Replying to Burcgravius

Don't you support using the state to ensure equitable redistribution of wealth and a safety net?
Avatar
Trey Walsh 2y ago

No I just meant what would your definition of pro-state mean and do you support a state existing at all?

And yes I believe in some safety net programs by taxation. I’d prefer to not have that taxation, which I believe is too high btw, to be spent on endless war, bailouts for wall-street, and other bureaucratic mismanagement. I believe the scope and size of the federal govt should be smaller, but that it should do some basic safety net programs very, very well, and cut many of its other functions. That’s just me

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

4f
Burcgravius 2y ago

Well, not sure I could give you an exhaustive description of what 'pro-state' means to me, but actively defending its existance and utilisation towards what I'd call a... non-minimalist goal (such as welfare programs), so to speak, would certainly qualify.

I (philosophically) do not support the existance of the state, as it is ethically unjustified. **That said,** I think that a form of coercion in the rough shape of a state is sadly inevitable, at least in the close-to-mid future. What I'd defend is absolute decentralization — keep states as small and local as possible. If coordination is needed, it should follow a confederal model.

Thanks to this decentralization we could experiment in the areas of governance, so you'd be able to have welfare city-states and absolutely minarchistic city-states side by side.