21 sats \ 16 replies \ @didiplaywell 26 Aug \ parent \ on: Curated list of awesome books and authors on libertarianism BooksAndArticles
Yes I do, that's the exact libertarian stance on the state's reason to exist.
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.
reply
which appears at least to have been very successful
There's but one rule regarding the "success of centralized states": it's always a fake show mounted on the backs of others at best (on nothing more commonly). Unavoidably the case of China is no exception. If you want to know the reason China experimented great economic and industrial success you will find that, unavoidably, it has to do with libertarian policies: enter the Guangdong model. Please, check it by yourself. That libertarian industrial powerhouse coupled with Hong Kong and Shanghai (paradises of free economy within China) are responsible of the prosperity chinese people enjoy today. All the drawbacks come solely from state enforced policies, including, of course, the state fuelled monopoly of Evergrande and the terrible current chinese crisis it's greatly responsible for.
but surely there are also advantages that can be won by the state taking a strategy to advance itself and its people
It's a physical impossibility, repeatedly demonstrated in practice, and China is an excellent example: the one thing that worked was liberatarianism, the one thing that failed were centralized policies. And it can't be otherwise due to The Calculation problem.
but if we look at history that seems proven wrong
Name one example.
The successful imperialist nation state...
... are the ones that prospered by profiting from the spoils of war and merciless exploitation of their colonies. All and every-single one of them met their demise when their expansions stalled, for it was their sole source of wealth, not productivity as the capitalist scheme allows.
reply
I enjoy your perspective and arguments.
I accept a very great part of Chinas amazing growth has been due to the liberalisation that has occurred, freeing citizens to gain reward for their efforts rather than shackled to the collectivist communist workplace models of the past.
However it does not seem so sure that without the overall strategising of the CCP that Chinas advance would have been so great.
In my opinion the secret is in balancing the freedoms given citizens with the need for an overall strategy that deals with the wider geopolitical environment any state finds itself operating.
Afterall today China is now perhaps the only nation state to have achieved such a level of self determination as it currently enjoys, operating a near full and independent economy from the western US led hegemony, now challenging that western hegemony via proxy wars led by Iran and Russia.
It seems niave to me that anyone could consider that a nation state can ignore the need to focus and strategise against the ploys and resource hegemony of competing nations.
How many nations today are free of US monetary and military dominance?
Japan, Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada, S.Korea are all monetary and militarily subservient tribute states to the USA, and most other nation states are at least forced to hold USDs at their central banks or be excluded from global trade payments as punishment.
Today China is challenging the US global monetary and military hegemony...because it has build a cohesive broad and mostly successful economy deliberately staged and evolved to give China a degree of self determination no other nation state enjoys.
reply
However it does not seem so sure that without the overall strategising of the CCP that Chinas advance would have been so great.
You have the right to think that at first yet conclusions shall come from evidence. Name an example of "strategising of the CCP" being benign. I showed you that the one thing that worked was no "strategising of the CCP" but freedom. I showed you that the one thing that failed and keeps failing was "strategising of the CCP".
operating a near full and independent economy from the western US
That's just not true. I assume it will be evident for you that China is THE world provider on almost any good and industry. That's not being and "independent" economy, it means it's depending on the rest of the world to keep up economic growth. Not only that but the main market China has is the US market, to such an extent that it even affects the deficit balance of such a behemoth as the US . That also means that China will keep holding USD to trade, unless it wants to lose 18% of its exports income (hint, it will not). Even more, China depends on the international market so much that it had to take a neutral stance on the Ukrainian conflict despite of its main geopolitical ally being part of it. That should speak by itself.
It seems naive to me that anyone could consider that a nation state can ignore the need to focus and strategise against the ploys and resource hegemony of competing nations.
Yet the truth is the exact opposite. Such perfect examples:
- It was evident for the german population that energetic independence was important, yet it was it's governement the one to destroy nuclear plants to replace them with coal plants and an absolute dependence on Russian oil. The ensuing energy crisis has resulted in shortages and increasing prices. People knew, the state didn't.
- It was evident for both chinese and usa people that their trades where good for both yet it was the USA state decision to impose trade restrictions that caused nothing but damage to both economies and had to be reverted. Why would you think that China so vehemently asked for its trade rights back had it not depended on it? People knew, the state didn't.
Why would you think that such obvious fragile dependences are not obvious for the very people working on those industries? Yet in all cases their governments were the ones to misjudge, and to no surprise: how do you expect the state to have a better understanding than the very people actually involved on the matter? How could you trust the state with a decision based on knowledge it lacks, whose consequences will not affect it, and neglect the decisions that the people that does is directly implicated by the issue can perfectly recognize and judge by themselves? If you then say that that people must be considered in the decision then why would you put the state in the middle? I tell you why: because when it comes from the state decisions can only be political not strategical. Hence the massive disasters of the mentioned examples.
Welfare is cash and food assistance, it is not a policy to "advance opportunities"
reply