3 ms·

> concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. I

> concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. I believe even those on your side of the political spectrum believe that corruption is what prevents the people from properly benefiting from government intervention. I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. I believe you and I have like ideals, but I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. > This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process. And yet the Soviet Union is the system that fell.

frenchy 5y ago
> I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. Let's not rewrite history here. All of the American wars of the last few decades where very popular with (most) American voters when then they started. There's no doubt the American military-industrial complex had some role in manufacturing consent, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the will of the American voters wasn't critical to the political strategy of the government.
js8 5y ago
> But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. Presumably, there would be government (or equivalent force) to enforce the private property rights? So I am not sure how that addresses the problem I outlined. And how do you make sure this force doesn't become corrupt? > I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. Here's the thing. I believe there is a third option that is outside the "capitalist" spectrum which I am talking about (the liberal society of freely trading men who each have plot of land vs authoritarian society of landed gentry as a result of capital accumulation). And that 3rd option is keeping wealth within certain limits by democratic control, through for example progressive taxes on either income or wealth, and redistribution of this to people who lost all (or most of) property, or just everybody in equal manner. Like a basic income that would be financed by the richest. See, this solution is different from both ends of the spectrum, and sidesteps the authoritarian problem (there is no decision to be made about where the money are going, there is a simple rule how they are redistributed, and this rule is agreed by consensus). The government that in libertarianism has to exist to enforce property rights could as well enforce this redistribution.

frenchy 5y ago

> I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. Let's not rewrite history here. All of the American wars of the last few decades where very popular with (most) American voters when then they started. There's no doubt the American military-industrial complex had some role in manufacturing consent, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the will of the American voters wasn't critical to the political strategy of the government.

js8 5y ago

> But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. Presumably, there would be government (or equivalent force) to enforce the private property rights? So I am not sure how that addresses the problem I outlined. And how do you make sure this force doesn't become corrupt? > I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. Here's the thing. I believe there is a third option that is outside the "capitalist" spectrum which I am talking about (the liberal society of freely trading men who each have plot of land vs authoritarian society of landed gentry as a result of capital accumulation). And that 3rd option is keeping wealth within certain limits by democratic control, through for example progressive taxes on either income or wealth, and redistribution of this to people who lost all (or most of) property, or just everybody in equal manner. Like a basic income that would be financed by the richest. See, this solution is different from both ends of the spectrum, and sidesteps the authoritarian problem (there is no decision to be made about where the money are going, there is a simple rule how they are redistributed, and this rule is agreed by consensus). The government that in libertarianism has to exist to enforce property rights could as well enforce this redistribution.