Or are they two sides of the same coin as Yuri Maltsev claims?
Sorry I can’t remember the exact time(long video) but it’s the first question of the Q&A which is between 30 to 40 minutes in
Sure you can. But then you are waging war on a part of your own society.
Well, a welfare state is a warfare state. You wage war against your own citizens, and also “illegals” cause you can’t let them in cause they are a drain on the system.
Look at Greece - people are dying because of socialists protesting to keep a bigger welfare state. That should make it clear.
if citizens vote i expect some liek the outcome and some dont.
is switzerland a warfare state or a welfare state?? or both.
Of course, Japan, Norway, Sweden. Just a few.
Well, a welfare state is a warfare state.
Honestly, what a load of complete crap. Seriously guys, angry rhetoric doesn’t make for rigorous argumentation. And let me make this quite clear, I favour some form of the welfare state, I personally don’t advocate “waging war” on anybody, quite the opposite.
What form of the welfare state do you favor?
“What form of the welfare state do you favor?”
My guess would be whatever form benefits him and/or his favored groups the most at the expense of others.
Nah, remember the mindset of would be social engineers. It is condescention. He likely favours the welfare state ‘for the most deserving’.
The poor little peasants not as fortunate himself. At which he probably comes from a long line of university teachers (or something like it) thus conveniently forgetting it is he who has been he who has lived off welfare his whole life.
My guess would be whatever form benefits him and/or his favored groups the most at the expense of others
Yeah, that’s exactly it. I favour subsidies to rich, white, young males. I’ve not quite figured out a way to get it past the electorate though.
Nah, remember the mindset of would be social engineers. It is condescention. He likely favours the welfare state ‘for the most deserving’.
The poor little peasants not as fortunate himself. At which he probably comes from a long line of university teachers (or something like it) thus conveniently forgetting it is he who has been he who has lived off welfare his whole life.
You know, generally when you attribute disagreement to things such as arrogance or whatever else discussion is likely to make little headway. There are many libertarians out there who support libertarianism for precisely the same reasons that I approve of some minimal welfare state, the difference is that we disagree on the means. On the other hand, there is a certain notable libertarian who believes we can rationally plan a body of law, ethical theory, we can be sure a priori of the effects of a given economic policy on welfare - I don’t think I need to say who. And yet, I’m the social engineer when I’m admittedly undecided on almost all concrete issues of policy.
And yet, unfortunately, those who haven’t read Hoppe are just sheep following the opinions of their professors. Wait…
I was hoping for an answer to my question. Oh wellz.
He isn’t looking to steal. You are.
He isn’t looking to steal. You are.
Only because of your bizarre definition of “stealing”. But that’s quite besides the point, the fact of the matter is that Rothbard wishes to design society much in the same way as many other planners do. Only, Rothbard’s planning is done by “competing” (although, we’re not really sure on what margin they compete) agencies and he calls it anarchy. Oh, and of course, then there’s hit vocal fan base.
Daniel, the simple and honest answer is simply: I don’t know. To be somewhat uninformative, presumably some sort of system that didn’t create too many perverse incentives and didn’t lead towards the destruction of markets or the institutions (and culture) necessary to maintain markets, that would nonetheless provide for those who the “market” has been unable to do so and provide those goods where markets are not feasible.
He isn’t a social engineer because he is not looking to control anyone. Only to influence.
"Honestly, what a load of complete crap. Seriously guys, angry rhetoric doesn’t make for rigorous argumentation. And let me make this quite clear, I favour some form of the welfare state, I personally don’t advocate “waging war” on anybody, quite the opposite. "
But yet you’ll put people in jail who disagree with you. That’s essentially the definition of a warfare state.
I have to agree with you here, you can use all the “taxation is theft” rhetoric you want here and I may agree with the notion, but thats not what the OP is asking. Does strong domestic intervention inevitably lead to foreign entanglements? Whatever the answer is, it hasn’t been addressed as of yet.
And Mises board members really need to stop insulting someone every time someone dissents. Sure, we’re not as bad as RevLeft or anything, but I’d rather hear some arguments and some civility.
Beefheart: “And Mises board members really need to stop insulting someone every time someone dissents.”
Which members are you referring to? Please don’t be afraid to name names.
But yet you’ll put people in jail who disagree with you
Only in the same sense that you would too, by which I mean that you would put in “jail” (or whatever it is in anarchocapitalistland) those who practise a completely different understanding of property. Whether that be the individual who believes that he has a right to take some of your property for the starving man across the street or the mutualist who believes that since you’ve not used your car for a while, you’ve essentially abandoned it.
There isn’t more than one understanding of property. There is understanding and all the rest is misunderstanding.
Reality denies this analysis because Swedes have not fought a war in the time they have been a welfare state.
But to talk about this on an abstract “theoretical” level…let me try.
Firstly, all the money taken by government, whether from taxes, social insurance, social security, or bonds - it goes to the same treasury anyway. There is nothing to say that the money will solely be used for welfare schemes. It’s not like all this money is specially kept aside in different funds for different uses. Especially not social security - that’s an accounting fiction.
Yes, that’s all the money that anybody with private interests in the government can use for war. Government has a monopoly on military activities in its territory anyway.
What stops somebody in the government from
- forming a public sector corporation with this money as investment,
- building large numbers of dangerous weapons with it, and
- selling it abroad for enormous profits?
That’s exactly what France did. They have private interests in their military, and the French benefit from selling these weapons and enjoying the scene when hundreds die when their missiles are used. They did this in the Falklands Island War, did they not?
But what incentives of the welfare state allow these things to happen?
- Welfare states are often inherently inflationist, so somebody eventually wants to be on the fast money.
- When the cost of the welfare state kills long-term production in society, somebody would want more spending to “boost up aggregate demand”. That’s what spending in the military is for!
- As a repeat of the above point, they can always take care of unemployment by sending those people to Afghanistan (as the Spaniards are doing right now)
- Bourgeois values don’t last very long in welfare states, which are known to have broken families living on welfare and people being used to single parent households and being taken care of by government. People without family values don’t have a long-term outlook, and prefer jumping into battle and being killed. That’s why so much military recruitment happens from poor neighbourhoods.