As others on this list have noted, Natl and State LP appears to be drifting toward Big Govt Conservative-Republicanism. The latest I've seen in this trend is Brian Holtz's article, "A Taxation Taxonomy," in the Sept. 2006 California Freedom.
There's much to criticize, the most egregious of which is the statement: "In the following taxonomy I describe various kinds of tax in decreasing order of desirability."
First of all, I don't think this has anything to do with conservatism, or Republicanism, but simple moderation. First of all, since this is moderating a fiscal position, and not a social position, looking at it logically one would conclude that overall this position is moving LEFT of the LP status quo, not RIGHT. I must confess, I've never been so big on the whole "no taxes" thing. I'm strongly non-anarchist, and if it is possible to fund the police and military without having taxes, that would be great. However, if that's not possible, ranking my priorities, "having police" is higher up there than "absolutely no taxes, ever." I don't see anything un-libertarian about this position.
Some major problems with this are:
1. Desirable for whom? A major lesson of libertarianism is we're all unique individuals with our own values, preferences, and desires. What's desirable for one is often not for another. "Decreasing order of desirability" is groupthink.
Well, I see the issue of taxes as an issue of benefit. Any just taxes should be a true user fee, for a service from which everyone benefits. Taxes used to facilitate distribution of income are highly undesirable. Police and military protection, along with courts, are one of those true public goods where you can't just "opt out" of in anything other than a true anarchist situation, so they are the least undesirable taxes. Things like roads fall somewhere in the middle. In general, the taxes you pay should be as proportional as possible to the services you expect to receive, so someone who lives in say, Michigan, where I'm from, might have to pay more road taxes than someone from New York City, where the majority of people drive very little.
2. Who decides what this order of desirability is? I assume Big Govt.
At some point, the government is going to decide things, unless we're anarchists, and if you take your libertarian purity argument to the logical conclusion, then the only "real" libertarians are anarchists. This position isn't accepted by most libertarians, and it certainly is quite unproductive for any sort of discourse.
3. What is to be done with this "decreasing order of desirability"? I imagine levy a "desirable tax" (an oxymoron). Forcibly imposing one person's preferences on another (in the form of taxes, no less!) is anti-liberty.
Maybe taxes are undesirable to some people, but if given the choice between paying taxes and getting shot, I know what I'd choose. I think the vast majority of people would agree with me.
Jeremy