42 sats \ 22 replies \ @didiplaywell 25 Aug \ parent \ on: Curated list of awesome books and authors on libertarianism BooksAndArticles
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.
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?
reply
Ok so any policy by government that seeks to advance the opportunities of all citizens
That's strictly an absurdity in the logical sense: if the state tries to "advance the opportunities of all citizens" then it can not do but to take from all citizens what's already theirs and give it back leaving everything where it was, and even if by spontaneous creation such zero-game cycle could create new wealth from thin air then everyone is again with the same level differences effectively providing no difference in opportunity. Hence the liberal absolute and strict nonsense on that stance.
And yet if we only take the "advance the opportunities of some" you have the root of all evil and the reason welfare states start differentiating between first class and second class citizens, and the reason why corporate monopolies prosper within welfare states.
If so how would such a state prevent monopolies and cartels?
Monopolies are prevented by the state taking no jurisdiction on economic and corporate policies, which is the only way they get granted exclusivity at scale. When the state do not interferes on those matters, competition within a free-market effectively dissolves monopolies and cartels unless they are performant by themselves giving no reason to compete. Welfare states are the most efficient way to grant the prevalence of monopolies and cartels because only a welfare state can "advance the opportunities of some" hence once again a strict absurdity of the liberal stance of trying to avoid monopolies by allowing the state to selectively define privileges. It's impossible to comprehend that such an obvious fallacy is so difficult for liberals to see.
Welfare is cash and food assistance, it is not a policy to "advance opportunities"
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