Hi all,
As most of the people here (I hope), I've been swallowed by the Bitcoin rabbit hole and I'm now seeing myself studying Austrian Theory of Economy, Game Theory, Cryptography and all the things I didn't even know existed before Bitcoin.
I'm trying to better understand the Libertarianism Theory and how it's linked to full private property, how the monetary system should emerge from the markets and not imposed by govs, how any central planning from govs is ultimately a failure (or to say the least, inefficient and subject to corruption, bribery).
At this point I'm honestly struggling in even imagining a society where all the things above take place. I'm used to a good degree of free Healthcare and Education, Security (in terms of "i can call police for free if i need" and "i get a free lawyer if I'm accused of something"), pension: all in exchange for a cut in the profits from my job (tax). And this ensures - or at least tries to - that if I'm in a situation where I need something of critical importance (say, I badly broke my leg, or thieves are breaking into my flat or my child is turning 6 and should go to school) and I can't afford it, I somehow manage to get it done anyway. And this involves morality basically, because we are discussing fundamental rights (health, education, safety and so on); we are not talking about wanting the latest expensive phone and requiring the government to provide it.
In a full privatized society where the State does not "own" or directly control via its employees those areas, but are basically delegated to the private sector and hence the market, demand and offer, how are fundamental rights guaranteed? Who is willing to cure me if I do not have money right now? Which school will let my children in if I cannot afford it?
Is this type of reasoning even possible or should we completely shift perspective and allow people to be fully responsible for themselves? Like accept the fact that if you're poor you're cut out from things.
Or, if those things are still possible via taxation but the State (central bank) is not in control of the money supply and cannot intervene in transactions (let's say we adopt bitcoin) how is ensured that people pay taxes? Coercion, ultimately?
Even if I'm starting to like the Libertarianism concepts and understand the importance of the full sovereignty of people, I'm still doubtful on if a society like this would even work; if it's just utopia or ome degree of centralization/delegation to the public State is needed at the end.
Let's discuss about it! Hope to get also some material to study on if those questions have already been answered properly.
@apb watching Mises Institute talks by Robert P Murphy on YouTube would be a good start, sort by popular ones or pick a title that interests you. IIRC Economics of the Stateless Society covers this stuff.
Bob Murphy is great. He also has a podcast that tackles lots of these sorts of questions.
A good line of questioning, keep digging! Some thoughts from me:
Firstly what even is the welfare state? Where did this concept come from?
My own country of New Zealand was actually one of the world's first "welfare states".
The development of social welfare came from (among many things) the experience of political leaders who fought on the other side of the world in WW1 and came home to find that they had "no jobs" and that life had moved on without them.
What were they supposed to do?
Much had been asked of them by their "country", and the country had an obligation in return. Together with the great depression in the late 1920s the buck stopped with the government, who was forced to take an active role in ensuring there were jobs for people and that certain things were taken care of. In the U.S. this was known as the "New Deal".
This was not just the government being "nice" though. The political logic was that a large number of unemployed military-age men is not good if they decide to riot.
Back in the 19th century and earlier things like war pensions and widow pensions were also key parts of the soldier's life. Who would consider fighting at all, if he was going to be left disabled or with a family who had no source of food?
Thus the historical idea of "welfare" is related with the development of the nation state and specifically the conscription military. Well-paid private armies in small kingdoms are markedly different to conscription forces, and it was exactly the kind of big continental armies that were increasingly required as the nation-state emerged from the 17th century onwards and fought for power.
Arguably, the Western concept of "Nation" really emerged from 1648 onwards with the Peace of Westphalia
Prior to this, people were maybe much more inclined to identify with their local region or district. But throughout the 18th and 19th century the age of empire demanded that these new "nations" create a tribe mentality not just among local communities, but at the larger scale of "countries".
So what about the welfare state today?
Normally no one would expect you to have a "contract" with your child or neighbour in terms of giving and sharing - human decency for our brothers and sisters is engrained into our very psychology since the beginning. But what about someone from the far side of a large "nation"? How do you build allegiance with them?
Nation building required sacrifice and ideological alignment, and perhaps one of the tools was the welfare provided to soldiers and sailors etc.
Today the logic is quite different. There is no universal conscription or military service, and most people are pretty meh about the idea of fighting for their country.
But we still live within the framework of nation-states and this is their logic: taxes are to be paid and public services and welfare are provided.
I do think it is important to be critical of the state and consider other ways, but I think the problem with Libertarian thought is that it requires a huge amount of work to achieve.
Hard-core Libertarianism IS utopian - there is no such thing as a libertarian country today. There is no "blank slate" or desert island where we can start again and try building our free market paradise from scratch. All countries inherit obligations and promises made by previous governments to people.
I don't think it is a question of "how does welfare work in a libertarian state" but "how can a libertarian even state work?"
Fundamentally in a system of nothing but contracts and "private property" and minimal government, is it even possible for a viable economy to emerge? I would argue not. A strong state is always required in the beginning to bootstrap an economy, otherwise it will just get taken over by someone else.
I think the healthy way we should think about libertarianism is as a guide, not a destination: "What if the state was less involved in our lives?", "what if we paid less taxes?"
I believe that prosperity and strong economies do not emerge from "the market" on its own, markets emerge in a kind of dance with a strong and vibrant society.
The question we should really be asking is how do we build strong and resilient societies?
We still live in the world of the nation state. We can imagine new ways of doing things, but we should recognise that is the position we are starting from - there are no more desert islands to claim as our own.
The mechanics of 100% libertarianism require too much in my opinion, and most people will always look for a leader or government to protest when things get too difficult. If that government is not able to "do something about it" then they will be overthrown by someone who will.
Some related conversations on neoliberalism
That is a really honest opinion on this matter, thanks! Well this is an aspect that we should consider for everything in general and in this case it really changes the game: we quite never start from scratch. And in this sense I agree that the invisible contracts and agreements between people and states that are currently in place must be taken into account. And I may be one of the first that says, if tomorrow my country goes full private: give me back tax money. And of course this is not feasible, because that money is not there in the first place basically.
I will certainly look into the resources you provided! And thanks for the insight: take all of this as a journey and not the end goal
Start by asking yourself what’s different about those things than the necessities that you are expected to provide for yourself (food, clothing, housing, etc.)
Some of these issues are tricky but most are just a lack of imagination.
Edit: there are tons of free resources on this stuff at mises.org. I recommend starting with Economics in One Lesson and also making discussions like this on Stacker News. Many of us are interested in these questions and it’s fun having new initiates to talk to.
Thanks for the suggestion and for your open question!
You got me on this one, the more I tried to find a difference between (say) having to acquire food daily and having my broken bone put back in place, the more I struggled to find one!
Ok, if i can't afford food I can somehow produce it by myself (but in the context of life/death, is more efficient to steal it than farm or raise it, from a time perspective), but I am ultimately limited. Same thing for health or security, there is some degree of "feasibility" but at the end, in the context of the division of labor, I am really relying on everyone else even for the basic things needed for necessity.
But how do we ensure that the basics are met also for people who cannot afford them?
Ultimately my question is: I am happy having to cut my profit via taxation to get some service back, because even though I can pay for that service directly (and maybe have a better service even), i can one day find myself in a situation for which that service is provided to me even if I am not able to pay that tax right now. It's like a form of collective insurance. This is imposed by a civilized State in some way or another, but in a free market, does this emerge? How can it work? Sometimes bad luck happens from day 0 or is not in our hand to control it.
Because I generally have a bad opinion on central gov that enforces things (cause today may be good, tomorrow may be bad) but I don't see how relying on people's trust and expect them to help you out will actually solve the thing (even imagining some sort of i help you now you pay back later)
This is the nirvana fallacy. You're basically attributing a property to the state that it doesn't possess.
When states have taken on the responsibility to provide food, people starved. States have now taken on the responsibility to ensure health care and people are sicker than ever.
If we push far enough, these arguments always come back to two things: scarcity and incentives.
It's a double whammy: there's less stuff for everyone and a normal person gets less of it.
How everything works out is always complicated because an economy is a complex system with unpredictable equilibria. Generally though, people conduct their lives differently absent a safety, which often involves family and social dynamics that act as insurance as well as charities playing larger roles.
Got it, sounds reasonable.
Well at this point the question arises... what is even the point of the state? Law? Why should people follow it? How are things enforced? The moment there's someone "authorized" to point a gun, all the other bad things we have seen inevitably roll out
It's a racket, basically a giant organized crime syndicate but with good PR.
Law doesn't have to be tied to a state.
People shouldn't follow the state.
Things are enforced by threat of violence.
Sort of. There's a big difference between being authorized to point a gun at an aggressor in defense of yourself and being authorized to point a gun at peaceful people to force them into obedience.
If it resembles other radically ideological mass movements then it probably ends with the most opportunistic and violent elements coopting it into something even more tyrannical than the old state but with new rationalizations, as those tend to be the most politically involved and influential.
You know how you can tell who the bad guys are? They'll offer you free healthcare. The guy who says fuck off and pay for it yourself, he's the person who will leave you alone and isn't trying to use you as cannon fodder.
Well it's not a matter of free Healthcare per se. Someone is paying for it (the people, in general), you pay for it somehow (not your own directly) or you pay for it later.
And even if sounds inconvenient (why should I have my profit cut for a service I do not need) it's more like "one day I may need it and can't afford it" and that day ma be even day0, when you have not even started to "provide" for society
Yes, that service is called insurance and is the oldest of financial market products. We certainly don't need a state regulating/enforcing/meddling in that
I see.
It's hard for me to imagine it working properly and for people in need, but maybe it is a matter of perspectives: maybe with a society organized in this way, there are opportunities and instruments that allow Healthcare and such to emerge spontaneously
yup. That's how it starts...
There's an old joke in my crowd: What's the difference between a minarchist (= small government) and an anarchist (= no government)?
Six months.
So yeah, just learn more and perhaps you'd change your mind.
How much time do you have?
Level 1: shouldn't, don't care, don't give a shit.
Level 2: compared to what?
Nirvana fallacy kills everything; not even ideal, romanticized, socialist-utopia Nordics do a particularly good job at fixing what you call "fundamental rights" (which aren't fundamental... they can't be if by providing them you're infringing on others' fundamental rights).
Level 3: plenty of resources out there to imagine, theorizing about the mechanics of a free society: Choice by Bob Murphy does a good job, Machinery of Freedom. Lectures on these topics.
The tldr is that your "fundamental rights" are, like any other market good, better served by prices and property rights and competition than taxation, regulation, and central planning.The tldr is that your "fundamental rights" are, like any other market good, better served by prices and property rights and competition than taxation, regulation, and central planning.
Level 4: my best recommendation for you is _Guido Hülsmann's _Abundance, Generosity, and the State, a 400-page serious inquiry into empathy and how we can live together #860406. I'm sure there's a 1-hour lecture somewhere, e.g., at Mises U
Appreciate the insights and resources provided.
So let me put like this: our civilized society that we think respects (or at least tries to) our fundamentals rights is basically based on the fact that the problems are just exported to someone else (or a different process) in which the respect of those fundamentals is not really enforced. It's like we are happy with our garbage being collected and managed by State simply because we are in the country that exports it to other countries, not the one that is being paid to throw it in its lands and have its people live on top of it?
Problems exported to somebody else... How is that different on either side?
A market outsources that rationing to money-mediated prices and property rights, a government upholding "fundamental" rights do so via violence and taxation
To add: Therefore, it is unsurprising that both violence and taxation are what the state declares its own "fundamental rights." And exclusively theirs.
For a New Liberty - Rothbard
Will take a look!
It doesn't, there's a fundamental flaw in anarcho-libertarian philosophy that mirrors socialism's economic calculation problem...
The incentive constraint dilemma.
This is how states come to be, defined largely by cultural or geographic borders that are the closest thing to an actual constraint
That's why both socialists and anarcho-libertarians seem so alike, virtue signaling hipsters deranged and salty because they were one-shotted by deceased feckless armchair theorists
Nice. Entry level bitcoiners are Austrians. Grown up bitcoiners are realists.
Perplexity: there's a fundamental flaw in anarcho-libertarian philosophy that mirrors socialism's economic calculation problem...
The incentive constraint dilemma.
This is how states come to be, defined largely by cultural or geographic borders that are the closest thing to an actual constraint
Can you elaborate more? Not on the socialists nor liberartians part. In your opinion, a society that just works, evolves and where people's properties and willingness are respected, how is that society organized? Is it even possible? Or we have to accept the swing from one system to another in the course of history?
Not possible, things are such as they are and have always been not because people aren't as smart and virtuous as modern hipsters like to believe they are, but because these systems are emergent responses to real world dilemma.
They don't work. It depends on what you mean by libertarian and which author you're talking about. Anarcho-capitalism, or voluntarism, is something you join voluntarily and in good faith through any contract; those points you raised in your question are just excuses—the fear that makes theft more acceptable. When you are the sovereign of your own life, those things are just third parties trying to micromanage your life and your money.
there is no exchange in the ponzi scheme theft
everything you're saying isn't about rights, but rather privileges. Here's an excellent pill from @Lux; I recommend you read all the pills.
The state giving "free" things to poor people by plundering all citizens doesn't make them good samaritans. Charity and helping others are things all human beings do regardless of the state, and it will always be that way.