The Limits of Government - helping the poor?

Libertarians and liberals (in the classical meaning of the word) are people who want limited government and unlimited individual freedom (as long as no one else's freedom is being limited). The general idea, based on some experience, extensive logic and many facts, is that a Minimal State is the only fair and just form of state, and that the State's main function is to stop violence, make sure contracts are enforced and protect lives of individuals along with their property...

...and make sure that the poorest in the society are helped with some kind of a security net funded with taxes and operated by the State (either directly administrated by it and funded with taxes, or just the latter).

Or what?
The last statement bothers me. Is it really the State's responsibility to make sure the poorest of the poor have somekind of safety-net? I admit that the thought sounds right, and this is what I've heard from even the most liberal of libertarians (excluding anarcho-capitalists of course). But still the statement bothers me.

The Problem
The State is in an awkward situation when it comes to defining those who need help, and those who don't. Also, the State cannot allow access to tax-collected funds to just any-one who makes a strong enough case and does a good job convincing the social servant of some needs for help. The State must treat everyone equal and that means making general rules which again means putting different individuals with different problems into similar boxes which get similar help.

This is not what the hungry, the sick or the unlucky needs to improve his or her situation. Those who need help need it on individual basis. They need help - not welfare-checks or forced institutionalization. Only private charities and organizations can meet the individual needs of the individual because they don't have to follow a general set of rules which have to treat everyone the same.

The States responsibility
That being said I must say I oppose State-supported welfare-programs, even those only intended for the most poor or the most sick. However, this is not to say I oppose that it is the societies responsibility to make sure no-one dies on the streets from diseases, hunger or whatever it is. I think it's the societies responsibility to take care of those who need help, and show understanding for the individual's individual circumstances!

To the Socialist: Aim on poverty!

A very strong line in the Leftist's ideology is "protection" of this and that. The national socialist wants to "protect" his race from "mixing" with other races. The economic socialist wants to "protect" local jobs from competition in a globalized world. The green socialist wants to "protect" the environment from changes by human activities (usually calling it pollution or destruction).

How are these protections to be implemented? The socialist has tried just about everything which he can use the State for: Tariffs, border control, regulations, special projects of all sizes and shapes, taxes, executions, and God knows what. However, the solution is simple: Increased poverty is the tool which the socialist needs!

What happens when a country is poor? No-one wants to move to it and no-one can afford to leave it so the national socialist should be happy. No jobs exist which can afford to use modern technology to be efficient and competitive so there is very little risk of someone wanting to steal them, and therefore the economic socialist should be happy. The people can't afford cars, electricity or warmed up houses so the need for energy is little. Also, no-one has the money to invest in new powerplants or buildings so disruption of land should be at a minimum. This decreases "pollution" in all its forms, hopefully to the enjoyment of the green socialist.

It seems to be obvious that the socialist has to put poverty at the top of his priority list if he's ever to see his goals fulfilled.

The Non-Promise

Politicians promise. We all know that. They promise more funds to this and that, tougher laws on this and that, lower taxes, more freedom, higher taxes, less freedom, and God knows what. The result is usually a bigger State today than yesterday, a less flexible society and so on. The politician means well in most cases - he wants to make sure he stays in office so his favorite groups of voters can have a brighter future, and fuck the rest.

This approach is completely wrong as far as this author is concerned. The endless flood of promises has many negative effects on the voter. The voter begins to think all problems are the politicians to solve. He begins to think the individual contribution means nothing because the State is so much bigger and stronger. The voter, in short, hands more on more of his independence and initiative over to the State, which is in all respect bad.

Anti-promise
Instead of making a promise of doing something, this author believes a promise of not doing something is a more fruitful approach for the politicians and the society. What happens if the politician promises he will not increase funds to development-aid in Africa? What if the politician promises he will not start State-operated programs meant to cure the obeast, give riches to the poor or free addicts from addiction?

What will happen is that people will understand that it is not the State's job to heal every single disease or change every single out-of-the-normal behavior in the society. The result is increased private-initiative, more generous donations to private charity foundations, more care for the hungry and the tired, and a bigger personal responsibility in a society of humans.

We need politicians who promise not to do things. Everything else is an illusion.

Convergence to libertarianism

The biggest left-winged political party in Denmark is the Social democrats. It's an old party - at least over a 100 years old - and has experienced a lot of changes in the political landscape. At first it preached democratic socialism - a system newer tried out yet but still lives in the minds of some people. The party wanted to nationalize the means of production in the society. It wanted socialism in all its horrible beauty.

Time went by and the Iron-curtain fell. Texts about nationalization and State-owned means of production were removed from the manuscripts of the party. The party gets into government and implements old-fashioned methods to revive the economy. When the local economy collapsed in the international bubble-burst of 2000-2001 the party was out of government and could blame the conservatives then in charge.

When the Social democrats lost their second election this year their leader resigned - a leader with a red past and a fear for the new, globalized world of free competition and cooperation across the globe. Instead a young, "liberal" woman became the leader. This young woman had only been in office for 2 weeks when the ultra-Left began to call her liberal and a leaner to the Right. She has said she is willing to look into social-reforms of the soon-bankrupt welfare-system and hasn't promised any tax-increases yet.

Looking at the whole picture the trend is clear: The Social democrats have moved from Marxism to conservatism, and the process goes on towards liberalism - even libertarianism. It can probably never be expected that a party like the Social democrats fully appreciates the values of the Right, but it's moving there nice and slowly. The same can be said about its sister-parties in all of Scandinavia.

Politics converge to libertarianism with time. Ain't that a beauty?

Makes no sense

The newest "hot topic" among the European Left now is the European Union's support to agriculture in Europe. The Left, rightly, says that the support to European agriculture undermines agriculture in the developing countries - it gives European farmers and unfair advantage over the poor peasants in Africa and South-America and maintains poverty where poverty is the most. All of this is true and everyone, including the Left, should join in fighting State-supported agriculture. This has been a battle which the Right has had to fight alone for decades but now the Left joins in and that can only be positive.

The EU's agricultural program is being used by the Left to fight against the new European constitution. Now comes a strange part: Another issue being used to fight the constitution is it's emphasis on increased liberalization and privitization in the EU member states. This makes no sense. Removing State-support to agriculture and thereby giving farmers of the developing countries a better chance to enter European markets is a clear case of liberalization - it liberates farmers from the State and replaces support, regulations and tariffs with market-laws and competition on level grounds. The Left must realize this. Still it fights the constitution based on its emphasis on liberalization!

This makes no sense.

Bush pleases the Left, right?

Everyone knows G. W. Bush's method to implement democracy, peace and prosperity in the Middle-East: First, he removes the dictators. Second, he pumps billions of dollars into big "reconstruction programs" like building of roads and telecommunications-networks. Third, he holds elections.

The second part we all know: It's Keynesian economics, shortly describable as extensive State-action to push for economic growth. This should please the Left very much. The Left is all for State-initiative in every field, and especially when it comes to promoting growth and employment. However, the American and European Left is not happy with Bush - not in his own country nor in the Middle-East. He's being called a war-monger and accused of butting in where he's not needed. This makes no sense but that's I guess how Leftist-propaganda usually appears to me.

History and Milton Friedman teach us that economic freedom paves the way for political freedom. How about using the lessons of history next time we give advice to the leaders of the world?

2 Questions - 1 Answer

Q1: What markets have the toughest competition, the fastest technological evolution and the fastest price-decreases on the latest breakthroughs?

Q2: What markets evolve and move so fast that governments haven't, so far, been able to regulate them to any extent above other markets (e.g. with competition-laws), tax them with special "monitoring" and "supervision" taxes or stop them from moving back and forth across boarders and regions in search of the best and cheapest workers, resources and raw materials?

The answer: The markets of internet, mobile phones and computers.

Coincidences, or is the connection between market-efficiency and State-interference simply this clear?

Ironic

It is ironic to think that modern-day socialists say they are "against war" when Karl Marx and other philosophers of socialism welcomed them to a large extent. Marx himself said for example:

The redeeming feature of war is that it puts a nation to the test. As exposure to the atmosphere reduces all mummies to instant dissolution, so war passes supreme judgment upon social systems that have outlived their vitality. (#)

Libertarians on the other hand have always looked at wars as State-managed destruction of lives and property and continue to do so while Leftists change their opinion on wars and other State-abuse as the winds change direction.

Actually, Leftists are for most of the historical incentives of war though they no longer agitate wars as such. Examples: Trade-tariffs, "class war"-propaganda, State-controlled moral codes, nationalistic glorification, and more. Is there any fundamental difference in preaching the plague directly, or simply providing favorable conditions for the bacteria to grow in, later to be released upon all who come near?