/liberty/ - Liberty

>>65292

>What are the arguments used by Classical Liberals and Minarchists regarding the tendency of small/limited States to grow over time?

You pursue a red herring in seeking a small or limited state, or, rather, you seek a fixed, finite point in the development of a nation. Every creature in this life seeks and desires more power, more territory, more this, more that, as is their nature, the primary drive being procreation and expansion of their species. John Locke was wrong when he declared your natural rights were "life, liberty, and property." In nature, the only rights you have are the rights you manage to win by force, a.k.a the "quick and the dead, " using whatever gifts God granted you at birth as your tools to do so. To translate it to modernity, your innocence or guilt in holding the land the state says you own against invaders hinges on how much money you can spend on a lawyer, and how much money your opponent can spend on their lawyer, unless you kill the perp, in which case you have used direct force to protect, and therefore create, your rights.

In a simple word, it's not "nature" that guards your rights, it's your society's laws, constructed and enforced by men, or your firearm, fired by you. Nature does not care if a burglar runs off with your television or not, and would actually reward the burglar for his swiftness and physical prowess with your property that you have a right to keep "naturally," according to Mister Locke.

Another example would be state seizure of your property, whether by soft force (law, bank foreclosure, etc.) or direct force. No inherent rights to be had, you did not possess the strength necessary to keep your property, and so, according to the laws of Nature, your property is now gone and in the hands of a mightier entity.

I don't know the exact argument used by classic liberals and minarchists, but that is the objective reason as to why states grow over time. States are run by men, and men utilize the natural, healthy instinct to acquire power. Thus, the state grows, assuming those men are competent enough to make it grow and gain influence, a collectivist entity that the layman can only pray is in their benefit of the many and not the benefit of a select few. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

<Sometimes it is: J. Edgar Hoover's acquire of tremendous power to the FBI to totally and completely break the Italian Mafia in the country. State powers were most definitely expanded, but to a good end for the many under the sovereignty of the USA, to the harm of a few, the Italian Mafia.

>Sometimes it isn't: FDIC insured banks within the USA, granting banks complete power to invest however recklessly they wish, robbing funds from the general populace to cover their rash investment decisions while lining the pockets of the few banksters for when those investment deals turn a profit, perhaps having to pay back a small portion in taxes, while having the entire sum covered by taxes for bank solvency.

Nice place, hope it stays small. Slow boards tend the most effort put into posts.

Pic related, might makes right.

>>65821

Thanks laddy. Posts of multiple paragraphs are worth it on small boards because they'll be around for a while and won't get slid off due to endless two word posting.

>>65837

>the point being that even positive examples that come about are really quite terrible in the long run

What I should have emphasized in my "sometimes it isn't" example is that state power, large or small, is just a tool to an end. FDIC insurance of privately owned banks would be an example of a relinquishment of state authority over an aspect of the economy. The result of this relinquishment of state authority, or in particular the end it achieved, was a system wherein those bank owners can invest quite wildly and speculatively with zero repercussion, particularly with the "fractional reserve banking" system that was executed. I just call it "funny money," the money being funny in that it doesn't actually exist but is treated like it does for capitol investment, and, with FDIC insurance, the investor doesn't have to worry if the investment will fail or not because, if he loses it all, the taxpayer will swoop in to cover the loss; of course, if the result is profitable, a tiny percentage is returned to the government in taxes while the investor keeps the majority of the profits. This is an example of relaxation of state authority being achieved, but to a harmful end for the standard layman of the country, but to the benefit of the very few bank owners.

>>65845

>You act as though the state can be our ally. It can't

Sure it can. Hoover was certainly an ally to the standard Joe when he broke the Italian Mafia. Does it remain an ally? Depends on who takes the reins next, which is largely a flaw in democracy in general due to volatility in public opinion depending on which entities has the ability to sway public opinion the most. If democracy was broken, a system could arise in which original blueprints are laid out for the direction of a nation and then set in stone, with changes being made only as they bring one closer to the goal for which that nation was established in the first place; in short, no cold feet in the middle of operations, which is what democracy promotes in abundance.

That said, I am at this point absolutely for total dissolution of the Federal Government and complete Balkanization of the United States of America. The current regime is one that believes a negro and a white are essentially equal, never mind measurable differences in crime rate per capita, alcoholic consumption per capita, and every other measurable category that you wish to compare statistics across. In short, the current State uses its resources to enforce a situation that would NEVER arise naturally, and, thus, requires constant draining of valuable resources to maintain.