Voluntary Man
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,519
thoughts?
Govern Ment: "What does not kill it makes it stronger"?
- Thread starter Voluntary Man
- Start date
LibertasPraesidium
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 462
Unfortunately what doesn't kill us via the Govt' can make us dumber, less informed, and if we do not ask questions often will turn us into sheep.
Voluntary Man
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,519
then, will tyranny in America suffer death by 300,000,000 paper cuts (i.e., ballots)?
ProIndividual
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,775
I think what does not kill the state does NOT necessarily make it stronger. I mean, if we can imagine taking apart the state one monopoly at a time over a 5 or 10 year period, as each part falls the state would weaken. This only holds longterm, however, if we choose to abolish the state entirely as an end point. If we do not choose to set our focus on totally abolishing the state, but instead just shrinking it to some minarchist level (like the Constitution, for example), then the state would get stronger via your proposal. In that case, that which didn't kill the state would just make it weaker short term, resulting a in a stronger economy and richer tax cattle to extort (tax), which then would longterm result in a larger and richer state for the people to be oppressed by.
I criticize Molyneux on several things (and give him massive credit everywhere else), but this is one area he nailed it. Minarchy is more dangerous than totalitarianism, precisely because the state is made wealthier longterm by the minarchy's temporary effect on the economy. This also leads to people rebelling less easily, as they have more to take before the marginal utility in revolution eclipses the marginal utility in their acclimated status. For example, Egypt erupted in revolution via bread riots and relatively small cuts in government assistance they'd grown dependent on...whereas the USA sees food and energy prices skyrocketing but is rich enough to sit by like docile cattle because they still have more utility in what they have versus risking death and/or dramatic change.
The other reason minarchy as an ideal is so dangerous is that when it does end in revolutionary collapse, the people who win are stupid enough (or psychopathic enough) to set up another minarchist state that only ends the same way as the one they just toppled. Violence replaced by violence, disease cured with disease...the cycle of stupidity marches on.
I criticize Molyneux on several things (and give him massive credit everywhere else), but this is one area he nailed it. Minarchy is more dangerous than totalitarianism, precisely because the state is made wealthier longterm by the minarchy's temporary effect on the economy. This also leads to people rebelling less easily, as they have more to take before the marginal utility in revolution eclipses the marginal utility in their acclimated status. For example, Egypt erupted in revolution via bread riots and relatively small cuts in government assistance they'd grown dependent on...whereas the USA sees food and energy prices skyrocketing but is rich enough to sit by like docile cattle because they still have more utility in what they have versus risking death and/or dramatic change.
The other reason minarchy as an ideal is so dangerous is that when it does end in revolutionary collapse, the people who win are stupid enough (or psychopathic enough) to set up another minarchist state that only ends the same way as the one they just toppled. Violence replaced by violence, disease cured with disease...the cycle of stupidity marches on.
Last edited:
Similar threads
