25 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19 Aug \ parent \ on: Bitcoin and Political Tribalism bitcoin
'Libertarians aren't collectivists, so when you talk about "a nation's wealth" we don't think that's a meaningful concept.'
But a nations wealth is important because it determines how much it can invest in education, infrastructure, health, justice and defense.
Without the collective provision of education, infrastructure, health, justice and defense a nation is not able to maximise the potential value of its citizens and natural resources.
Humans are weak individually- it only via the collective, co-operative and competitive organisation in groups that humans have come to harness/dominate the world.
Humans fortunate to live in nation states that have come to dominate the access to and use of resources enjoy a higher standard of living and opportunity than nations where the government has been subjugated into surrender of its sovereignty and wealth. The infamous banana republics of Latin America provide example of the winners and losers of US imperialism within the Americas...and that of the Spanish even earlier.
Far from being a champion of free trade the US is one of the most protectionist and closed in the world. It overwhelmingly controls global standards and protocols via institutions such as SWIFT, IMF, World Bank, UN and multiple other rule setting regimes. The wealth of the US now heavily rests upon its USD / SWIFT global monetary hegemony- whereby most nations are forced to hold USD in order to participate in international trade payments, or be sanctioned and excluded such as Iran and Russia.
Without these significant mechanisms of state power and leverage the superior rights, wealth, opportunities and privileges of American citizens, including libertarians would be greatly reduced.
Libertarians don't think you need state coercion to organize most cooperative enterprises, like providing education, infrastructure, or healthcare. Entrepreneurs can and have provided all of those things without the state being involved.
I don't think you're overarching narrative holds up very well. The Chinese government is incredibly dominant over its area and the Chinese people are much poorer than the people of Switzerland, whose government exercises very little dominance.
Economic freedom is what best correlates with prosperity.
reply
Switzerland vs China is hardly a fair example as Switzerland has acted as the neutral gold vault of European imperialism for centuries while China has only recently emerged from the humiliation and cultural and economic devastation resulting from the Opium Wars and the associated and subsequent impact of western imperialism.
How can you not admire the seemingly very democratic system that operates in Switzerland, but whether it can be replicated in other jurisdictions (that do not provide its unique role as a neutral state and safe haven gold vault) seems debatable.
It can be noted however that the highly centralised, collectivist and autocratic Chinese economy is has delivered the largest raising in wealth of any human collective/nation in history and that the future prospects of young Chinese are generally seen as much improved upon those of their parents while the future prospects of most western nations youth are mostly seen as inferior to their 'boomer' parents.
I contend that there is a lack of appreciation in both progressives and libertarians today for the principle that citizens owe some reciprocal duty toward the collective mechanism of the state as quid pro quo for the rights and opportunities the state provisions for the individual. As someone once said- 'Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'
reply
How did China get wealthy, though? By relaxing it's control over resources. There are small wealthy nations all over the world, if you don't like the example of Switzerland. Clearly, dominating international relations is not required.
I believe you have the causality precisely backwards. Limited governments that don't interfere in civil society lead to vast prosperity. That wealth is very tempting to politicians who want personal enrichment, so the government grows. As we're seeing now in Europe, this eventually suffocates the underlying economy. It's killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I appreciate this civil disagreement, btw. It's all too rare online.
reply
The Chinese economy is fascinating in many ways and especially in contrast to the contemporary western economies.
The Chinese were first shocked and humiliated by the brutal impact of first the British and then other western imperialists who all imposed their will, by force, upon the nation of China. Almost uniquely however China was not completely seized and subjugated as were most other territories, because China was both too big and too deeply entrenched in its own perception as being the centre of civilisation- a claim it could rightly make some centuries earlier, and a belief that endures today.
The Chinese economic success is in part a result of liberalisation- allowing Chinese to compete freely and create wealth rather than being forced to work in autocratic and brutal collectives.
But the Chinese government understands and implements the hard lessons of the Opium Wars and western imperialism- namely the huge importance of government strategy in both internal development and external relations.
Central to this the Chinese government composed mostly of engineers, carefully manages each element of the economic structure. Most crucial to this is the issuance of capital via fiat- the Chinese government directs Chinese banks to in turn direct capital toward projects that will build Chinas wealth. There projects can be state owned or privately owned but the crucial point is capital is always subservient to the overall imperative and strategy of government. Hence such grand visions as Belt and Road.
In contrast western politicians are mostly lobbyists, lawyers and bankers. They are mostly directed by private capital- ie the banks and corporates who sponsor them into power. This is crony capitalism and has resulted in the decline of western infrastructure and wealth creation.
The majority of fiat debt finance issuance in the west today is directed into rentseeking non productive asset price property speculation, not productive enterprise or infrastructure.
In the west bankers have captured governments and they are bleeding them and their citizens to death.
Perhaps the Chinese will come unstuck with their highly centralised autocratic regime but they do still have the look of a rising power, while the west has the look and feel of decline.
reply