US used to be a libertarian country.
Libertarianism is great. However, it has a few flaws.
It doesn't address market failure. Many freedoms are arguably not force or fraud but hurt the economy.
Those are things like voting for a socialist party, breeding while poor, deceptive marketing.
Libertarianism also doesn't address great wealth inequality. If wealth is too unequal, the people tend to rebel or vote for a different party.
Libertarianism and capitalism, however, is NOT the cause of wealth inequality. Just look at emperors living in a palace with harem while many are merely slaves. Wealth and power inequality happen long before capitalism. Someone is always smarter and more realistic. Those people will get richer on any system.
If anything, libertarianism, and capitalism reduce wealth inequality because it treats people equal under the law.
Quite often, pure libertarianism is it gives too little scrap to the poor voters. So most rulers and voters do not vote libertarian party. I think libertarians should balance the "socialism" and "freedom" and try to maximize "freedom" with minimum "socialism". Insisting on 0 socialism will not win the election.
So, I like libertarianism. However, I do not advocate full libertarianism. I think anything toward more libertarianism is great. Just don't too much.
However, there is a natural, even positive reason why US went socialist.
Imagine if you're a store. You sell an awesome ideology. What happens? In the beginning, you sell it for free.
Then you will think why I should sell this stuff at a cheap price? I should charge money. Then you start making a lot of money. It's just common sense. You deserve it.
Then other shops start selling your widget. Now your price goes down. It's a never-ending cycle under capitalism.
Nations are like shops. Rulers are like owners. Taxpayers are like consumers.
US start being libertarian. Libertarianism is great. So US get prosperous.
Then the voters think. Why should we be libertarians? Why don't we charge the rich and give it to the poor? Think about it. Where would the rich go? To communist China? To another shithole in Mexico?
So the voters demand socialism. It's just like a store raising the price.
It sucks or good depending on your point of view.
When voters see that a little, rather than too much socialism also benefit the voters, what do other countries too?
Other countries like China start being capitalistic too.
Now US government can't be too socialist anymore. Raise the minimum wage and jobs move to China. Raise tax and people incorporate in Seychelles.
US government cannot just invade another country that offers better security with lower tax. We have a world system called the Westphalian sovereign. Each country is free to govern as they please. Also, we have nukes. So no country can easily attack another country. US attack Syria and China and Rusia is helping Assad.
So world peace will also create another layer of capitalism. As countries are at peace, they cannot be too socialist. Capitals, talents, and businesses will just flee to another country.
So I think this is what's happening in the whole world. The whole world is a big capitalistic system where each country is a player. Countries compete with one another peacefully. This outer capitalism between countries is what makes all government better in every country.
A country that governs themselves better will have more socialism for their voters. It's an irony, isn't it.
Capitalism produces socialism just like good product produces profit for owners.
Capitalism is NOT an enemy of socialism. How do you think those welfare parasites can get their welfare check if not from the prosperity that comes from Capitalism.
However, no country can be too socialist because then productive elements will move to another country.
I think if we explain to all sides about this dynamic they will come with better ways to arrange their country.
There will be inevitable balance. That's all I am saying.
Libertarianism is great. However, it has a few flaws.
It doesn't address market failure. Many freedoms are arguably not force or fraud but hurt the economy.
Those are things like voting for a socialist party, breeding while poor, deceptive marketing.
Libertarianism also doesn't address great wealth inequality. If wealth is too unequal, the people tend to rebel or vote for a different party.
Libertarianism and capitalism, however, is NOT the cause of wealth inequality. Just look at emperors living in a palace with harem while many are merely slaves. Wealth and power inequality happen long before capitalism. Someone is always smarter and more realistic. Those people will get richer on any system.
If anything, libertarianism, and capitalism reduce wealth inequality because it treats people equal under the law.
Quite often, pure libertarianism is it gives too little scrap to the poor voters. So most rulers and voters do not vote libertarian party. I think libertarians should balance the "socialism" and "freedom" and try to maximize "freedom" with minimum "socialism". Insisting on 0 socialism will not win the election.
So, I like libertarianism. However, I do not advocate full libertarianism. I think anything toward more libertarianism is great. Just don't too much.
However, there is a natural, even positive reason why US went socialist.
Imagine if you're a store. You sell an awesome ideology. What happens? In the beginning, you sell it for free.
Then you will think why I should sell this stuff at a cheap price? I should charge money. Then you start making a lot of money. It's just common sense. You deserve it.
Then other shops start selling your widget. Now your price goes down. It's a never-ending cycle under capitalism.
Nations are like shops. Rulers are like owners. Taxpayers are like consumers.
US start being libertarian. Libertarianism is great. So US get prosperous.
Then the voters think. Why should we be libertarians? Why don't we charge the rich and give it to the poor? Think about it. Where would the rich go? To communist China? To another shithole in Mexico?
So the voters demand socialism. It's just like a store raising the price.
It sucks or good depending on your point of view.
When voters see that a little, rather than too much socialism also benefit the voters, what do other countries too?
Other countries like China start being capitalistic too.
Now US government can't be too socialist anymore. Raise the minimum wage and jobs move to China. Raise tax and people incorporate in Seychelles.
US government cannot just invade another country that offers better security with lower tax. We have a world system called the Westphalian sovereign. Each country is free to govern as they please. Also, we have nukes. So no country can easily attack another country. US attack Syria and China and Rusia is helping Assad.
So world peace will also create another layer of capitalism. As countries are at peace, they cannot be too socialist. Capitals, talents, and businesses will just flee to another country.
So I think this is what's happening in the whole world. The whole world is a big capitalistic system where each country is a player. Countries compete with one another peacefully. This outer capitalism between countries is what makes all government better in every country.
A country that governs themselves better will have more socialism for their voters. It's an irony, isn't it.
Capitalism produces socialism just like good product produces profit for owners.
Capitalism is NOT an enemy of socialism. How do you think those welfare parasites can get their welfare check if not from the prosperity that comes from Capitalism.
However, no country can be too socialist because then productive elements will move to another country.
I think if we explain to all sides about this dynamic they will come with better ways to arrange their country.
There will be inevitable balance. That's all I am saying.
