Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Re-read it yourself. The conditions he presented would be found in a monarchy, something akin to the Russian revolution. I am asking how a libertarian society would turn into such a circumstance.
|
Well, it seems to me that libertarianism relies on the belief that the goverment should only exist to ensure that the gears of the economy move smoothly and reliably in whatever ever direction the market is pointed. If current and all historical markets are any kind of example(in fact they are the only kind), you'll notice that they all tend toward giant gaps between the rich and the poor(unless they have what you'd probably call socialist tendencies). That is how the market works. However equal it is at the beginning, eventually a certain portion of the population gets its hands on more resources than the rest of the population. Since power is directly proportional to capital, especially in a libertarian system, this wealthy class has more power than everyone else. They inevitably use this power to ensure that they never lose their power. This creates further inequality. The more power they have, the less power everyone else has. Since greedy people aren't subject to the governance of certain forms of rational thought, they eventually amass so much power and so much capital and make the relative powerlessness of the masses so blatant to those masses that they force those masses to use the only power that can't effectively be taken by capital. That would be the power to rebel(which is made much more effective by the right of the populace to bear arms, btw).
In short, libertarianism is a great idea if you have no grasp of the apparently natural human inclination towards greed and shortsightedness. Libertarian systems tend towards monarchy, except instead of kings and queens, you have capitalists.