Twenty years ago it was simple: to any problem, freedom was the answer. But in recent years I have become less sanguine. Some might say I have grown up. Still, I have this uneasy feeling that Western societies are beset with problems and that freedom is not always the answer.
I thought what I would do was to write down the biggest problems facing us here in Britain, write down the libertarian approach and assess in a blog post if it would be successful or not. Well, like many of my big ideas that soon ran into the buffers of indolence. But I did manage to identify what I think are the biggest problems – or crises as I call them – that we face. They are (in approximate order of importance):
-
1. The Freedom of Speech Crisis. Cancel culture, de-banking, lawfare and actual punishment are being used to prevent people from expressing their opinions. Much of this is being done in the nominally private sector. If this continues the results will be disastrous.
2. The Integration Crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people live in this country and have no affection for its people or its customs and more are coming every day. This is a recipe for an Ulster on the grand scale.
3. The Debt Crisis. Government spending is unsustainable. Mind you, I was thinking that 15 years ago.
4. The Housing Crisis. Young people cannot afford a home where they can bring up children.
5. The Net Zero Crisis. OK, this hasn’t happened yet but when the electricity goes off, modern society will come to a halt.
6. The Ukraine Crisis. Well, you can add in Israel, Taiwan and probably a few other places too. The West is under military attack by people who would like to see it destroyed.
7. The NHS Crisis. Long waits for poor care and indifferent service.
There are a couple that tend to get mentioned regularly that I haven’t included. The Migration Crisis is really part of the Integration Crisis and part of the Housing Crisis. Wokery is part of the Integration Crisis (again) and also part of the Freedom of Speech Crisis.
People occasionally mention the Population Crisis – not enough babies being born. I tend to think this is either not a problem at all (the market will sort it out) or something that is beyond politics.
Is there anything I’ve missed? Do libertarians have the answer?
Well, for 1, libertarianism IS the answer. De-banking would be much less of a threat if banks weren’t regulated by government, preventing competing banks with different policies from entering.
For 3, the long-term answer is to abolish fiat currency, making the monetization of debt impossible.
For 7, do away with government funding of health care, and with the taxes that pay for it; let people pay for their own health care.
Whether those are politically achievable is a different question. But they seem to me to be what libertarians should advocate.
“People occasionally mention the Population Crisis – not enough babies being born.”
That one is really rather amusing. Not too long ago the Population Crisis would have meant much wailing and gnashing of teeth about overpopulation.
2 and 4 are consequences of an immigration crisis. As the old saying goes, you can have open borders or a welfare state, but not both.
Our current system subsidises (and even incentivises) immigration. There is no need for me to state the best way – and libertarian way – of fixing that little problem, is there?
Libertarianism would be terrific … but in the USA game theory gets in the way.
If the 5% or whatever small segment who are libertarians vote for the libertarian candidates (and in a sane world where our society was not about to be utterly destroyed I WOULD vote for them) then we will end up with Harris as President.
Since there is zero chance of the libertarians being elected, and since there is a very real chance that Harris will get elected instead of Trump, I simply cannot afford the luxury of voting for the libertarians. Maybe one day, when some semblance of sanity has been restored to the electorate … but not right now.
5 could be fixed virtually overnight if we fracked for all it’s worth.
If the government would get out of the way, we’d have cheaper fossil fuels and a far faster (and cheaper) upgrade to nuclear too (plus additional development of technology such as LFTR/MSR reactors)
Any path to net zero that doesn’t involve large-scale nuclear is for the birds.
My ancestors moved to Ulster and whatever they may have done for prosperity they did nothing for community relations. No welfare state involved.
Optimistic. More like Beirut, Mogadishu and Gaza on grand scale.
Too many libertarians wedded to Ellis island mythology open borders immigration ideology and universalism (‘all men are created equal’) and even those libertarians who are more sceptical of mass immigration either resort to overly complicated arguments or reassure themselves that all the problems are due to the welfare state to avoid having to think about awkward problems that would still exist about immigration even if there was no welfare state.
Makes integration problem worse – harder for existing immigrants to integrate when the majority population is fast turning into a minority population. Also makes the more aggressive minority populations think they can take over society in a few generations through demography.
Makes debt crisis worse too and makes foreign policy crises potentially worse. Countries with too few young people have fewer people to defend it. And good luck getting immigrants to do that (more ‘British’ Muslims fought for ISIS than were in the British army at the time).
In my view, the Mental Health Crisis is at the root of them all.
And therefore, nutrition science is more important than political philosophy.
6 is partly an economic crisis; to come to the aid of your allies, you have to be able to out-invent and out-manufacture their enemies. If you cannot offer that at least to some extent, you will not have any allies; why would anyone make commitments to someone with nothing to offer in return? It is well established that a free economy works better than a controlled one and is then better able to switch into armaments production when needed. There is obviously a strong element of the integration crisis in there as regards Israel, too.
I suggest formulating your central premise in a different way……
“How many of these crisis were caused, intentionally or otherwise by “Government”?
One could argue, for example, two generations of western government throwing vast sums at Africa (along with advances is western medicine) have caused an unprecedented boom in the population.
Clean water, sanitation, public health etc (including possibly some western values) where none existed previously has reduced infant mortality and extended lifespans. In countries unable or unwilling to plan and provision for this remarkable generosity.
Then add the internet (more western benevolence) and every hungry 20something in North Africa can see how the other half lives and see their cousins taking full advantage of that largesse.
Not for a minute am I suggesting we should deny Africa this aid, but I think we have only just started to see the great migration out of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Imagine those numbers doubling then doubling again!
To try and answer the question directly – libertarianism, liberty (getting rid of government spending schemes and regulations), can, over TIME (people need time to voluntarily work things out) deal with all the matters on the list apart from Number 2 and Number 6.
Getting government out of the way, including the insane government regulations and vast subsidies that so massively inflate health costs in the United States, can deal with all but two of the things on the list that Brendon Westbridge gives us.
Number Six is about war – sometimes the good guys loose wars (ask the ghost of Constantine XI about 1453 in Constantinople), and war is a science of its own (military science) – any libertarian who thinks that being a libertarian makes him (or her) a better General – has an arrogance problem.
Although allowing free enterprise does mean that military PRODUCTION will be higher over time. Ludwig Von Mises correctly pointed out (in “Nation, State and Economy”) that German “War Socialism” was counter productive in the First World War – with any gains being very short lived, and the penalty being economic chaos that ended up messing up military production.
And in the Second World War the relatively (relatively) free economy of the United States crushed the National Socialist Command Economy then in control of Germany and most of Europe – crushed in terms of military production (and American, and other Western, factories also supplied the Soviet Union – something covered up by vastly exaggerating Soviet “factories beyond the Urals”)
And sometimes dumb luck plays a big role – for example Russia was on the point of WINNING the war with Prussia (indeed basically had won it – the Cossacks were in Berlin), when the Empress Elizabeth died and the new Czar was a Frederick “the Great” fan-boy, so Frederick and Prussia were saved and he went down in history as “the Great”.
Number 2 – immigrant populations (and their children and children’s children) with hostile belief systems, or just hostile populations.
Well libertarianism may not have any pat solutions for this – but at least Freedom of Speech would mean we could discuss he matter without being punished, unlike in radically ANTI libertarian countries such as the United Kingdom.
If we can not even discuss the matter freely, and we certainly can NOT in most modern Western nations, we can not hope to come up with solutions.
Of course Libertarianism has an answer. The same answer it always has which is less government meddling. Pretty much everything you list is result of government meddling.
1. The Freedom of Speech Crisis. There are plenty of places to speak, the problem is when hate speech laws come in, or government meddles with private industry or where governments interfere with free banking that it becomes a problem. The solution is less government and more free markets.
2. The Integration Crisis. This is part of the immigration thing, see below.
3. The Debt Crisis. How is government spending way beyond its means a problem of liberty rather than a problem of too much government?
4. The Housing Crisis. Is caused by government meddling thorough the inflation crisis caused by too much spending, or zoning laws or a million other ways the new building is prevented or debt becomes impossibly expensive. When supply is low suppliers an incentivized, but if government interferes the supply is insufficient. The solution is less government and more free markets.
5. The Net Zero Crisis. This is purely a government intervention. The solution is less government.
6. The Ukraine Crisis. Nobody is going to agree with me on this, we need to stop interfering in foreign wars. Again the solution is less government, especially less government blowing things up and killing people.
7. The NHS Crisis. The solution is private healthcare and insurance, especially without the massive government interference in that market that goes on in the US. Again, less government, more free market.
It is all pretty straightforward. The only thing I have softened on over the years is the immigration situation. I think a nation does have a right to maintain its cultural agenda, to stay the way it is and to change only insofar as the people already living there want it to. So I don’t think the usual libertarian answer of “no welfare state, no immigration crisis” is true. I think a country should control its borders and should limit migration only to that which benefits it, and should expect newcomers to integrate into the existing culture. So, on this point I think the government does have a valid role at its borders.
Is there a Western population crisis if one includes all the babies that have been terminated before birth? The UK is missing at least 10m people since 1967, more if one includes their children…..I’m not 100% sure if more freedom is the answer though – the State has legalised abortion, but equally the State outlawed it before as well. Would abortion be legal under libertarianism, or not? Is being able to have an abortion a freedom? For one half of the equation is is, the other half not so much……
Paul: Two things that libertarianism at least is compatible with could help with #2:
First, get rid of welfare, and thus of a major source of income to alien immigrants. That wouldn’t completely resolve things, as there would still be private charities that were misguided enough to subsidize them, and the ambient wealth of even semidemifree economies in the West is great enough so that they could hope to scavenge more than they could earn at home; but the incentive to migrate would be lowered.
Second, apply the law (especially the criminal law) equally to everyone, including members of currently privileged groups such as transgender and Muslim. If Muslims knew, for example, that abusing underage English girls would bring them the same prison sentence for rape that a white or black Englishman would face, with police and child welfare workers not having to fear that they would be condemned as “racists” and their careers destroyed, they would be less likely to behave abusively—and those who did would be out of circulation. This might also make the UK (and to a lesser degree the US) less appealing as a destination.
To thrash one of my hobby horses, if you want liberty and prosperity then you need a demos that also wants that. Universal suffrage will always result in a demos that favours a government cheque over freedom. If you want democracy at least limit voting to men who have figured out how to support their families and chuck a few quid into the government pot.
The very ugly truth is Libertarianism is a great political philosophy that virtually nobody wants. There are how many elected officials in the US right now? When you count school boards and county officials and city officials and members of legislatures and dog catchers and so on and so forth, you have to be looking at a quarter million elected officials. There are over three thousand counties in the US alone. And every city and town, and school boards, and those numbers add up quick. Out of our quarter million elected officials, how many are Libertarians? I bet you can count the number on one hand and have fingers left over. Why? Because telling the electors you want to get rid of fire departments and bank regulations and taxpayer funded parks and schools is a non-starter. And if you can’t get traction at the local level, you can forget about state and federal.
And every Libertarian has their own sacred cow that they won’t slaughter. We’ll be happy to get rid of welfare…except for this program. We want to kill these regulations…but not those regulations. We want to eliminate this civic organ…but not in my district.
Other way round.
That’s the sort of thing the “protein wisdom” billboard campaigner might say.
If people in Britain or the US are anxious, paranoid, depressed and trying to numb these feelings with alcohol and drugs, I’d say that is a perfectly natural and logical reaction to the ever-more shit state of both nations. A shit state which has largely been driven by policies no one voted for.
I support a constitutionally constrained night watchman state that prevents highwaymen from robbing people, shoots domestic terrorists, & keeps the foreign enemies at bay.
1. The Freedom of Speech Crisis pretty much takes care of itself via competition when you don’t have licenced banks, directly state funded schools & academia & regulated or state owned media insulated from the consequences of their actions.
2. The Integration Crisis is *entirely* a product of state action preventing social & economic pressures that drive integration. Un-integratable Muslim ghettos would have been impossible without the regulatory welfare state. Multiculturalism is state policy & it is literally anti-integrationist.
3. The Debt Crisis is entirely due to the state doing things it should not be doing.
4. The Housing Crisis is entirely a consequence of the state preventing the market from working via planning laws & other regulations.
5. The Net Zero Crisis is entirely a state creation.
6. The Ukraine Crisis (et al) is the sort of thing a night watchman state *should* be focused on, not telling people to register their chickens whilst painting rainbows across roads as the state subsidises third world immigrants married to their cousins who are popping out genetically damaged halfwit children.
7. The NHS Crisis… NHS should not even exist. If you accept a state role in healthcare (probably politically inevitable unfortunately), at east UK should be emulating the Swiss or Dutch, which have vastly larger private elements & unsurprisingly greatly outperform the idiotic NHS.
I am inclined to go a bit farther than Perry, and leave the nightwatchman function to private security and judicial companies, Viking-Iceland style.
The State would still be needed to resolve disputes between such companies, or between a company and its customers. Viking Iceland managed to do without that, but we probably cannot.
The State would also need to shoot domestic terrorists & keep foreign enemies at bay.
Viking Iceland did not need the latter, because it was hardly feasible and certainly not profitable to cross half of the North Atlantic in single-mast ships, to invade a country where everybody needs to work hard to survive.
Roue le Jour – in British history none of the advances of statism (not the spending schemes or the regulations) came from a desire for votes – they all came from ideas from the universities and independent “intellectuals”.
Even in the early 1900s would-be mass murderers, such as George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells, were treated as great intellectuals and cultural icons. So were Sydney and Beatrice Webb – in spite of being totally open about their vicious totalitarianism. The British establishment elite (and the establishment elite of other Western nations) has been deeply sick for a very long time. The “spell of Plato” – the desire for a Collectivist planned society, goes back thousands of years.
So the matter has nothing to with everyone having the vote.
The most conservative areas of Switzerland are precisely those areas that have been governed by mass meetings of all men (now women to) for many centuries.
William H. Stoddard – firstly, as you know, dealing with five out of the seven problems that Brandon Westbridge raises, is not bad.
But also, as you say, libertarianism also has a lot to say about Number Two – the influx, and natural increase, of certain populations.
That leaves Number Six – “I am not Number Six – I am a free man!” (sorry).
Sometimes the Bad Guys win wars.
Patrick Crozier is fond of pointing out that the First World War was, in large part, an artillery war.
Russia is, now (not in the early days – when Mr Putin’s mad plan was being followed), treating the war with Ukraine (which that KGB thug, who is only good with foes who are tied down on a torture table, keeps calling a “special military operation” but every ordinary Russian knows is a war) as an artillery war.
Destroy the Ukrainian positions in an area with artillery, take area, more on to next area – destroy Ukrainian positions in new area with artillery, take area – move on to another area…..
Rinse and repeat.
“But that means the Russia will just conquer a depopulated wasteland” – well Mr Putin had a dream of taking over an intact Ukraine with a daring airborne attack on Kiev in February 2022 – which would hold out till Russian armored units got to them along long and narrow roads (yes – Mr Putin seems to have thought that the plot of “A Bridge Too Far” was a perfect military plan) – but now professional soldiers are in charge of the war, and they will just blow up everything (hopefully with “just” conventional weapons – but they will use nukes if that is the only way to win) – including the Ukrainian defenders.
All horribly grim.
And there is nothing really that libertarianism has to say about this – other than to invade Ukraine was morally evil (which it was) and taking over a depopulated wasteland will not benefit Russia – Russians already know that, but it is about winning the war now (the days of the “special military operation”, Mr Putin’s pipe dream fantasy, are over – it is WAR now).
Interfere in a way that means Russia might actually LOSE the war – and it may well be global thermonuclear war. Losing is not an acceptable option for Russia – not after this level of casualties. Even though the Russian Generals wish the war had never started (and will, at some point, settle accounts with Mr Putin – remember Russian Generals have died in this war) they have to win the war now – as they themselves would not survive defeat.
“But Moscow and Petersburg would be destroyed – not just London and New York” – well that is very sad, but most Russians have never been to Moscow or St Petersburg, and live hundreds of miles away from these places.
The iron law of oligarchy means elites will always control the institutions of society, not the masses. Therefore it’s wrong to blame the masses. And libertarians, especially now, have awful leadership, so have no credible counter-elite to potentially replace the progressive elites. So libertarianism will remain a fringe idea.
@Steven R
The very ugly truth is Libertarianism is a great political philosophy that virtually nobody wants.
This is both true and irrelevant. Libertarianism is not black and white it is a spectrum, so the push is not to some idealistic future freedom but rather the pushing back on government growth and the offering of non government solutions. It is also worth saying that libertarianism is essentially about choices and this is important because libertarianism is far less important at a local level than a national level. Consequently the examples you gave of fire services, parks and schools are not really primary targets of libertarian reform because if you don’t like the city you live in providing these you have the choice of moving elsewhere where they are less important.
But in another sense you are right, the problem in America (and the UK) is not the politicians but the people who really like their big government. It is based on the two delusions of democracy: that your vote changes things and that government is the only way to solve any problem. I suppose if you are inculcated with these delusions since your mother’s breast it is no surprise we are where we are. It was not always so, and we who believe in liberty do have some degree of obligation to say “there is another way” so that, at the very least, the idea of liberty doesn’t end up in the memory hole.
And there are some liberties that matter more than others. Perhaps most important of all is freedom of speech, and probably the second most important is equality before the law. These two freedoms have come under more attack in the past five years than in the past 100, and so this is a time to speak most loudly and defend them most vehemently since the days of our great grandfathers.
Economic collapse is coming – collectivism does not work, so libertarianism is very much relevant.
Technology had delayed collapse, both economic collapse and societal (cultural) collapse, but it will NOT prevent it.
In the end the “Gods of the Copybook Headings”, as Kipling called objective reality, always has the last word.
I’ll try my hand now at dealing with the problems listed in the OP, not from a “dogmatic” perspective (such as applying NAP), but from a consequentialist perspective, trying to work out as honestly as possible what policies would result in an increase of freedom in the long term — in the world as it is, not in an ideal world. (An increase of freedom, please note, not of “utility”.)
1. The Freedom of Speech Crisis.
This is actually part of an Establishment Propaganda Crisis.
Fraser and Perry are probably correct on this.
A deeper analysis, however, should go a step further and ask how to prevent the establishment from doing what Fraser and Perry say it should not be doing, giveen that the incentives are to do it.
2. The Integration Crisis.
Perry is correct in my opinion, except that i would replace ‘entirely’ with ‘mostly’.
More importantly, Perry does not discuss the root cause of the problem. What incentives does the establishment have to prevent integration?
I have an answer that seems convincing to me, but here i focus on the question.
3. The Debt Crisis.
That something is unsustainable, doesn’t mean that it cannot last more than 15 years 🙂
Again, Fraser and Perry are correct. If government spending is unsustainable, then it must be cut. Nothing to add comes to mind.
4. The Housing Crisis.
Again, i am with Fraser and Perry (who puts it more succintly).
But there is something to add here: homeowners who do not plan to climb the housing ladder, get the illusion of becoming richer when house prices rise. Plus, they don’t see why their area should have more dense housing, or why green spaces nearby should be paved over.
Again, a matter of incentives; not establishment incentives, but incentives all the same.
5. The Net Zero Crisis.
This is also part of the Establishment Propaganda Crisis (or Wokeness Crisis, for short).
6. The Ukraine Crisis. Well, you can add in Israel, Taiwan and probably a few other places too.
I am with Perry on this, but i’ll put it more succintly:
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Again, it is a matter of incentives: “we” just have to provide strong dis-incentives to hostile countries; or more properly, hostile establishments.
7. The NHS Crisis.
One idea that intrigues me is government-funded *catastrophic* health care: the government paying for all “necessary” health care that people cannot afford.
However, we do not know how that would work in practice.
Plus, there will inevitably be a tendency to broaden the concept of “necessary”.
The Swiss and Dutch systems seem to be the safe choice.
Did you mean Libertarianism – big L?
I ask because, to me, libertarianism (small l) is simply a vector – a trend – a predilection for making choices that favor smaller government and personal liberty over larger government or “community” power.
Big-L is a destination. Small-l is a trend preference.
S, to me, libertarianism will always be relevant, whereas Libertarianism hasn’t been.
Paul,
Either you believe democracy achieves something or you don’t. It you don’t think the makeup of the demos affects the outcome then by all means extend the mandate to children, illegal aliens and any other foreigners who happen to be in the country at the time.
Moving on, if I were to say the government finds the idea of a free and prosperous citizenry utterly repugnant and does everything possible to prevent it, could anyone mount a credible objection?
The government raises and raises taxes to impoverish the citizens then finds these great drifts of ten pound notes blocking the corridors and piling in the corners a huge problem. How to get rid of them? Extend the welfare system from contributory to open to all comers helps, as does puting a sizeable chunk of the workforce on disability. Still lots left over? Employ another chunk of the workforce on do nothing make work. Still can’t see out of the windows. Ok, import millions of foreign welfare claimants, make the NHS the international health service and education can be expanded as well. Now we are getting somewhere. Export every job that can be exported and where they can’t, import cheap labour to undercut the locals. Stop people going to work and send truck loads of cash to big pharma. Build a railway no one wants.
Ok, that’s prosperity taken care of, now let’s look at liberty. Take away ICE cars and replace them with electric. Now ration electricity. The ration has been increased from 30 KW/h to 25 and it’s a criminal offence to complain. It’s easy once you get started, isn’t it? High tech ID cards? “Your ID card says you are a Chelsea resident, so what are you doing in Camden?” Beaten up and your pension stolen on your way to the corner shop? All part and parcel of a multicultural society. I mean, it’s not as if your pension is worth anything, is it?
What could possibly go wrong?
*Drifts of tenners blocking the corridors of power inspired by Pratchett’s Going Postal.
To answer the question posed in the OP, my answer is yes, if by libertarianism one means a modern description of classical liberalism and it main features:
Individual rights, as in rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (Not to be confused with the bogus “rights” such as rights to a job, free healthcare and paid holidays);
Open market economies, built on rights (see above) as robustly enforced, free contract, and a legal system that robustly deals with theft, violence and fraud;
A minimal level of education to ensure people can make the most of these freedoms, with a preference for non-state delivery of education and training;
A culture that encourages, and celebrates, achievement, risk-taking (by those taking responsibility for the results), long-range planning, thrift and prudence, and curiosity;
Individualism and a consequent dislike of state-enforced/encouraged tribalism;
Equality before the law of men and women;
Protection of minors, with a preference for families to provide that protection, except in extreme cases of abuse;
Patriotism and loyalty towards institutions that symbolise liberty, in preference to “blood and soil” nationalism.
So there are the ingredients. One might debate around the edges of this. A lot of libertarians I know are torn on the issue of immigration, for example, although most in my view default to the view that open borders don’t work if you have a welfare state as we have it in much of the West. Defence is also a difficult one, given the very different assessments of risk that exist and the consequent levels of defence spending required. Another is abortion and issues such as end-of-life treatment/euthanasia, etc.
Libertarianism does not have a lot of political support today, and there are many reasons for it. I am not as dismissive as some are here, such as Martin. There is a risk that we have a self-fulfilling prophecy. If even people reasonably disposed to liberty are negative about it, or always looking out for a strong leader to take us out of whatever is making us grumpy, things are going to get worse.
And my final point is the libertarian/classical liberal ideas are ideas that need to be advocated and explained, and for all the misrepresentations and misconceptions to be rebutted and challenged.
While Samizdata is not a narrowly libertarian blog, it definitely tilts that way, and that’s part of why I hang out here.
@Johnathan Pearce
I read your excellent analysis Johnathan. but I did want to use it to add one aspect that hasn’t been discussed here:
Libertarianism does not have a lot of political support today, and there are many reasons for it.
One of the reasons for this is that “libertarianism” and “political support” are almost antithetical. Libertarianism is that idea that “government is not the solution” and so to look to politics to bring about such a society is a sort of upside down approach. The libertarian ideal is that of working within your own life to improve things through speaking, free relations with others, free trade with others and so forth. The last thing a libertarian would do is seek to get the government involved.
I think you see this a lot in actual political libertarianism. There is a certain discomfort and incompatibility so it tends to get left to the navel gazers or the people hijacking it for some specific cause. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” is something libertarians fear, it is not their call to action.
And I think this is something worth thinking about as western societies are in the process of seppuku, that the solution is not at all to try to fix things by imagining that Donald Trump is going to save us. Rather it is to either move to a country that supports you, or if you can’t or won’t, focus on building a bubble in your own life where you deflect the government as much as possible. Find ways to speak that are safe, avoid interacting with the state as much as possible, if you have kids carefully manage where they are getting their education, isolate from the whacka-doodles in society, do free trade at a medium size level, studiously avoid law breaking, even the stupid laws, use every means you legally can to optimize your taxes, invest your money in things that are not subject to the depredations of government and as much as possible outside their reach (though hiding assets from the government is not something I’d recommend), provide yourself with adequate protection, and make sure you understand the legal environment around that, and so on.
I think that if we (he said pointing all ten fingers at himself) spent as much time planning and thinking around this as we do poisoning our minds with the news media and their horse race of “Donald will save us”, or “Kamala will protect democracy” (or whatever it is in your country), we’d all be much better off.
Rour le Jour – you said that democracy was behind the growth of the state, and I pointed out that was really behind the state was the intellectual fashions of the elite.
For example, in Ireland this goes back a very long way – in 1831 a state education system was adopted, the people had not asked for it – Lord Stanley (later the Earl of Derby) wanted it, so it was done.
In 1838 a Poor Law Tax was imposed in Ireland – because Lord Russell (and other such) thought it would be a good thing (TM). There was no vote on it in Ireland – or over the Act in the late 1840s which made areas of Ireland that had not gone bankrupt subsidise Poor Law Unions in other parts of Ireland, dragging everywhere down.
As for democracy – the most democratic Cantons of Switzerland (ruled by the ordinary people by traditional meeting) are traditionally the most conservative – not the most Progressive.
The alternative to democracy – the rule of officials and “experts” (often at an international level) is certainly worse than democracy. And it is the alternative to democracy that the United Kingdom and other Western nations are collapsing into.
However, YES – clear limits on government power, fundamental rights (rights in the sense of limits government power) are indeed vital.
Fraser Orr – Donald Trump will indeed (as you know) not “save” the people, no President can save the people from the economic collapse that is inevitable now, but he will allow them to try and save themselves – Harris and the international Agenda 2030 crowd will NOT allow people to try and save themselves – the international authorities demand total control (totalitarian control) of the lives of ordinary people.
Libertarianism – it must avoid the trap that Classical Liberalism fell into, the trap of vagueness. Liberalism became so vague that it became transformed into its opposite – bigger and more controlling government.
Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, that force is only justified in countering aggression, by private criminals or governments. Private property rights – especially in land. And private meaning people, private ownersd – not international corporate partners of government.
The non-aggression principle – NOT a vague “harm principle”.
Efforts to get away from the laissez-faire non aggression principle (the minimal state – if even that) – to get to some pragmatic limited state, collapse into vagueness.