<
https://medium.com/politically-speaking/why-libertarianism-implies-authoritarianism-98e105c0f6ee>
"The central premise of libertarianism is that the market is, if not
infallible, at least less fallible than any other decision-maker. But taken to
its logical conclusion, this idea commits you to some form of authoritarianism.
Think of it this way. The function of the market is to align supply with
demand, which it does quite efficiently. But what if some people in society, a
large majority even, want to see capital and labor allocated in a different
way, in pursuit of different priorities? One thing they could do would be to
elect representatives who could make laws incentivizing market actors to do
what they want (by passing regulations, say). Or they could just pay to have it
done (by allocating money for the building of roads, or the funding of
research, etc).
But then, that government would be usurping the role of the market. According
to the logic of libertarians, anything it does would result in a less efficient
allocation of resources. Whether you ground your libertarianism in utilitarian
ethics (society should be structured to produce the most utility for the
greatest number) or in some kind of deontological ethics (government
interference in personal liberty is just wrong), you are committed to only
supporting a government that grows organically out of the market itself.
What would such a government look like? Given libertarianism’s general
opposition to antitrust laws (“what kind of a race is it where we shoot the
winners?” they say), the most likely form of social organization to arise out
of a laissez-faire economy would be some form of oligarchy."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
