This entry is designed to address a very popular misconception suggesting that the libertarians of both kinds (socialist and capitalist) are the most committed promoters of individual freedom, whereas the statists, who happen to be overwhelmingly socialistically-minded, are anti-freedom. Partly for this reason, the American self-proclaimed libertarians have renounced socialism, rallied behind laissez-faire capitalism, and effectively joined the pro-capitalist Republican Party in the United States.
I happen to disagree with this stereotypical claim that libertarianism is pro-freedom, and statism is an enemy of freedom. The idea that the socialist state deprives its citizens of freedom, because of its power to coerce, is nonsense. In the natural stateless state of man, there are always the strong and the weak, and therefore no equality, no freedom for the weak. Likewise, in a “stateless,” unregulated capitalist society there are always the rich and the poor, and therefore no equality, no freedom for the poor, who become totally dependent on the rich, in a form of virtual slavery, unless they stage a revolution and overpower the rich by the power of their vastly superior numbers. Society has to handicap the contest, to achieve a reasonable level of fairness, and also to prevent a violent revolution. The Socialist State therefore serves not so much as a coercer, as an equalizer. It is precisely because of the nature of human nature that such equalization decisions must not be relegated to a private benevolence of the rich, but belong to the public domain of an equitably functioning State.
To sum it up, even if this may sound paradoxical, only the State can guarantee individual freedoms, whereas a stateless paradise quickly turns into a domination of the fittest, who also happen to be the least scrupulous, over everybody else, turning the very concept of freedom into a joke.
I happen to disagree with this stereotypical claim that libertarianism is pro-freedom, and statism is an enemy of freedom. The idea that the socialist state deprives its citizens of freedom, because of its power to coerce, is nonsense. In the natural stateless state of man, there are always the strong and the weak, and therefore no equality, no freedom for the weak. Likewise, in a “stateless,” unregulated capitalist society there are always the rich and the poor, and therefore no equality, no freedom for the poor, who become totally dependent on the rich, in a form of virtual slavery, unless they stage a revolution and overpower the rich by the power of their vastly superior numbers. Society has to handicap the contest, to achieve a reasonable level of fairness, and also to prevent a violent revolution. The Socialist State therefore serves not so much as a coercer, as an equalizer. It is precisely because of the nature of human nature that such equalization decisions must not be relegated to a private benevolence of the rich, but belong to the public domain of an equitably functioning State.
To sum it up, even if this may sound paradoxical, only the State can guarantee individual freedoms, whereas a stateless paradise quickly turns into a domination of the fittest, who also happen to be the least scrupulous, over everybody else, turning the very concept of freedom into a joke.
No comments:
Post a Comment