3 ms·

You are painting all libertarians with a broad brush. Just as not all Democrats are communists and not all Republicans are Nazis, not all libertarians are anarc

You are painting all libertarians with a broad brush. Just as not all Democrats are communists and not all Republicans are Nazis, not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists that want the state to be destroyed. It is a way to dismiss libertarians but it isn’t true. I’m a libertarian and I still want our constitutional republic in the US. I just advocate for market-based solutions vs. top-down paternalistic solutions and I want to reduce the size of the government. But I believe in the military, police, laws, taxes, etc.

elif 4y ago
No, I'm painting historical secessionist libertarian movements as secessionist libertarian movements. The abolition and replacement of the state. Reformist libertarians are categorically excluded from the context of my criticism.
- stale2002 4y ago
  Ok, but the point here is that "reformist libertarians" are the much larger group. The vast majority of people who call themselves libertarians are merely moderately economically right wing and moderately socially left wing.
  - elif 4y ago
    That has no bearing on the original proposal vitalik is responding to being tinged with the nation-building folly of seccessionists.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      Sure it does. It has something to do with it, because there are ways of achieving their goals without some massive, giant, violent revolution. Special economic zones, are the most common example of this, and are created by countries in a perfectly legal way, without some violent revolution. Using financial resources to get a country to create a special economic zone would be both reformist, non revolutionary or violent, and has historical examples of being achieved.
imtringued 4y ago
Money is a source of power, maybe the biggest source, often strong enough to overpower democratic governments. Reducing the state just makes society more vulnerable to those who abuse the power that money has granted them. When you think about it, the answer isn't to make the state smaller, the answer should be to make big states unnecessary then they will shrink on their own. Almost every ideology has fallen into this trap. They see a worthy end goal, but they have no clue how to achieve it, here is a common example, the government wants lower housing costs, a lot of leftist governments just introduce price controls and force the price down by decree. They don't bother understanding the reason why prices are unsatisfactory, they don't bother researching potential bottlenecks on the side of the law that prevent housing supply from meeting demand. There is a long chain of events that has lead to this situation and you must unravel it or at least try to think one step further and let your successor try to find the next link to solve.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  > Reducing the state just makes society more vulnerable to those who abuse the power that money has granted them. I don't understand... how other people don't understand this point. When the powerful gather enough power to change the rules in their favour the system breaks.
- seibelj 4y ago
  Philosophically I believe the state is the much bigger threat than the wealthy. The wealthy made their money on their own. The state is lead by power-crazed mad men who earn their money by taking it from others. I prefer the wealthy to the crazed.

elif 4y ago

No, I'm painting historical secessionist libertarian movements as secessionist libertarian movements. The abolition and replacement of the state. Reformist libertarians are categorically excluded from the context of my criticism.

stale2002 4y ago
Ok, but the point here is that "reformist libertarians" are the much larger group. The vast majority of people who call themselves libertarians are merely moderately economically right wing and moderately socially left wing.
- elif 4y ago
  That has no bearing on the original proposal vitalik is responding to being tinged with the nation-building folly of seccessionists.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    Sure it does. It has something to do with it, because there are ways of achieving their goals without some massive, giant, violent revolution. Special economic zones, are the most common example of this, and are created by countries in a perfectly legal way, without some violent revolution. Using financial resources to get a country to create a special economic zone would be both reformist, non revolutionary or violent, and has historical examples of being achieved.

imtringued 4y ago

Money is a source of power, maybe the biggest source, often strong enough to overpower democratic governments. Reducing the state just makes society more vulnerable to those who abuse the power that money has granted them. When you think about it, the answer isn't to make the state smaller, the answer should be to make big states unnecessary then they will shrink on their own. Almost every ideology has fallen into this trap. They see a worthy end goal, but they have no clue how to achieve it, here is a common example, the government wants lower housing costs, a lot of leftist governments just introduce price controls and force the price down by decree. They don't bother understanding the reason why prices are unsatisfactory, they don't bother researching potential bottlenecks on the side of the law that prevent housing supply from meeting demand. There is a long chain of events that has lead to this situation and you must unravel it or at least try to think one step further and let your successor try to find the next link to solve.

diordiderot 4y ago
> Reducing the state just makes society more vulnerable to those who abuse the power that money has granted them. I don't understand... how other people don't understand this point. When the powerful gather enough power to change the rules in their favour the system breaks.
seibelj 4y ago
Philosophically I believe the state is the much bigger threat than the wealthy. The wealthy made their money on their own. The state is lead by power-crazed mad men who earn their money by taking it from others. I prefer the wealthy to the crazed.