Ampersand claimed that a libertarian government would be particularly susceptible to bribery, while I’m arguing the opposite is true-–that an activist state is far more prone to it. This is partly because there are just so many more things that an activist government can do to help its friends, and partly because in a society that expects government to be involved in everything, it’s much easier to come up with a plausible justification for whatever new regulation or subsidy the briber has requested.

Yes, and no-one really knows the absolute truth in the absence of true libertarian government. In the other hand, there are plenty of governments that can be characterized as “activists” or even deserve the dreaded label “welfare state”.
So, while this theory sounds much more reasonable than the previous self-contradicting one, I fear that it fails to be backed up by proof that corruption correlates at all with big governments in the real world.
The most corrupt places should be in Scandinavia and northern Europe, while in north America Canada should be more corrupt than USA and notoriously more corrupt than Mexico.

It obviously doesn’t work that way. The problem seems be inversely correlated surprisingly well with the activist state. The concern that turning big government into libertarian one would lead to corruption might be unnecessary -perhaps same cultural values that condemn bribery lead to welfare policies- but it is absolutely logical.

I know that Somalia is no libertarian state for the reasons you stated, yet it was never quite my claim. Somalia does have remarkable right-wing virtues: It is a country where the government has been drowned in a bathtub.

Secondly, one might also argue that it is quite a bit closer to libertarian ideal than a nation with the biggest government in absolute terms in the history of humankind. Yet somewhat ironically, the achievements of latter are frequently used as arguments by self-styled libertarians. (Case in point, this discussion.)
Thirdly, it remains as an option for those that truly think that taxation in democracy is the ultimate human rights violation. Only I strongly suspect that american taxpayers just have the same melodramatic disposition than arab salesmen: These taxes have ruined us! You have taken the bread from the lips of my poor children by this 30% income tax! Now we have to live on the streets in the dust and beg, Allah have mercy on us… (etc)
-And still he pays propably only half what he could really afford based on comparison with othern western countries. It is a cultural thing I suppose.

It is admittedly an extreme example, kind of a worst-case scenario. Like Sweden is as far as the other end of the spectrum is concerned. It is simply very nice after a heavy-handed discussion to hear the admission that despite the unspeakable horrors of welfare state it is possible to go too much to the other direction too.

I largely agree with latter parts of the post, things are still simply not all about the size of the government.

So, in libertarian society government has enough power to enforce the law, yet bribery isn’t even theoretically possible as the government is supposedly not powerful enough to affect businesses in any way?

There’s always potential for bribery–utopia is not an option. But Ampersand claimed that a libertarian government would be particularly susceptible to bribery, while I’m arguing the opposite is true–that an activist state is far more prone to it. This is partly because there are just so many more things that an activist government can do to help its friends, and partly because in a society that expects government to be involved in everything, it’s much easier to come up with a plausible justification for whatever new regulation or subsidy the briber has requested.

It’s true that countries with very small governments tend to be hellholes, but that doesn’t mean big government is necessary for a country to stop being a hellhole. The usual pattern is for a country to grow rich with a relatively small government and then to expand the government once it becomes wealthy enough to support a welfare state. Big government is a symptom, not the cause, of prosperity. Where it’s been tried, limited government has worked pretty well. It just hasn’t lasted.

Conversely, hellholes tend to have small governments partly because it’s all they can afford, and partly because the people at the top don’t have any incentive to establish a welfare state. That these governments are small, though, doesn’t mean that there’s anything liberal about them. They tend to be petty dictatorships more often than not. Even on a shoestring budget, a government can always find ways to disprut commerce, scare off foreign investment, and in general make its constituents’ lives miserable.

That said, there are a few countries with relatively limited governments which are doing quite well, such as Hong Kong (not technically a country, but fairly independent, policy-wise), Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Yet as far as I know, unlike communists, very few libertarians put their money where their mouth is and actually move to enjoy a paradise without the evils of government such as Somalia.

That’s a bit of a strawman. No libertarian wants a society without government. Minarchists want a single government whose functions are limited to maintaining law and order and enforcing contracts, whereas market anarchists want competing governments which perform those functions. No one in Somalia is performing those functions. But granted that Somalia sucks, does it really suck any more than it did when it had a government.

If we suppose that no, every woman does not have those rights, how is that supposed to be implemented?

Is the kid literally supposed to starve to death, or to die from example because of a banal wound infection as the parents can’t afford food or medical care?
If the child is automatically taken to custody, then the result is even more burdensome to tax payers than providing welfare for otherwise able parents.
If the criminal system is brought to bear on someone because of a pregnancy that would be a huge issue to freedom-loving Americans and heads would roll even if it would be true that she is not able to take care of the kid on her own.

We talk about rich countries like USA where there are already myriad of welfare policies and ultimately it is agreed that the state has the obligation to provide basic needs for kids without functioning parents.

There is nothing wrong with the usual right-wing rhetoric of “personal responsibility” when we talk about able grown-ups in a wealthy society such as USA, but the problem here is the same as in “socialized “healthcare discussions: it is quite inevitable that there has to be some kind of innocent collateral damage if the society strives to be tough but fair in this.

Finally, I agree that government should not provide an incentive for having kids for someone who is not able to take care of himself without obvious reason such as disability. Then again, was it Alas that pointed out that the so called “welfare-queens” were just a right-wing myth.

My point was: even if you disagree with the conclusions of the original article, it wrong to punish the kid and quite hard to punish the mother for assuming rights they supposedly don’t really deserve.

…government should perform the basic functions of maintaining law and order and enforcing contracts.

Bribery is important only when government officials have the power to make or break your business, and one of the central tenets of libertarianism is that we should take that power away from them by limiting the government’s interference in the economy.

So, in libertarian society government has enough power to enforce the law, yet bribery isn’t even theoretically possible as the government is supposedly not powerful enough to affect businesses in any way?
And I don’t see why it is necessary to totally break or make anything in order to create an incentive for bribery. It is quite enough to make it cheaper to bribe an official than follow regulations.

Please elaborate, though I admit that I’m bit of a sceptic when libertarianism is concerned as all countries without reasonable sized central government seem to be abysmal hellholes. Of course that can be conveniently explained by the old “real communism is not like that” type argument.
Yet as far as I know, unlike communists, very few libertarians put their money where their mouth is and actually move to enjoy a paradise without the evils of government such as Somalia.

As for the billionaires, obviously everyone is in the end better of in a functioning society where you can get rich by talent and hard work instead of a divided and quite static class society such as many south-american countries. Yet many so-called right wing policies seem to seek social engineering in order to make US more like Mexico.
I suppose that the problem is that everyone wants to have a free ride in functioning society where someone else pays for it, and this is equally true whether you want to abolish “death tax” in right or more welfare benefits in the left side of political spectrum.

But the greater class divide makes for a more comfortable life for the rich. More people in Brazil live a luxurious life though their incomes are lower because labor costs are so low.

A full-time live-in servant costs about $100 a month, so the top third of the population typically never cleans their own house, does any gardening or cooking.

Carlavii, so why shouldn’t entrepeneurship be its own reward too? Why should tax money go to help business, when people should do it all on their own? you’re saying people who aren’t primary caregivers deserve all the money while saintly women who raise children and take care of the old need to stay in Virtuous Poverty. You sound Catholic.

Also, the poor pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes, especially sales taxes.

But the point is that you-or anyone else- would much rather be poor in America than in Mexico or Brazil or just about anyplace else in the world.

Gee whiz, SBW. People in second and third world countries would rather live in the US, a first world country.

I personally (in the fleshworld) don’t know anyone — rich or poor — who would like to move to the US. The leftists think you’re the Great Satan and the rightists are too patriotic.

;)

Don’t you see how much easier your life and my life would be if we lived in a more just system that rewarded people for taking care of their loved ones, who work to better their own lives and that of their families?

Does this bother anyone else — the idea that we should be rewarded for doing the right thing?

Silly me, I thought virtue was its own reward.

But heck if I’m going to let that last comment slide.

First, you’re arguing against a strawman. Enforcing contracts is one of the few functions of government that libertarians regard as legitimate, and we’re far more consistent in our support for enforcement of contracts than you on the left are. And I haven’t the slightest idea where you get the idea that libertarian policies would lead to an environment in which bribery became necessary to run a business. Bribery is important only when government officials have the power to make or break your business, and one of the central tenets of libertarianism is that we should take that power away from them by limiting the government’s interference in the economy.

Your next step is even more baffling. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be implying that if we agree that government should perform the basic functions of maintaining law and order and enforcing contracts–something no one has disputed–we must also agree that it should provide generous welfare benefits. That’s a non-sequitur; you can’t get there from here without some very nonobvious intermediate steps that you’ve left out.

Also, saltyC:
Insurance is a very bad analogy for the welfare state. With insurance, people who are at high risk pay high premiums. With welfare, it’s just the opposite. The wealthy, who will almost certainly never collect welfare benefits, pay high taxes, while the poor, who are much more likely to collect welfare benefits, pay relatively low taxes.

And the United States has 371 billionaires compared to Brazil’s 16, despite Brazil having about 60% of the United States’ population. In fact, Bill Gates has more money than all of Brazil’s billionaires combined. So I’m not sure why you’re pointing to Brazil as an example of how the rich can get richer.

I disagree. Libertarianism would not crush small businesses and often the actions taken to help small businesses and regulate industry have ended up crushing innovation and creating the very monopolies we supposedly despise.
Link
Link

We have something very good going on here in the States. Yes, it can get better. Much better. But the point is that you-or anyone else- would much rather be poor in America than in Mexico or Brazil or just about anyplace else in the world.

The leap from “Mexico or Brazil” to “just about anyplace else in the world” seems extreme. I’d rather be poor in the USA than in any country in the developing world, but there are other first-world countries where being poor and working-class seems at least as good, or better, than being poor or working class in the USA. Especially when you look at things like relative infant mortality rates.

Libertarians, if they were ever allowed to run the country, would make us very poor within a generation. One major reason the USA is so wealthy because the regulations and bureaucracy that libertarians hate, have fostered a business climate in which business owners can depend on contract laws being enforced, very rarely have to bribe officials, etc.. That’s a climate in which businesses - especially small start-up businesses, which would otherwise be eaten alive - can thrive.

But libertarians would undo all that. Deregulation is horrible for the economy; deregulation is what brings us Enron and the S&L scandal. I’m all for a market-based economy, but markets without regulation — and, yes, a safety net — are a recipe for widespread corruption and poverty.

Maybe because your from Brazil you have an ax to grind with rich people? Maybe you just don’t see yourself doing anything with your life other than what your doing right now?

Let me tell you something, I have seen all angles of life. I see how the wealthy live, some members of my family were born into wealth, I myself have been privileged in many ways, one of them is having relatives pay for my education. I have been and done many things, I have taught at Universities, I have been in the development team for video games such as Madden Football, I have created public art projects, etc. I have been well rewarded monetarily, but the hardest job I ever did was raising a baby girl.

I see who gets the money and who doesn’t. In this system, the poorest people are children. It does not have to be this way.

Things don’t just work themselves out if you just let it go. To allow a free-for-all, in which someone who runs a casino or a drug pusher makes a ton of money whereas someone who takes care of a sick relative gets nothing at all is not a recipe for a good society.

The super wealthy get that way from the work of everyday people. They benefit from the work of mothers raising children who will work for them, they hurt when childen are abandoned because a mother has to work and can’t afford childcare. Because that child will not be as productive.

What I’m trying to say is, if we ask the wealthy to share in the cost of making a good society, it’s better for our economy in the long run.

The well-off in Brazil would never trade their luxuries just to live in America now. Same with Mexico. The ones who come here dto make money are from the poor classes. The rich in Mexico City are white. Mexicans who come to America are Indians. You don’t see a lot of white Mexicans in America, because they live the good life at home, thanks to a system that is more libertarian.

To the extent that a hard working American can rise up to make a higher salary is the extent that the classes are not divided to begin with. Without government subsidies, the cost of an education would be even more out of the reach of poor folk than it is now. A health care crisis can bankrupt an average family, because an extended hospital stay will cause you to lose your job hence your insurance. America was great because regular working people fought for labor laws, fought for access to education, fought for contraception, for the right to vote. We are slacking now thanks to Fox. Americans have the same life expectancy as Cubans do., and our health and education indicators are the lowest of the richest nations.

I see we have a completely different perspective on things. For me, working hard and educating myself is its own reward, not something I do for some amorphous collective known as “society”. I work hard because I want nice things, I want to live in a nice house, I want to retire comfortably, I want to see my daughter live a more comfortable life than I did. I work hard for myself, my daughter, my family, and the issues that I care about. Perhaps that’s why I work so hard whereas those people “laboring for society” don’t seem to see the connection between their hard work and their own lives; they’re waiting on “society” to give them some congratulations and a pat on the back.

Being born a Hilton is no great feat, does no help to society and is mightily rewarded, and don’t kid yourself: you do pay for her riches. Taxpayer money goes to large businesses like Hilton Hotels, and the Estate tax only affects mutli-millionaires.

1) Yes, the estate tax only affects multi-millionaires. So what? Once you get rich your obliged to become Robin Hood?

2) I don’t think the government should bail out failing businesses.

Don’t you see how much easier your life and my life would be if we lived in a more just system that rewarded people for taking care of their loved ones, who work to better their own lives and that of their families?

The system does do that.

Of course that doesn’t excuse them from not trying, but is it that important for the rich to keep on getting richer? Stop watching Fox.

Maybe because your from Brazil you have an ax to grind with rich people? Maybe you just don’t see yourself doing anything with your life other than what your doing right now?

Wow, that’s a loaded question. On one hand your right. I wish I didn’t have to struggle as much as I do. I wish I didn’t have to make some of the hard choices that I’ve had to make over the past few years. I know all too well what poverty feels like and the pain of having to watch those of greater financial means acquire things in life that I wish I had. I’ve dealt with more instances of racism than I care to acknowledge and yet………for the most part, I made the bed I am now lying in and I think that I will eventually get out of this bed and move on to greener pastures. Just because this is where I’m at doesn’t mean that this is where I have to end up. I may have to work harder to get to where I want to be than the wealthy white woman or white male that I cross in the street but I haven’t given up.

No one is keeping me mired in poverty for the rest of my life. No one is saying that I can’t learn from my mistakes and make a better life for myself and my daughter. No one is saying that the next few years of my life aren’t going to be filled with some hard and painful choices.

I think the difference here is that I am optimistic and I have accepted the fact that life is not inherently fair and there is no way to make things fair across-the-board all the time. That’s just not the way that life works.

Look around you, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Is that because the rich are working harder and the poor are slacking off?It’s because the sstem is not working. I’m from Brazil, and believe me, the poor can get much poorer and the rich even richer than we have it now.

Another loaded question and I don’t have the time right now to do it justice but I will say this: I like capitalism/libertarianism and I don’t think socialism is the answer to the problems that ail American society.

I also don’t think that rich people are always more hard-working than poor people. But you help me make my point by bringing up your birthplace of Brazil. America has one of the highest standards of living in the world. There are more people trying to get into America both legally and illegally than any other country in the world. We have something very good going on here in the States. Yes, it can get better. Much better. But the point is that you-or anyone else- would much rather be poor in America than in Mexico or Brazil or just about anyplace else in the world.

Libertarianism will not help people like you and me, tell me, is it pay as you go and every man for himself really working for you?

I’m a stay-at-home Mom who goes to school full-time. Things aren’t all that great for me now but I know that they are going to be a heck of a whole lot better shortly. Despite my poverty I contribute to my daughters college savings account and have organized my life in such a way as that the most important things to me are taken care of despite the fact that I don’t have everything that I want. I’m helping myself along with a lot of input from my family and I can only see things getting better.

Do people in Brazil have the ability to say that in 5 years or less they can look forward to a change from poverty to a $40k-$50k a year career and myriad possibilities?

SBW, do you really think you and I should struggle as hard as we do, when we are doing the valuable work of raising healthy happy children the right way?

Look, someone making 10 million dollars a year does not work 500 times as hard as someone making 20,000 a year with two kids and an elderly parent to take care of.

Everyone benefits from a healthy next generation.

Being born into wealth is not a contribution to society.

Look around you, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Is that because the rich are working harder and the poor are slacking off?

It’s because the sstem is not working. I’m from Brazil, and believe me, the poor can get much poorer and the rich even richer than we have it now. Because the rich pay no taxes, they benefit from very cheap labor. It goes on and on, trust me, it’s not the fault of pregnant women.

Libertarianism will not help people like you and me, tell me, is it pay as you go and every man for himself really working for you?

Being born a Hilton is no great feat, does no help to society and is mightily rewarded, and don’t kid yourself: you do pay for her riches. Taxpayer money goes to large businesses like Hilton Hotels, and the Estate tax only affects mutli-millionaires.

Work is work. Soemeone making 10 million a year does not work 500 times harder than soemone making 20,000 a year with a child and an elder parent to take care of. Don’t you see how much easier your life and my life would be if we lived in a more just system that rewarded people for taking care of their loved ones, who work to better their own lives and that of their families?

Right now young children are seeing their parents struggle and not get anywhere, and they wonder why they should try. Of course that doesn’t excuse them from not trying, but is it that important for the rich to keep on getting richer? Stop watching Fox.

I understand what you’re saying but the problem with prioritizing is that you have to choose a set of priorities and rank them in order of importance. At the end of the day everyone is not going to have the same priorities and they are not going to give each of these priorities the same level of importance as someone else. Just like I don’t want to pay for socialized healthcare and childcare and you do, one of us is going to end up unhappy with the result. But at the end of the day I think it best that government spending be minimized to the fewest priorities as possible to ensure that people aren’t being forced to pay for things they shouldn’t, IMO, be forced to pay for.

Meanwhile they just passed a law saying Paris Hilton’s inheritence can’t be taxed. Is there something wrong with this picture?

At the risk of someone jumping out of the bushes and clocking me in the head over saying this……..I think the death tax should be abolished *SBW is now running for the hills* j/k