Thanks for this once again. Many fail to understand that the non Aggression principle is NOT the gun-free zone of libertarianism. It's not something we chant when violations of life, liberty and property happens and hope it goes away like some kind of magic spell from Harry Potter. It's a philosophical framework that makes it clear when and when its not ok to use aggression or force on another person.
This is what fascinates me by the accusation that libertarians are selfish, when they are exactly the opposite. In fact, it is selfish to force others to do your bidding and that is exactly what statism calls for.
Anything other than a moral imperative to prohibit all aggression, there really is no other alternative that does not eventually lead in the justification of centralized genocide. Which is why I think it's so important that the cultural shift happens sooner than later.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
“But, by an inference as false as it is unjust, do you know what the economists are now accused of? When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless.”
So it is the above issue Bastiat illustrates coupled with the fact that since libertarianism’s detractors conflate Government with Society, they see the false philanthropy of state welfare as more benevolent and altruistic than voluntary aid efforts since they're convinced that means this is something “we the people” are all buying into.
Alongside this weird canard where these types judge the benevolence of an action by how much of a financially well off person’s wealth or on hand income is dented by the effort. Which is why if someone gives to a charity or spends money on some cause they want to aid in stopping they'll bring up things like “yeah that was done for tax writeoffs” or “The amount they gave was only a “drop in the bucket”. Whether or not that's true in those individual’s cases it makes the mistake of assuming that without the state no one would (especially wealthy people) would care to help anyone unless there was a selfish ulterior motive.
While missing the point that it's selfish to seize wealth the state/politicians didn't produce to give to others in an effort to accumulate power and status to expand/advance your career in politics.
Thanks for this once again. Many fail to understand that the non Aggression principle is NOT the gun-free zone of libertarianism. It's not something we chant when violations of life, liberty and property happens and hope it goes away like some kind of magic spell from Harry Potter. It's a philosophical framework that makes it clear when and when its not ok to use aggression or force on another person.
This is what fascinates me by the accusation that libertarians are selfish, when they are exactly the opposite. In fact, it is selfish to force others to do your bidding and that is exactly what statism calls for.
Anything other than a moral imperative to prohibit all aggression, there really is no other alternative that does not eventually lead in the justification of centralized genocide. Which is why I think it's so important that the cultural shift happens sooner than later.
These quotes by Bastiat speak to that issue:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
“But, by an inference as false as it is unjust, do you know what the economists are now accused of? When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless.”
So it is the above issue Bastiat illustrates coupled with the fact that since libertarianism’s detractors conflate Government with Society, they see the false philanthropy of state welfare as more benevolent and altruistic than voluntary aid efforts since they're convinced that means this is something “we the people” are all buying into.
Alongside this weird canard where these types judge the benevolence of an action by how much of a financially well off person’s wealth or on hand income is dented by the effort. Which is why if someone gives to a charity or spends money on some cause they want to aid in stopping they'll bring up things like “yeah that was done for tax writeoffs” or “The amount they gave was only a “drop in the bucket”. Whether or not that's true in those individual’s cases it makes the mistake of assuming that without the state no one would (especially wealthy people) would care to help anyone unless there was a selfish ulterior motive.
While missing the point that it's selfish to seize wealth the state/politicians didn't produce to give to others in an effort to accumulate power and status to expand/advance your career in politics.