Subnostr

FWIW: I think you need to first stake out a normative claim, before you can answer the question of whether or not government-intervention is helpful for unhelpful to achieving that goal. I reject the idea that human progress is naturally more fruitful in the absence of the state. There's literally no empirical evidence to believe this is true. It *could* be true. But there's no historical or contemporary examples that would support it, that exist outside pure rational inductions inside of people's minds.

Louferlou 3y ago

There is literally tons of examples showing that less state = more wealth for citizens, and more state = less wealth, and the reasons are obvious IMO even without reading Austrian economyat all. Everybody can basically tell that there is an obvious correlation between the enforcement of private property and wealth on this planet.

But empirical reasoning is dirty garbage Keynesian tool to create absurd predictive models suiting to those who create them anyway.

Indeed it’s not about results or doing good or evil, as all of this is subjective stuff. It’s about being moral or immoral. You don’t seem to agree that violence should be banned to build a peaceful society (unless you first act violently). It’s not a trap from libertarians living in a utopia, like you seem to believe. It’s basically the obvious ground and root upon which a prosperous civilization must be built… The State (which is basically the gathering of the means of legitimate defense) should only be there to prevent violence of occurring. You step out of that you get 1984 eventually.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike Brock 3y ago

You'll note that I'm not arguing "the more state, the better". So you're essentially making a straw man argument, here.

Louferlou 3y ago

What I wanted to say is that as you mentioned (and I don’t think any liberal thinker argues that by the way) neither is there an ideal state of nature or equilibrium which will prevent the State from growing indefinitely as it already happened multiple times and everywhere in human history.

I think that once you’ve made the State able to steal from ones to give to others, basically ripping out the obvious non agression principle, it’s over you’ve lost and there is no turning back. You’ve create a honey pot for private interests and lobbies and it’s a never ending fight for who will steal from who.

Basically it means that State intervention out of enforcing the non aggression principle is doomed and lead to a dystopian future because of human nature.

There is no moral gouvernement intervention as good or bad are different to every people. If the market forces can’t auto organize to provide a service, it has no reason to exist. The market is true democracy in a world where violence is not tolerated.