be worse off the more money you spend, compared to your income. If you save a lot of money, you pay less taxes. If you spend most of your money, you get taxed out of the wazoo. Who happens to spend most of the money they earn? Poor people. Who invests most of their money? Rich people, that cover most of their needs with a fraction of their earnings. So a tax system like that would crush the poor and make the biggest fortunes in the country very happy... precisely the opposite of what the country needs. I think that leaving people unable to pay for their healthcare due to 'market conditions' is the sign of a third world country, and that's precisely what a libertarian economic policy would get us.

I agree with him on most constitutional issues though, so I do share more with him than with any other Republican candidate.