A Liberal Libertarianism

Let me state for the record that I agree with both the premises and conclusions of Landsburg's argument against the minimum wage. If we are going to do something for low-income workers---and let's just assume that we should---the way to do it is through tax incentives, which not only generate at least as much wealth for them as minimum wages, but will also spread the cost of that wealth creation more evenly and fairly among the general population. Moreover, it would create incentives for workers in the lower tax brackets to be more productive.

This leads me to present, in admittedly highly generalized terms, a vision of a libertarian economy and polity that I think is both more appealing and more likely to be a success than antecedent forms, which tend to range from rabid Aynrandism (I refuse sully the word "objective" through that association) to mild pro-Republicanism on fiscal grounds.

Conceding that some form of taxation is necessary for the maintenance of a nation-state (and also the supra-national states that are likely to emerge in the future), the question is how should a government go about securing income. Most libertarians believe in some kind of flat tax or national sales tax. I couldn't disagree more. Those proposals are hideously punitive towards the working and middle class. The idea that assigning an arbitrary percentage of everyone's income to be taxed, or else some atmospherically high duty on all transactions, is the sort of thing that, if put into effect, inspires third-estate revolutions [what are you doing for Bastille day?--ed.].

The ideal libertarianism, instead, is an economy free of price controls of all sorts (this includes minimum wages), free of any sort of protectionist barriers to trade, and supported by a single, heavily graduated income tax (which I suppose would have to be apportioned in some manner along state and federal lines). No more sales taxes, tolls, or tarriffs. Gone, too, would be the payroll tax, a mechanism by which the government gains income for itself by digging deeply into the pockets---and putting a stamp on the paychecks---of people who can least afford to surrender any more of their own income to the treasury. Getting rid of payroll taxes would carry the ancillary benefit of forcing a more honest debate on taxes; Republicans could no longer make the Clintonian claim that low-income earners do not pay income tax, which may technically be true, but is deliberately and entirely misleading, since the payroll tax is a tax against income.

Let the free market reign, or ring, whichever's correct.