3 ms·

Feudal Europe was feudal Europe because it was a Malthusian state. Economic growth was quickly eaten by population growth. Libertarianism doesn't seem any more

Feudal Europe was feudal Europe because it was a Malthusian state. Economic growth was quickly eaten by population growth. Libertarianism doesn't seem any more likely to increase the rate of reproduction relative to the rate of economic growth.

majormajor 10y ago
The comparison comes from how, recently, economic growth has largely been captured by an increasingly small subset. The who/what of the eating of the economic growth matters less than its being eaten.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  Sure. But the reason the lot of the average person was bad was because of the Malthusian equilibrium. Because economic growth was eaten immediately by population growth basicly everyone was at subsistence; elites capturing a disproportionate share of the resources didn't decrease average welfare. It moderately decreased the population, but the rest lived at subsistence. As the elites created the science and economics that allowed us to escape, however temporarily, from the Malthusian condition, I find it very hard to begrudge them for actions that didn't even decrease average welfare.
  - majormajor 10y ago
    I don't think that, in the context of moving to a libertarian-as-pitched-in-the-USA state, "didn't even decrease average welfare" would hold true. A massive amount of publicly funded services would be cut. So if we take as a given the ability of these elites to capture the cost savings of that for themselves, you end up with the average worker receiving no more money (since it's been captured) yet receiving fewer services (since the public ones were cut). All the leverage[0] is in the hands of the owners, not the workers. [0] excluding leverage such as "there are more of us so we can outvote you" and "there are more of us so we could revolt" - the first is presumed to have not happened, for whatever reason, by the assumption of the existence of this libertarian state, and the second would be a violation of the property rights that USA-libertarians hold so central.

majormajor 10y ago

The comparison comes from how, recently, economic growth has largely been captured by an increasingly small subset. The who/what of the eating of the economic growth matters less than its being eaten.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
Sure. But the reason the lot of the average person was bad was because of the Malthusian equilibrium. Because economic growth was eaten immediately by population growth basicly everyone was at subsistence; elites capturing a disproportionate share of the resources didn't decrease average welfare. It moderately decreased the population, but the rest lived at subsistence. As the elites created the science and economics that allowed us to escape, however temporarily, from the Malthusian condition, I find it very hard to begrudge them for actions that didn't even decrease average welfare.
- majormajor 10y ago
  I don't think that, in the context of moving to a libertarian-as-pitched-in-the-USA state, "didn't even decrease average welfare" would hold true. A massive amount of publicly funded services would be cut. So if we take as a given the ability of these elites to capture the cost savings of that for themselves, you end up with the average worker receiving no more money (since it's been captured) yet receiving fewer services (since the public ones were cut). All the leverage[0] is in the hands of the owners, not the workers. [0] excluding leverage such as "there are more of us so we can outvote you" and "there are more of us so we could revolt" - the first is presumed to have not happened, for whatever reason, by the assumption of the existence of this libertarian state, and the second would be a violation of the property rights that USA-libertarians hold so central.