Everything evolves, those who want things to stay the same whether it’s the prominence of a certain industry, culture or anything generally develop an anxiety from growing change. Being a benefactor of the way things were makes someone believe that this is a way society or the economy “should be”. As things change they become increasingly convinced using the state to prevent these changes are imperative to protecting what they consider is a successful society. This is protectionism.
Whether it’s putting tariffs on goods, taxing new industries to protect old ones, controlling immigration or one of an endless assortment of approaches the result is always the same. Society changes anyways but the state becomes empowered and more oppressive from the cultural or economic protectionist efforts.
You want less government you will have to embrace cultural and economic evolution, the reality that things will change meaning you will have to adapt. Give it a shot, I guarantee you’ll like the way it feels.
Recent I was in a debate arguing in favor of Multi-Culturalism. I usually frame my fondness of cultural pluralism in a positive framework of the wonderful things that come out of the free Exchange of ideas usually citing Korean Tacos to make my case.
Although, diversity isn’t good just cause of what comes out of working together but also cause the bad things that are prevented because we become skeptical of each other and even work against each other. Below is what I said in this discussion which I figured many would find interesting.
I don’t disagree, pluralism may lead to less trust but I think that’s a feature. A society with more skepticism will be skeptical of the use of the state to benefit other groups vs a more more homogenous group that will be less sensitive to growth of the state due to the beneficiaries being people they trust or feel they trust.
This is why I feel a lot of European nations have more robust welfare states because they are less bothered by it due to cultural homogeneity and to me that powerful a state is not a good thing.
I agree pluralism leads to conflict but that leads to decentralization like conflict and competition between enterprises leads to decentralized provision of goods, innovation, and other benefits.
I’m not a multiculturalist cause I expect everyone to get along but because I don’t think they will.
But like markets there are enterprises that find synergies and work together and it’s the same with different cultures. It’s a market.
The difference between libertarians and non-libertarians is we aren’t fighting for a particular solution but for a process to discover solutions.
Non-libertarians believe there is some particular government intervention that is the solution to the problem and will seek data to support that conclusion and when not available reframe the problem so the data that exists allows for the policy they already want in place.
From a libertarian perspective reducing taxes, regulation, licensing, prohibition and foreign intervention is not an answer in itself. Getting these things out of the way doesn’t make all our problems go away tomorrow but it does give individuals and communities the autonomy and resources to begin discovering solutions.
They may not discover them overnight but several small scale attempts at a solution balancing the challenges of resource constraints and the buy-in of consent by those who patron or support these efforts allows for better governance, oversight, and discovery. While one large scale experiment without consent and resource constraints doesn’t facilitate thoughtful governance which often leads to its failure.
Libertarians don’t have answers but neither does anyone else, but libertarians do want to create an environment where solutions can more easily be discovered.
I am for reducing or better put shifting the social safety net from the welfare state to voluntary community based institutions, charitable enterprises and for profit ones. A decentralized network of aid organizations would be more nimble, efficient and responsive to societies needs than clunky slow moving government.
Although, I do think people overstate the amount the welfare state acts as a “magnet” for immigration. Most immigrants are not running to welfare but from oppressive regimes and economies destroyed by their own governments, foreign intervention and the drug war.
When immigrants arrive it is not shocking that they may find the struggle here exists as opportunities have become more scarce for everyone due to the effects of licensing, taxation and regulation.
As citizens do, immigrants feeling the pinch of bad economic policy may find themselves reaching for the social safety net. The problem is instead of us working together to fight against the growing burden of government to restore opportunities for everyone we attack each other over the crumbs of a dwindling pie empowering government further.
What a welfare state does do is feed that resentment, it creates a reason for people to look at each other as scapegoats for their frustrations. People assuming all welfare state beneficiaries are undeserving and leeches whether because their background, legal status, or class when in reality we are all the victims of the destroyer of opportunities that is growing government intervention around the world, in the economy, and in our personal lives.
We are all struggling, instead of fighting each other let’s fight against the institution putting us against each other… large intrusive expensive compulsory government policies.
What saddens me is when people get so frustrated with rolling back government that they give in to growing it to fight back against the unintended consequences.
The welfare state, regulatory state, warfare state, the drug war, and cronyism all has endless unintended consequences hurting families in safety and prosperity, causing international instability breeding conflict and border chaos, and just making it hard for people everywhere to get by. Bottom line, the answer is rolling back the cause (big government non-consensual one size fits all policy) and that doesn’t change no matter how hard it seems and how slow the progress can appear.
Asking for government run universal healthcare in response to a botched government managed healthcare system is akin to asking for more survelliance and enforcement powers for government to handle border chaos that was in large part the result of foreign policy and drug policy idiocy.
Bottom line is more government is never the answer to too much government. Don’t let your frustrations with the welfare/warfare state and the drug war fuel a demand for a growing border state.
Don’t let the government win in giving them more power for their mistakes.
Many non-libertarians have the wrong impression that libertarianism is anti-social, that it is all about doing everything yourself and depending on no one else. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Libertarians just care about a thing called, “Consent”.
I personally have lived a life that totally exemplifies the saying “it takes a village”. Many people have given me opportunities, resources and wisdom that have helped me to accomplish everything I’ve accomplished. The key thing is all that assistance came with the willingness and consent of my benefactors.
I had to be the opposite of anti-social, I had to build new relationships and work to maintain the ones I already had. My ability to be kind, forgiving, and empathetic towards others had a direct impact on receiving the same.
Consent encourages community and civility, the opposite in its absence.