Or are they two sides of the same coin as Yuri Maltsev claims?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTfQ9_A3C4
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.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
What form of the welfare state do you favor?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
"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*.
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.
Honestly, what a load of complete crap. Seriously guys, angry rhetoric doesn't make for rigorous argumentation.
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.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
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
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?
And your understanding is of course apriori the correct one.
>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.
What are you talking about? This is the predominant form of welfare state in the US.
Translation from gibberish to english: I would put people in jail who disagree with me and shoot them if they resist (i.e. war).
It's okay to be straight forward. You don't have to pretend.
I think Giles does bring up a good point. Any codified legal system must be enforced, ultimately, via the threat of death or imprisonment for dissenters. This is true whether the legal system consists of "Give the King 50% of your crops", "Give your house to the highway commission" or "Don't set a man's house on fire". The primary difference is categorical: i.e. support of kingdoms and democracies is categorically a positive obligation, whereby the refrainment from harm in the Rothbardian legal framework is a negative obligation.
Any codified legal system must be enforced, ultimately, via the threat of death or imprisonment for dissenters.
False. Only states must work that way.
Even if we take into account some of the more intriguing "financial/social punishment" theories I've heard (i.e. having employers garnish criminals wages and ostracising them from public life), there's still the immediate factor of "Try to kill a man/set his house on fire, you tend to get shot back". This does not mean such a reaction is *unjustified* (indeed, as an avid supporter of gun rights, I'd be the last person to say it), but it does not negate the factor of fundamental force backing a legal system, be it the monopolized force of government policemen or the angry farmer with his sawn-off-shotgun.
The threat of death as a reaction to every conceivable crime is neither a necessity of a codified legal system nor is it halfway sane nor is it by any far fetched stretch of the imagination compatible with the Hoppean idea, as anyone who has read his ideas would know (not Giles). But it's good that we've acknowledge the total madness of the state system, which does ultimately enforce every last tidbit of obedience with straight execution. Whether you burned a thousand jews in ovens or stole one penny or a cop tried to beat you for being black.