- Registrado
- 14 de Nov, 2022
It warms my heart to see some good libertarian points in this thread, I'll share my thoughts later in the post
First, @Boldizar, although your point looks very solid at first and second glance, ultimately you're mistaking cause and effect. The "welfariat" is a role that is downstream from the mechanism of the state, i.e. an institution that claims the right to tax, regulate, and legally immunize itself. That institution makes coercion and expropriation socially acceptable and then sells slices of the loot. Some recipients are agitators, some are not, but neither change the fact of who initiates this looting.
If you want to have a useful taxonomy, you ought to stop at the point of coercion. The prime mover in the causal chain is the office that signs the levy, and not the person who is later handed food stamps. You ought to look at who actually creates conflict, rather than which demographic happens to be the beneficiary of the larger cut in this legislative cycle. A white contractor on subsidies, a bureaucrat with tenure, a weapons manufacturer on guaranteed margins, and a grocery chain accepting food stamps are all in the same relation, for they are financed by prior confiscation.
As for the libertarians:
I would advise caution and appeal to rigor though. At its core, libertarianism is contingent on the notion that there are no exceptions and privileges in law, which means that there is no such thing as a legitimate legal power to tax, regulate, or fund riots. If you apply class analysis, the only kind that stands up to scrutiny is the distinction between people who live by consent and production vs. people who live by legislated permission to violate consent. The only aspect that matters is who initiates the conflict, and not necessarily later beneficiaries.
First, @Boldizar, although your point looks very solid at first and second glance, ultimately you're mistaking cause and effect. The "welfariat" is a role that is downstream from the mechanism of the state, i.e. an institution that claims the right to tax, regulate, and legally immunize itself. That institution makes coercion and expropriation socially acceptable and then sells slices of the loot. Some recipients are agitators, some are not, but neither change the fact of who initiates this looting.
If you want to have a useful taxonomy, you ought to stop at the point of coercion. The prime mover in the causal chain is the office that signs the levy, and not the person who is later handed food stamps. You ought to look at who actually creates conflict, rather than which demographic happens to be the beneficiary of the larger cut in this legislative cycle. A white contractor on subsidies, a bureaucrat with tenure, a weapons manufacturer on guaranteed margins, and a grocery chain accepting food stamps are all in the same relation, for they are financed by prior confiscation.
As for the libertarians:
I would advise caution and appeal to rigor though. At its core, libertarianism is contingent on the notion that there are no exceptions and privileges in law, which means that there is no such thing as a legitimate legal power to tax, regulate, or fund riots. If you apply class analysis, the only kind that stands up to scrutiny is the distinction between people who live by consent and production vs. people who live by legislated permission to violate consent. The only aspect that matters is who initiates the conflict, and not necessarily later beneficiaries.
