21 sats \ 14 replies \ @didiplaywell 26 Aug \ parent \ on: Curated list of awesome books and authors on libertarianism BooksAndArticles
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.
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.
reply
'Name an example of "strategising of the CCP" being benign'
Acquiring nuclear arms before falling out with the Soviet Union. Seizing control of Tibet before the USAs CIA could. If the USA had installed a puppet regime in Tibet and installed nuclear missiles in Tibet, China then still not recognised by the USA as a legitimate nation would have been under real and imminent danger.
The opening of the Chinese economy led by Deng Xiaoping which included the widespread liberalisation of the economy.
All three above have been deliberate and direct strategies of the CCP which have both preserved and advanced Chinas independence.
You provide no counter to my assertion that virtually all western nations are subservient to the USA both militarily and monetarily.
In stating China now operates an independent economy it is not so much that it does not trade with the west but rather that it produces such a wide range of goods that other nations can sustain their economies virtually in sole linkage with China.
For example now Iran and Russia both exist as viable economies because China both buys their exports (oil and gas) and provides the manufactured goods required for a modern economy.
In contrast can you name a single western economy that would not suffer immediate and direct economic disadvantage if it were to cease trade with China?
Yes China wants to maintain trade with others as much as posiible because it enjoys a trade balance advantage with nearly every other nation on the planet, but China is also aware of its size and ability to leverage that size and to force or at least strongly 'encourage' other nations to subserve on multiple issues. This has been demonstrated many times in recent years where China exercises its market dominance to further its control of narratives and markets.
China has won the trade war, via its centralised strategies as much as via its partially liberalised economy.
It is the delicate strategic balancing of free markets with state power projection that builds all empires.
And yes eventually empires decline- and this is central to my over all thesis- they decline when citizens cease to sufficiently appreciate how vital and pivotal the nation state and its positive strategic positioning is to the advance and advantage of any economy and its people.
Such a failure to appreciate is evident in both the woke left and Libertarians.
Unregulated markets alone will never achieve international dominance because there will always be other nations who are strategising and employing their resources to gain resource hegemony over others. Without that conscious strategising the Libertarian nation state will fail very quickly as it has no will or mandate to co-ordinate its resources against those of adversaries.
The west has become a vulnerable weakened and divided entity, one that may face defeat by a united and deliberate CCP.
In the west governments are controlled by capital, the bankers and corporates who rentseeking parasitise.
In China the government knows that failure to deliver year on year will result in a loss of the 'Mandate of Heaven' so far extended to the CCP.
Thus the west is a crony capitalism fake democracy while China is relatively more united and thus formidable as an adversary.
reply
Acquiring nuclear arms (...)
Examples on the state working solely on defense. Strict libertarianism, perfect.
widespread liberalisation of the economy
Example on the state leaving the economy to be freely managed by the people. Strict libertarianism, perfect.
I requested examples on your argument about the "strategising of the CCP" on the economy being good. Predictably, no such example exists. Of course.
You provide no counter to my assertion that virtually all western nations are subservient to the USA both militarily and monetarily.
Because I agree. Such keynesian practices must be abolished, replaced by a libertarian international policy.
For example now Iran and Russia both exist as viable economies because China both buys their exports (oil and gas) and provides the manufactured goods required for a modern economy.
That's the magic of free trade. Note how you correctly asserted that China is critically dependent on those basic goods without which it would not be able to energize nor feed its industrial power, hence not independent at all.
In contrast can you name a single western economy that would not suffer immediate and direct economic disadvantage if it were to cease trade with China?
No. That applies to china itself in the same exact way, as you yourself exemplified above.
This has been demonstrated many times in recent years where China exercises its market dominance to further its control of narratives and markets.
The USA exemplified its market dominance on China as well during the trade wars. What you seem to fail to see is that "trade" is a two-way operation for it's about "exchanges", so both sides suffer equally if it falls and prosper equally if it rises.
China has won the trade war
So did the US. You still fail to see that "trade" means "exchange". Again, it's a two-way operation, it's not one-sided.
And yes eventually empires decline...
...because no economy can scale on the basis of exploitation and no economy can develop on the basis of central planing, such a failure to appreciate that is evident on liberals.
Without that conscious strategising the Libertarian nation state will fail very quickly
Yet going back to reality only examples on the contrary exists, as all protective economies decline and all open economies prosper.
In the west governments are controlled by capital
Indeed, and that's what happens when you allow a welfare state to develop.
Thus the west is a crony capitalism fake democracy
Indeed, and that's what happens when you allow a welfare state to develop. And China is at government level no less of a crony capitalism, hence the reson for its current crisis. China is not a "formidable adversary", that's a ridiculous statement. China is an economic ally, and that's what we all want it to be, specially citizens. Alas, if you leave the state to consider China as an "enemy" on economic grounds, you have an unnecessary crisis served. People knew, the state didn't care.
Strategize sounds a lot like central planning.
Welfare is cash and food assistance, it is not a policy to "advance opportunities"
reply