4 ms·

I'm not fixating on it really. My point is just that classical liberal arguments about free exchange and the market and property don't hold up to historical scr

I'm not fixating on it really. My point is just that classical liberal arguments about free exchange and the market and property don't hold up to historical scrutiny. My point is you can't form an ethical framework around property as intrinsic right because really property is less "theft" than it is power, so you end up at the end of the argument having to actually defend might makes right as your world view. (Which is why I see the logical end point of radical libertarianism as being a kind of fascism.) Capitalism is an incredibly efficient machine. All that is solid melts, etc. etc. It is beautiful in its own way. I agree about the compounding. I suspect we mostly agree generally.

palmotea 11mo ago
> My point is you can't form an ethical framework around property as intrinsic right because really property is less "theft" than it is power, so you end up at the end of the argument having to actually defend might makes right as your world view. Personally, I'm thinking the whole point of libertarianism is to obscure a genuine belief that might makes right on behalf of some people who have a lot of might, and sell it to a bunch of rubes. > (Which is why I see the logical end point of radical libertarianism as being a kind of fascism.) That's especially clear with things like "anarcho-capitalism," where it's obvious that the kind of social relationships its proponents go on and on about at book-length are impossibly unstable and wouldn't last a nonosecond before decaying into something like feudalism.
gguunhcyyd 11mo ago
[dead]