The elected officials of your country spent taxes to create an environment that was perfectly suitable for J.K. Rowling to grow in? Your elected officials sound like really good gardeners.
The thing is… I’m really not a libertarian… I’m a pragmatarian. I don’t think that there’s anything inherently wrong with taxes… as long as people have the option to choose where they go.
Would Rowling choose the option to directly allocate her taxes? Why would she want to prevent the elected officials from spending her taxes for her? After all, wouldn’t she strongly perceive that the elected officials were very capable cultivators of talent?
What percentage of people would choose the option to directly allocate their taxes themselves?
I think if you have confidence that the cultivation capabilities of congress are crystal clear to competent citizens… then you should have no problem giving citizens the option to directly allocate their taxes. Unless you’re worried that there aren’t enough competent citizens? A shortage of competent citizens would clearly communicate that congress wasn’t very capable of cultivating competent citizens.
Yeah, I know you have parliament instead of congress… but the word “congress” worked better for my alliteration.
“This is a discussion from within the perspective that your radical libertarianism is wrong, not an attempt to prove it wrong.”
Like I said, I’m not a libertarian. But if you weren’t interested in feedback from libertarians then you really should have said so. Or you should have said something like, “I’m only interested in feedback from people who share my perspective.” Or, “I’m not interested in any feedback that will challenge my basic premise.” Or, “I’m not interested in feedback from people who’ve actually read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith”. Or, “I’m only interested in feedback from people who are just as clueless about economics as I am.”
Personally, if I was only interested in feedback from people who shared my perspective… then I’d still be a libertarian.