Proponents of capitalism and the free market are often cursed by interventionists into elites who want to help only the richest ten and impoverish others. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially given that real elitism and the pursuit of oligarchy stem from the ranks of interventionists of all colors and beliefs.
There are groups of people who consider themselves more important than other groups of people (or other individuals in general).
What else is hidden behind the defense of state intervention, regulation and interventionism in general?
At the moment when I want to decide what kind of income someone will have, what property, with whom who can or cannot cooperate, how someone can destroy their life or who should "help" whom, I am expressing the opinion that I have the right decide for others and others have a duty to listen to me. It doesn't matter if I legitimize it by majority, minority, god, historical necessity or anything else, the principle is always the same.
If I forbid someone to trade, it is, in principle, that I cpu into the affairs of strangers, into their lives, into their affairs. That the CPU where I have nothing to do. This is the first degree, the principal basis. If I do it on the basis of race, religion, "class affiliation" or health status, it is to the second step, level 2.
Racists, communists, fascists and religious fanatics, who want to promote their pleasing ideas by force through the state, differ only on the second level. Only the parameters differ, according to which they determine the scope of "their" regulations. The principle does not differ.
This is an essential fact. It's like the differences between heterosexual men, where one likes brunettes and the other blondes - both like women, both like sex. The same difference is whether one is a racist, the other a communist and the third a religious fanatic. If we get rid of subjective - and analytically unimportant - value judgments, we come up with the same technique - trying to talk people into how they should live their lives.
The difference between all interventionist ideologies and liberalism is as fundamental as between a heterosexual and a castrated man - Only one of them likes sex. He is not a liberal who wants to speak to people's lives. Debates about which direction such regulation should take do not make sense for the liberal, because the regulation itself does not make sense for him. There is only one acceptable direction - the direction of deregulation.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about religion and trying to regulate the construction of religious buildings - the question of whether to build mosques or not is the same for a liberal, as a question of whether to build churches, whether to build apartment buildings or whether to build at all: what do I care?
It doesn't matter what words the interventionists are hiding behind. "Social justice", as it is often understood, is nothing more than setting the standard of living for people we do not know, to whom we have no relation. "Redistribution" is taking money from one and giving it to the other. "Subsidies" are forced payments to all of us for selected "elite" businesses. Whatever it is called, the core is the idea that I, who determines what will happen, have money for your money, your time or your work. more right than you.
Note that the difference between slavery and paying taxes is not significant. It's just about the name and the peace, the basis is the belief that "you" are subject to "me." The "democratic competition" here is logically just a struggle over who will be a slave and who will be a slave.
Logically, it is not the case that "without state supervision" people would be aggressive individuals who would start eating each other. It's just the opposite, the state is the only institution that allows this fight. Democracy is then only a more cultured form of the same. The difference is at level 2, not the basis, at level 1.
I really don't think I'm "elite superior" to everyone to determine whether or not they can sell drugs, sleep with men or women, profess Islam or Christianity. I don't see the difference in whether a drug addict, an Arab or a Czech robs me - Objectively speaking, it is a theft, the personality profile of the thief does not make this act worse or better.
Proponents of capitalism and the free market are often cursed by interventionists into elites who want to help only the richest ten and impoverish others. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially if it takes into account that the real elitism and the pursuit of oligarchy stem precisely from the ranks of interventionists of all colors and beliefs. From all the "proponents of culture", environmentalists and others who claim your money through the state. In principle, there is not much difference between a theatergoer fighting for more subsidies and an opponent of Islam who wants to determine what religion you can trust through the state.
The basic principle of interventionism is that a selected limited group of people can dictate to others. It is the basis of the conviction of all who want to speak to your life through the law. They are convinced that dictatorship and oligarchy are the right form of government. They just can't either admit it, or of course they just don't say it out loud.