The State of Affairs in Russia

[Tamas]

I fully agree Berkut, but in case of the state, the consideration is made by the state itself, so of course the conclusion will be: give more power to the state.

That is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, eyes should be set on "how best we can solve XY situation with as little government involvement as necessary for effectiveness" and not "how the government could solve this?"
This is not vilifying state intervention, nor it emphasizes private solution as the only valid one, but rather it (would) emphasize a society where individual liberty and initiative reigns as the supreme value.

Wow you are more American than most Americans.  Maybe you immigrated to the wrong Anglophone country.

[DGuller]

Regarding 2b, yes in a "pure" form it is a pipedream and will never happen unless humans reach a level of maturity which seems impossible at this stage.

*gulp* I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  Libertarians are the 21st century Communists.  The ideologies may be the perfect opposites, but the mindsets are identical.

[Valmy]

Regarding 2b, yes in a "pure" form it is a pipedream and will never happen unless humans reach a level of maturity which seems impossible at this stage.

*gulp* I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  Libertarians are the 21st century Communists.  The ideologies may be the perfect opposites, but the mindsets are identical.

Well they both dream of a stateless society.  Just the Libertarians do not want a dictatorship in the middle.

[Berkut]

Regarding 2b, yes in a "pure" form it is a pipedream and will never happen unless humans reach a level of maturity which seems impossible at this stage.

But it could still be the "guiding point" to aim toward and try and get as close to as possible. Again, as opposed to the seemingly prevailing set of values which seem to end at "the government should fix it".

That EXACT same argument can and has been made about Communism.

If the benefits of this libertarian ideal can only be realized by reaching some threshold of libertarianism that has never once been reached, then I am perfectly content to simply reject the entire ideology. That is nothing but faith at that point, and you know if some society (say via a revolution of idealists circa Russia 1917) took over and made it their mission to drive to that ideal, they would simply continue to claim that the threshold has not been reached, the threshold has not been reached, the threshold has not been reached as the push it further and further.

Because it is nothing more than a matter of faith at that point - you are convinced that this ideal would and could be realized if "only we were mature enough", even while there is no objective reason to believe that is the case, or even that humans maturity would somehow result in uber free markets not being exploitative. How does that even follow?

We are into the realm of pure ideology at that point. We might as well argue about how whether or not the wafer really does or does not turn into the flesh of Christ when we eat it.

[Tamas]

I actually wanted to mention "same as people pursuing communism" but decided against it. 

Ok so pure stateless libertarianism is impossible. We agree on that, and I have never advocated doing away with the state.

Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.

[Barrister]

Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.

I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.

Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem".  But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.

Government is a tool.  It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't.  No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".

[The Brain]

In a democracy government is designed by the stupid, for everyone. And democracy is the best system we have.

[MadImmortalMan]

Government is a tool.  It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't.  No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".

I agree with you, but some people put some sort of morality in it that changes the equation a little bit. I mean, we do sometimes do things that are pragmatically bad for everyone as a whole but there is consensus that we should do it anyway.

[Tamas]

Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.

I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.

Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem".  But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.

Government is a tool.  It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't.  No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".

Because government is not just like any other tool. Government, or the state if you would like, is the "tool" with the monopoly on violence. (and before someone starts: that`s a good thing and there cannot be an even remotely functional society where the state does not have that monopoly). Increasing it`s power and areas it has an influence over is a process that is easy to be driven overboard by those benefiting from that, and very, very hard to turn around, especially within a democratic system.

[Barrister]

Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.

I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.

Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem".  But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.

Government is a tool.  It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't.  No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".

Because government is not just like any other tool. Government, or the state if you would like, is the "tool" with the monopoly on violence. (and before someone starts: that`s a good thing and there cannot be an even remotely functional society where the state does not have that monopoly). Increasing it`s power and areas it has an influence over is a process that is easy to be driven overboard by those benefiting from that, and very, very hard to turn around, especially within a democratic system.

[Tamas]

Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.

I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.

Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem".  But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.

Government is a tool.  It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't.  No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".

Because government is not just like any other tool. Government, or the state if you would like, is the "tool" with the monopoly on violence. (and before someone starts: that`s a good thing and there cannot be an even remotely functional society where the state does not have that monopoly). Increasing it`s power and areas it has an influence over is a process that is easy to be driven overboard by those benefiting from that, and very, very hard to turn around, especially within a democratic system.

I am not saying that one day you go from full democracy to people being shot on the street, but do not act like there is no way to abuse state power over the economy.

[The Brain]

Why are you discussing limits on the power of the state with MachiavelliBoy?

[Jacob]

I am not saying that one day you go from full democracy to people being shot on the street, but do not act like there is no way to abuse state power over the economy.

Of course there is. Just look at Hungary, or China, or many other places.

However, the answer to corrupt public institutions harming the public interest is not inherently to discard public institutions, but to attack corruption.

If you got rid of corrupt public institutions in Hungary or China, you'd end up with corrupt private institutions running the show. It's corruption that's the problem.

[Berkut]

Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.

I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.

Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem".  But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.

Government is a tool.  It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't.  No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".

Because government is not just like any other tool. Government, or the state if you would like, is the "tool" with the monopoly on violence. (and before someone starts: that`s a good thing and there cannot be an even remotely functional society where the state does not have that monopoly). Increasing it`s power and areas it has an influence over is a process that is easy to be driven overboard by those benefiting from that, and very, very hard to turn around, especially within a democratic system.

Nothing at all tinfoil about recognizing that the State monopoly on power can and has been abused much more often than not throughout human history, and that it is a unique and particular type of power that must be managed carefully.

Beeb, you are the kind of guy who lives in a great neighborhood with excellent police and no crime saying "Man, you people worry too much about crime! We hardly have any at all!"

[Grey Fox]

Government is always a better option than Giant Corporate enterprises.