Hacker News Reader

Comment by objectivistbrit | Hacker News Reader

If wealth and power are being concentrated anywhere, it's in the hands of the state:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartSp03t....

There's a point where the distinction between the state and the super-wealthy blurs or disappears entirely, and there are many cases where the super-wealthy dictate policy to the state rather than vice versa.

Which gets to the core of what libertarians really want: not to abolish the state per se -- but to winnow it down and neuter it to a point where it is more pliable to their interests.

> their interests

Please don't tell me you're this naive.

They argue that the state is inherently a corrupt institution and that nobody should have that kind of power.

I've been observing that crowd for a very long time.

And have prudently concluded that it's best to assess their ideology based on the actions they've chosen to take (specifically, the political alliances they have formed in the past 20 years, after it became manifestly clear to them that both their platform and their candidates were basically unelectable on their own) -- and the goals they can realistically hope to achieve through these actions -- rather than on the sentimental platitudes they pretend to believe in.

Would you mind clarifying a few points with examples:

* political alliances they have formed in the past 20 years

* sentimental platitudes they pretend to believe in

I generally agree with the sentiments that you've portrayed, but this is just way too vague to be useful. I don't put much stock in libertarians in the general sense since any given libertarian could idealize anarchy, socialism, communism, or capitalism.

In the early years, they could claim (with some basis) to be "neither left nor right", but somewhat off the generally conceived political grid altogether. Appealing equally to peaceniks and potheads as to entrepreneurs and laissez-faire economists, and all that.

But in recent decades they've basically thrown their lot (solidly) with the political far right in the U.S., both ideologically and strategically. This shift was already in place well before their paramount candidate actually chose to run under the GOP ticket (and libertarians started to register Republican en masse), but by now the tacit alliance is pretty obvious, and fundamental to their strategy.

As to sentimental platitudes I mean of course "the state is inherently corrupt" and all the other anti-state rhetoric. They can say that all they want, but when they go so far as to (overtly) align themselves with Republican Party and everything it stands for -- I just don't buy it.

>And have prudently concluded

It's really hard to take an argument seriously when the person making it, regardless of who they are, opens with "I have made a prudent conclusion."

You can browbeat all you want. The core point I'm making, though, still stands.

It's a misunderstanding of the history of civilization. Civilizations always have the king balanced against the power of the rest of the aristocracy. A strong king is necesary to protect the peasants from feudal type slave lords. Likewise the absolute king must be balanced by the aristocracy, who today would just be called billionaires. Democracy adds more check and balances to the equation but humanity has not figured out a better system than a strong central government that follows the rule of law and has some accountability.

I am not a libertarian, but I can tell you that you are confusing generic corporate capitalists with libertarians because they often sound the same. Real libertarians believe some junk about ideal world with minimal government. Corporate capitalists are sometimes libertarian but usually just spout libertarian stuff because it sells better than being honest about their power ambitions.

Basically, don't confuse corrupt power-mongers who use libertarian propaganda at times with actual libertarians.

Oligarchy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com