|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
What happens when the incentive to not initiate force is greater than the incentive to do so? Meaning, what happens when the initiation of violence is less productive -- and thus less capable of generating wealth -- than the utility of security from the initiation of violence?
Nothing happens because it's impossible. I remember some dude said that Europe would never go to war because they were all making too much money - smash cut - WW1 - WW2.
Two things:
(1) A free market increases services. I'm not sure why you're saying otherwise. Also the perception of haves and have nots is built by the government policies that create such divergence and low social mobility in the first place.
(2) I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but if you're saying that free market societies tend towards state authoritarianism because of the perceptions people get from results of how economies naturally function, I disagree. The US welfare state is, well, an accident. A technical thing happened and nobody knew the consequences it would cause with things like reliance on the government down the road. That technical thing is money monopoly i.e. the Federal Reserve.
No, you're just so deep in one single avenue of human philosophical study that you can't see the wood for the trees - is my point.
|
Reply With Quote