0 sats \ 25 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Aug \ on: Curated list of awesome books and authors on libertarianism BooksAndArticles
The problem with Libertarianism is it does not understand the true competitive nature of human societies and in particular the competitive nature that exists between them.
Libertarianism casts the citizen as a victim of the state, in a tragic poor me characterisation which ignores reality.
The reality is that humans orgaqnise into groups for mutual benefit. Nations states are such groups based on geography. The way in which a nation state organises determines the wealth and opportunities of its citizens and nation states compete between each other for access to resources.
Libertarians almost exclusively originate from nation states which have come to dominate resource hegemony and where citizens enjoy substantial benefits from being citizens compared to other nation states where a lesser share of global resources has been gained.
Libertarians dismiss the significance of the nation states role in promoting and protecting their opportunities freedoms and wealth.
Instead they decry the demands of the state as unjust.
Libertarians should go live somewhere where the state is failed and it fails to provide the wealth of opportunities western liberal democracies grant their citizens.
That's a perfect description of liberals not "libertarians", it's normal to get the words mixed.
Just to get it straight, Libertarianism arises from the assessment of human nature and doesn't tries to negate it as liberals try to do.
Failed states are where liberals blossom due to vicious cycle welfare states use to "break legs and give away crutches" which keeps the population in an endless state of self-victimizaition and dependence based on the "poor me" strategy you described.
No state can provide no wealth, so libertarian states ensure equal opportunity for all to self develop, which is the reason western democracies have flourished. Sadly the recent turn towards liberal policies is increasingly undermining that progress, hopefully their populations will realize on that error before entering in the vicious cycle of dependence that grants welfare-states decades of impunity to exploit their populations at whim.
reply
No confusion about word definitions, although I agree liberals and the 'woke' share many of the same attributes, albeit with a different twist.
The liberals are more likely to demand so called 'rights' from the state while equally ignoring their debt to the state.
You argue that 'no state can provide no wealth' so libertarian states ensure equal opportunity for all to self develop' this is a self evident nonsense.
The state can ideally does provide multiple mechanisms to advance and advantage the citizen. It is tragic evidence of entitlement that Libertarians cannot see this.
Thus they need to go to a failed state to see how lucky they are in the 'liberal western democracies' they almost exclusively inhabit.
reply
this is a self evident nonsense
It's not, in the slightest. When the state provides legal grounds, it provides no wealth. The welfare state do "provides" wealth directly, by exploiting and eroding the people that produces it. No wonder liberals can not tell the difference, for their primary identity trait is having no clue how wealth is produced.
It's tragic evidence of reality denial, worrisome to say the least, liberals can not see the state provides no advanced mechanism of no kind whatsoever, thus they blossom from failed states that make that delirium a fake reality while leading to an inevitable ulterior collapse due to exploitation being an unsustainable strategy.
reply
So you place no value upon the protection the state provides you from other states?
And from criminals within the state who might seek to take your property and or harm you directly?
reply
Yes I do, that's the exact libertarian stance on the state's reason to exist.
reply
Ok good to know you accept that fundamental good the state provides.
However I am guessing you reject the states provision of health care, roading, education, public transport, retirement programs and other welfare?
reply
Ok good to know you accept that fundamental good the state provides.
It's not that I "accept it" like if it's an uncomfortable confession, it's an explicit libertarian stance you will hear from any exponent and read from any book. It's the one thing we claim the state should exist for. You might be mistaking libertarianism by anarchy if you ever thought otherwise.
Other than that, any sort of welfare policy can't but destroy a country economy, infrastructure, and it's society from the core. Healing from such cultural and economic damage can take decades and requires a complete generational cleansing to fully heal.
reply
Ok so any policy by government that seeks to advance the opportunities of some or all citizens is bad - unless it is related directly to the protection of citizens from other states or citizens within the state?
If so how would such a state prevent monopolies and cartels?
Are you familiar with Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell?
Two different and opposing views of human nature:
Constrained vision vs Unconstrained vision
Constrained is sometimes described as tragic.
Unconstrained is utopian.
reply
I didn't, but I like the libertarian take on that: the balanced vision, between constrained and unconstrained. Libertarianism is constrained in that it sets base rules that a person must respect when interacting with others namely: respect the life, integrity, freedom and property of thy neighbour. Yet it's unconstrained in that it allows freedom of action within those rules. The key difference with other constrained schemes is that libertarianism defines the rules from the bottom up, allowing freedom, whereas liberals and keynesians define the rules from the top down, precluding freedom.
reply
It's probably a good idea to start reducing your reliance on the state.
The dominant philosophies of the future will live in reality, and surmise subjectivizing individuals in 2055 as impractical.
reply
That's a strong and sweeping statement of faith backed by very little objective fact based evidence, logic or argument.
reply