3 ms·

I’ve always felt that the least convincing arguments (for me) in favor of libertarianism have come from the already rich and powerful. I’m sympathetic to many l

I’ve always felt that the least convincing arguments (for me) in favor of libertarianism have come from the already rich and powerful. I’m sympathetic to many libertarian ideas; however, when an already powerful person argues for them I can’t shake the feeling that they simply want me to voluntarily give up governmental structures that are - probably - the most significant form of power I have access to (even if they are collectively possessed). This would seem to sync with the <it’s not wealth but power> alignment of the superclass.

api 8y ago
A key problem with libertarian thought is the notion that it is possible to erect a hard firewall between economic wealth and the power of the state (or any other entity or combination of them) to initiate force. In practice as long as the state (or any other force wielder) and economic actors exist in the same universe the latter can use money or deception to influence the former. Money can be used to amplify deception through intelligence tradecraft. This means that large enough concentrations of wealth inevitably tend to mutate into political power a.k.a. the power to initiate force. Rand is probably the worst offender when it comes to outright denying this and refusing to examine its implications.