pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 19 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Aug \ parent \ on: Curated list of awesome books and authors on libertarianism BooksAndArticles
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.
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.
reply
You put forward your argument very well but I cannot somehow accept that there are no circumstances where the state can advance objectives and strategies which take and employ the nations resources and which in turn advance the wealth and opportunities of all citizens.
For example, the modern Chinese state has taken an extremely centralised state directed approach to development which appears at least to have been very successful in increasing the economic development of China and increasing the wealth of most Chinese.
By all means there may be drawbacks and costs, but surely there are also advantages that can be won by the state taking a strategy to advance itself and its people ?
In contrast you seem to be arguing that 'the invisible hand' of free enterprise will always deliver more than a state led strategy, but if we look at history that seems proven wrong.
Each empire that has dominated global trade and resources has done so by employing the resources of the nation state to advance the nation state and its people.
The successful imperialist nation state employs science, education, often religion, trade, diplomacy and development of resources to advance the opportunities of itself and its people.
Without such a strategy I suggest the nation of China would not have achieved the advances in wealth and opportunity it has in the last 30-40 years.
Welfare is cash and food assistance, it is not a policy to "advance opportunities"
reply