The relationship between the wealthy capitalists and the state is interesting to me? I have learned that many philosophers at both political extremes agree that the business class has had a close relationship with the state throughout history. Ayn Rand in youtube video "Liberty vs Socialism" called them something like the original collectivists. Karl Marx described the bourgeosie of his time as rich who also hold influence in politics. Hans Hermann Hoppe mentioned in "The Impossibility of Limited Government" that naturally productive people are forced to improve their 'political talents' in order to survive in an increasingly statist world so the result is that we find fewer and fewer rich people obtaining their wealth purely from the free market. Scholars at the alliance-of-the-libertarian-left make sure to emphasize this fact. Could the relationship of the capitalists with the state be as strong as that of the intellectuals and the state? If you think about it, the richer you are the harder it is to grow your wealth because of free market competition. The state also has an incentive to get financial support of the business class.
I would appreciate if anyone can post any sources to theories about this phenomenom.
Kenneth:If you think about it, the richer you are the harder it is to grow your wealth because of free market competition.
Of course. The state is a tool, like a gun. Whoever controls the tool will implement it to their perceived benefit. For the businessman, it's quashing competition. For the downtrodden, it receiving comeuppance. The two groups are constantly trying to gain control of the tool.
Kenneth:I would appreciate if anyone can post any sources to theories about this phenomenom
No theories, but some evidence in practice:
TARP
GM
I tend to agree.
As the philosophers like to say, the only constant in the world is change. I cannot agree with anybody who claims that a perfect static system is possible even in principle, be it anarcho-capitalism or enlightened minarchy or whatnot. In the latter the state will grow without bound. In the former states would eventually evolve from larger and larger organizations that turn criminal when their status is threatened.
The bottom line is that, while Mises teaches us "the market is no respecter of vested interests", the vested interests are not likely to say "oh, I guess my time has come and gone." Nobody wants to lose what they have, and will fight using any means necessary to maintain their interests.
No system is permanent. That's not how the universe works. Everything is dynamic and ever-changing, and humans are full of ugly collectivistic pack instincts as well as envy and all other kinds of ugly things that are not going to magically go away because of a good economic system.
This is both cause for hope and despair. Hope because when we have the worst (total statism), the inexorable law of change promises that things can and will get better. Despair because when we have the best (anarchy), the inexorable law of change promises that things can and will get worse.
Utopianism, of all stripes, is simply not grounded in reality. At the bottom, everything is a wave, bounding back and forth in cyclic fashion, and larger and more complex systems are still built on that ultimate foundation. The Chinese philosphers recognized this as yin and yang. The Buddhists taught to find serenity by reducing the "amplitude" as much as possible in your own life. Modern physicists discovered the principle at work even in the smallest of the small. Every great thinker discovers a small piece of the truth. There is something to be learned from everything.
This got a little off-track. But the answer is yes. The powerful (even if just financially) want to stay powerful, and will not accept a change in that position without a fight. Ever.
Life is a ride.