This is a tax enforced by gov't force. The gov't would use that money to protect our property and markets from people who would use force to disrupt fair trade and property. It can only do that, for most AR-followers, using methods that sound like punishment. If it smacks of helping, i.e. providing meals and job training, many AR supporters have a problem it even if the aid program were shown to be as effective as criminal penalties. There may be a philosophical reason for this, which I would like to learn about, but it also appeals to Gail Wynands: someone hurt them and this philosophy is a chance to hurt someone else.

I'm not saying this to belittle the idea of taxing sales. It just seems like if we moved to a libertarian utopia, it would quickly develop many of the same features of the US. I really want people to move to radically different places, "Gulches" in space, floating on the sea, in remote arctic places, or anywhere where people might find new solutions that might lead the way for the future, kind of the like the US did.

Everytime you buy a product of high value or service of high value or long term contract you 'd pay a fee that goes to a general fund. Same when you contract in business, including licensing agreements, leases, that sort of thing. That is one way there are other solutions.

How would you pay for policing or military protection? I can think of some creative ideas, but they all end up relying on some people people funding them voluntarily while many people freeload.

"The Virtue of Selfishness" AR, it's a slim volume, chock full.
There are many alternatives to deliver public services. Force is not necessary. Merely the absence of remedy can be sufficient. Happy to talk about that on another thread. For purposes here, land and other property rights are privately held (should be) and you pay when that right is transferred to you and recorded and you pay if there is a dispute. Applications for other property rights are paid for in order to acquire them. For instance, the Patent and Trademark Office is the only agency of the federal government which is self-sustaining. That is, the fees inventors pay, pays for the operation in complete. Private charities should handle the infrastructure of welfare. Private insurance and pools should cover things like loss of job, disability, etc. Medical care should be completely private. Don't pay-don't get treated.

Do we need to use force, though, to collect the taxes that pay for the police that defend us against those who would initiate force? I'm not sure what the objectivist answer is, but it seems you need to use force to keep people from getting a free ride: enjoying the benefits of having police without paying for them. If we don't reject forced taxes to stop evildoers, then IMHO we cannot reject on principle forced taxes to pay for things aimed at helping people.

I would benefit from reading the whole text of what she quoted around 2:22.

me too.

You have convinced me that libertarians are not what I thought they were on the issue of property rights. I would have insisted on "property" in addition to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

An incrementalist libertarian movement is probably what is necessary to save America, but I don't think I'll be around to take advantage of such a transformation.

"it's impossible to have a free market providing the force to protect us from uses of force that destroy the free market."
One is the initiation of force, the other is self-defense. But the difference is impossible to decide unless we define property and rights to property. Objectivism defines it. Libertarians(not all but a large group) don't want to or their definition is a privilege not a right. .

I would have shamefully liked watching her say almost anything, but that quickly faded as she got into an interesting overview of Rand's problems with various types of libertarianism.

As she says, objectivism is a reality/knowledge theory, while libertarianism is a political philosophy. When I say I'm "libertarian" I mean I want modest incremental reforms that support a kind of liberty consistent with my understanding of objectivist philosophy.

Rumpler briefly mentions a quote saying it's impossible to have a free market providing the force to protect us from uses of force that destroy the free market. It seems like she's suggesting we need a Leviathan to keep order. I agree, but I think it should be minimal and carefully constructed with the consent of the governed.

From a political standpoint, I wish objectivists would give support to any proposal to decrease the intrusiveness and size of gov't. I don't see a fast libertarian revolution or a collapse of modern society coming. It will keep going like this. People elected to office will keep having to choose whether to seek support from those who hate gun owners or pot smokers. As soon as something like the Tea Party or OWS appears, politicians must scramble to pull them into the bi-partisan narrative. It can't be that the Tea Party and OWS wanted less intrusive/expensive gov't. It must be they're racist or communist. It must come back to hating your neighbors. As long as OWS and their Tea Party neighbors are mad at one another, the bi-partisan consensus is safe.

I think we need an "incrementalist" libertarian movement.