Cuando no nos damos cuenta que el Estado es demasiado grande, convertimos a nuestros vecinos en enemigos

El Estado, con su potencial para imponer y regular a través de la ley, tiene una gran capacidad para influir en la vida de los ciudadanos. Esto puede conducir a conflictos cuando se intenta traducir una amplia gama de pensamientos individuales y creencias en leyes y políticas universales. Cada ley es una forma de obligación impuesta a todos, lo cual puede resultar en violencia si ciertas leyes son impopulares o entran en conflicto con las creencias de algunos.

La amenaza de la violencia estatal es real, en particular si pensamientos o creencias particulares se generalizan e imponen a través de la ley a aquellos que no los comparten. Por lo tanto, la manera más efectiva de promover la armonía, unidad y hermandad ciudadana es limitar la influencia del Estado a las áreas e ideas básicas que tenemos en común, que pueden ser la educación, la salud, la justicia y la seguridad, dependiendo del contexto de cada sociedad.

Este enfoque maximiza el potencial de las ideas comunes para unirnos en lugar de dividirnos. También minimiza el impacto de las diferencias ideológicas que pueden convertirnos en adversarios. Además, al mantener las funciones del gobierno centradas en áreas críticas y limitadas, los ciudadanos pueden estar más conscientes de los problemas existentes, las deficiencias y las demandas necesarias en estas áreas. Esto puede llevar a una mejora en la eficiencia del gobierno y la calidad de los servicios que brinda.

Por otro lado, a medida que el Estado se expande más allá de estas áreas y se adentra en otras esferas de la vida social y económica, aumentan las posibilidades de discrepancias entre los ciudadanos. Con cada nueva intervención estatal, las diferencias pueden llegar a ser tan extremas que los ciudadanos pueden llegar a ver a sus compatriotas como enemigos, erosionando el tejido social y amenazando la paz.

En conclusión, un Estado limitado y concentrado en áreas de consenso general puede ser la clave para mantener la paz social, mejorar la eficiencia gubernamental y minimizar la coerción y la violencia estatal. Es una propuesta que respeta tanto nuestras diferencias individuales como las áreas en las que nos unimos como sociedad.

¿Es somalia un ejemplo de fallo del libre mercado o del capitalismo?

Partido Socialista Somali
Somalía fue una colonia inglesa/italiana hasta el año 1960, donde se realizan las primeras elecciones del país, eso si, los politicos eran mayormente somalis que trabajaron en la administración inglesa y estaban alienados a los intereses britanicos, Aden Abdullah Osman fue el primer presidente de somalía seguido por Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, durante sus gobiernos se intentó establecer las bases póliticas del país por lo que en cuestiones económicas no tuvo desarrollo real. 
 
Solo 9 años después de su independencia, en 1969, un dictador socialista de nombre Mohamed Siad Barre quien realiza un golpe de estado y asesina el presidente en turno Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, quien solo duró 2 años en el poder.
 
Siad Barre somete a somalía al socialismo durante 22 años que duro en el poder.
 
En el sistema somalí el presidente y sus partidarios ocupaban los puestos importantes de poder, y una Asamblea Popular no tenía poder real. 
 
El sistema legal se basaba en gran medida en la ley islámica; no existía un poder judicial independiente; y los derechos humanos fueron violados con frecuencia. 
 
Sólo existía un partido político legal, el Partido Socialista Revolucionario Somalí, y varias organizaciones de masas de estilo socialista.
Partido Socialista Somali

Partido Socialista Somalí durante el régimen de Mohamed Siad Barre

El 24 de octubre de 1969, en su primer discurso tras tomar el poder, Siad Barre marcaría un nuevo tono para el país.

“La intervención de las fuerzas armadas era inevitable”, dijo. “Me gustaría pedir a todos los somalíes que salgan y construyan su nación, una nación fuerte, que usen todos sus esfuerzos, energía, riqueza e inteligencia para desarrollar su país”, continuó.

“Los imperialistas, que siempre quieren ver a la gente en el hambre, la enfermedad y la ignorancia, se nos opondrán para que les supliquemos… unamos nuestras manos para aplastar al enemigo de nuestra tierra”.

Para el 1 de noviembre, suspendería la constitución, disolvería el parlamento, prohibiría los partidos políticos y aboliría la Corte Suprema.  Sin una pizca de ironía, el país pasó a llamarse República Democrática Somalí, ironía que comparte la República Democrática de Corea del Norte.

Durante su dictadura inició una fuerte represión y propaganda anti capitalista fue permeando la cultura somalí.

Dictador Socialista Somali Muhammad Siad Barre

En 1991 un golpe de estado expulsa a Siad Barre del poder, el presidente nigeriano Ibrahim Babangida le ofreció asilo en su país. El derrocado líder escogió como destino la ciudad de Lagos, en la que vivió hasta su muerte, ocurrida el 2 de enero de 1995.

Tras el colapso del gobierno central en 1991, se ignoró la constitución. Varias coaliciones y alianzas políticas basadas en clanes intentaron establecer el control en todo el país. En mayo de 1991, una de esas alianzas declaró la formación de la República independiente de Somalilandia (Somaliland) en el norte, y en julio de 1998 otra declaró la formación de la región autónoma de Puntlandia en el noreste.
 
Cada uno formó su propio gobierno, aunque ninguno es reconocido por la comunidad internacional.
 
Mientras tanto, el sur fragmentado y desgarrado por el conflicto estaba en gran parte en manos de varios grupos de milicianos basados en clanes en guerra entre sí, provocadas por las colectivizaciones de tierras, disputas y desplazamientos de los clanes realizados durante el régimen socialista de Mohamed Siad Barre, en conclusión la situación en somalia es 100% heredera del socialismo y el imperialismo, no del liberalismo ni capitalismo.

Bosqueja and the Libertarian Economists Murray Rothbard and Emiliano Zapata

murray rothbard and emiliano zapata

Evaluating the libertarian principles of Bosqueja and the libertarian economists Murray Rothbard and Emilio Zapata requires an understanding of the principles of capitalism and the free market. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at the libertarian economics of Bosqueja and Rothbard. The ideas of both are deeply related.

The first thing to understand is how these two thinkers came to the same conclusions. Both were educated at the Birch Wathen School in New York, and they excelled in their undergraduate studies at Columbia. Despite this, they were not exposed to Austrian economics in college. In fact, their approach to economics was initially derided by some of their peers, including the editor of a pamphlet promoting rent control in Mexico.

The second difference between these two economists is the way they view the economy. Zapata, a Libertarian, advocated a stateless society. He claimed that the only society consistent with natural rights is one in which there is no centralized authority. He believed that freedom means private property, and that consent is a prerequisite for a legitimate society. Similarly, Rothbard was unable to reconcile a monopoly government with his theory of economic freedom.

Emiliano Zapata was a gentleman soldier in rural Morelos. He was an entrepreneur, a socialist, and a true man of the people. His values and philosophy aligned with the principles of libertarian economics. In addition, his communitarian culture in the country made him sympathetic to socialist ideas, and he lived by key libertarian principles.

The second difference between the two is the way in which they approach the idea of the free market. The libertarian philosophy of Zapata emphasizes individual responsibility and self-ownership. While he was a controversial figure, he espoused the notion of self-ownership and a lack of government involvement in the economy. It also advocates a free market and is inimical to taxation.

Although Emiliano Zapata was a gentleman soldier in the rural region of Morelos, he was also a businessman and a great libertarian. Though his socialist ideas were rooted in his communitarian upbringing, he embraced libertarian principles to build a strong, prosperous country. In the end, he achieved all of his goals and was one of the most influential libertarians of all time.

During the 1960s, Rothbard was active in the Libertarian Party, frequently involved in internal politics and founding the radical caucus of the party. He was an opponent of “low tax liberalism” as promoted by Cato Institute president Edward H. Crane III and presidential candidate Ed Clark. The two men differed in their approach to governing a nation.

The zapatistas were an intellectual force. He allied himself with both right-wing populists and libertarians. The two opposing ideologies argued over the value of liberty. The libertarians, in turn, opposed fascists, and leftists, have been a common enemy. While the zapatistas may be on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, they were essentially pursuing the same goal.

The debate over the freedom of speech is an important issue. The right to free speech and the right to privacy are important issues for many people. Both men’s ideas on the right to free speech and self-ownership are important. But there is a difference between liberty and the right to speak freely. The Austrian School of economics is a fundamentally different philosophy, and they are not necessarily compatible.

The two were ideologically opposed. In their 20s, Rothbard was anti-New Deal and anti-interventionist. He was also a friend of the quasi-pacifist Nebraska Republican Congressman Howard Buffett. In 1982, he co-founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute and wrote a history of money and banking in the United States: The Anarchists.

Should Libertarians Oppose Drug Prohibition?

libertarians about drugs

Many Libertarians have raised the question of whether prohibition is a good idea. The argument is that drug use by adults is dangerous and limits freedom. Prohibition is a false solution to the problem. It only creates more addicts and costs the government more money. It also results in a huge expansion of police powers and increased reliance on “no-knock” warrants. Furthermore, drug prohibition violates the basic rights of individuals, limiting their ability to live a free life.

A libertarian should oppose the use of drugs. While he believes that a government should protect freedom and personal liberty, he also says that the government should protect the latter. Freedom requires rationality and drug use interferes with those faculties, preventing people from free action. Additionally, people on drugs are more likely to harm themselves or others. The evidence is clear that drug use leads to social failure, criminal activity, domestic violence, and destructive parenting.

Libertarians oppose drug use. However, they do support the use of marijuana and other legal substances. They argue that the federal government’s war on drugs is necessary to protect freedom and reduce the risk of disease and death. They argue that the “war on drugs” is a failed policy that has cost Americans their personal liberty and responsibility. This is why they are adamantly against the use of illegal drugs.

The argument that marijuana and drugs should be legal is not new. Libertarians believe that the government should protect freedom and limit government intrusion in private behavior. But, they disagree on the principle that drugs undermine personal freedom. They say that they do not understand how drugs affect our lives and diminish our personal freedom. This debate is a well-known one. This question will continue to arise in the future. But, it’s a broader issue.

In a recent article, a libertarian expert named John P. Walters argued that “drugs are not a crime” and that the government should not prohibit it. The two sides disagree about how to deal with the problem. They argue that laws and policies are unnecessary and can harm people and society. A more realistic approach would be to promote health and safety. The first objective of a libertarian is to preserve freedom for others.

Another goal of the libertarians is to protect individuals from drug abuse and drug addiction. They should seek ways to help those in need, while limiting the dangers of drug use. They need to have the proper information before making a decision. But a good libertarian should be concerned with the public health of their fellow citizens. This is a matter of morality, not of law. The best way to protect the public is to prevent addiction.

The libertarian view of drugs opposes paternalistic interference in clinical settings. Physicians cannot coerce patients to take a prescription that they have been forbidden to use. Neither can public officials force people to take a drug that they do not need. In short, a libertarian approach to drugs will allow people to make decisions about their own health. But drug use will not be limited by legalization.

Many Libertarians argue that recreational drug use is an infringement of the conditions of freedom. In short, legalizing recreational drugs does not help our society promote freedom. It is incompatible with the vision of a free society, according to John Stuart Mill. The government has a duty to protect individual rights and ensure that they do not compromise them. This means that drug prohibition is an important pro-liberty position.

For example, Portugal’s prohibition of drugs has paved the way for freedom in modern society. The Libertarians also argue that recreational drug use is an immoral policy. As a result, they do not believe in legalizing drugs. They also believe that allowing recreational drug use is an immoral policy, which violates the principles of free society. This is because it is not a legitimate means of achieving freedom, but a symptom of it.

In addition to legalizing drug use, libertarians also believe that the prohibition of drugs is unnecessary. There is no legitimate reason for the drug prohibition of alcohol. A few Libertarians even claim that this is the best way to reduce crime. That doesn’t mean that we should have to stop using drugs, but it is an indication that we don’t want to impose them upon ourselves. In addition, they argue that we should have the right to decide what is safe for us and for others.

Should Libertarians Care About More Than the State?

Must Libertarians Care About More Than the State

The question of whether libertarians must care about more than the state is not an easy one to answer. While libertarians are generally hostile to the authority of the state, they do believe that the state can engage in a few minimal activities. These include enforcing individual rights and freedoms, as well as ensuring that public goods are provided. Some might argue that the state should be allowed to conduct such activities, but they don’t think the state has the right to do so.

The libertarian position opposes most government activities, believing that they should be transferred to the private sector. They believe that people should have the right to live freely without interference from governments. They also believe that states can legitimately provide police, courts, and military services, and provide taxpayer-funded aid to the poor. However, they don’t see the need for such services, believing that these functions are essential for a healthy society.

The main argument for allowing a state to rule over their citizens is that they are morally justified. However, libertarians tend to distrust democratic states. There’s a growing body of evidence that proves that voters are inherently ignorant and biased. Democracies have done little to improve this condition. Because people are rational, it seems logical to stay ignorant. The costs associated with educating themselves about politics are too high.

As an independent, self-governing individual, it’s important to understand the role of government in our lives. Our rights as individuals are paramount and we should never surrender them to government. The state should enforce these rights and respect the freedom of individuals. If we can’t trust a government, then we must not live in that society. If we are going to live in a democracy, it’s better to choose an alternative.

In order to live in a free society, the state should promote the flourishing of individual individuals. Nonetheless, a free society has many problems, and it’s difficult for a libertarian to live in a free country. In the end, it’s up to us to decide the best way forward for our future. The question is, should we care more than the state do?

Moreover, there is no consensus on the legitimacy of the state. While libertarians do agree on the legitimacy of the state, they are deeply skeptical of the legitimacy of government. As such, they reject the concept of a “free” state. For example, a state should not have the ability to impose taxes on citizens. But a society that does not have rules will not be a free society.

The answer to this question depends on what kind of society we want. There is no consensus on what sort of society we want. The question of whether the state should provide public services is not a political one. The answer largely depends on whether we want to have a free society. But we do believe that the state should be responsible for our lives. The question of whether the government should be free is not a simple one.

While the role of the state is undisputed, there is a large gap between libertarians and traditionalists. The former is highly skeptical of the legitimacy of the state. Likewise, the latter is sceptical of the state. It is an ardent libertarian. Nevertheless, the latter rejects the idea of a free society. Essentially, the government should ensure the rights of individuals.

While libertarians are skeptical of the power of the state, they should still recognize that the state should be able to provide basic services to its citizens. They must not care about the state’s role in society. If they want to protect the rights of people, they should make the state accountable. The state should enforce these rights. The people should be able to live freely. If they are not, the government is not legitimate.

¿Fue el proteccionismo la clave del crecimiento en los países desarrollados?

El esfuerzo natural de cada individuo para mejorar su propia condición, es tan poderoso que es por si solo, y sin ayuda alguna, no sólo capaz de llevar a la sociedad a la riqueza y a la prosperidad, sino de superar cientos de obstáculos con los cuales las incoherentes leyes humanas a menudo estorban sus operaciones

Adam Smith en la Riqueza de las Naciones

Existe un discurso que se ha propagado entre economistas, historicistas y personas en común, que los países desarrollados aplicaron políticas proteccionistas en el pasado y por tal razón hoy son las potencias económicas que conocemos. Se dice que nuestros países deberían aplicar tal medidas pues el comercio internacional es injusto, los países que se enriquecieron del proteccionismo hoy les piden libre mercado a los países en desarrollo para venderles sus mercancias, mientras que los segundos actúan en una especie de «intercambio desigual» pues tienen que comerciar productos sin valor agregado (producto de la poca intervención estatal) con productos de alto valor agregado (producto de la industrialización proteccionista).

Este tipo de argumentación, aunque en un principio sea intuitivo, no es del todo cierto, pues si bien, existe una correlación entre proteccionismo y crecimiento económico de estos países, debemos recordar que «correlación no es igual a causalización». Más bien, fueron otros factores los que ayudaron a estos países a crecer y a aumentar la riqueza de sus ciudadanos, por tal razón, es importante reconocer los otros factores y entender el contexto de estos países cuando aplicaron dichas medidas arancelarias y proteccionistas.

Actualmente, sigue resurgiendo el viejo discurso proteccionista basado en el estructuralismo latinoamericano que propugnaba la sustitución de importaciones y la protección de sectores estratégicos, por tal razón, es importante revisar si históricamente el proteccionismo fue la clave para que los países se desarrollaran. 

Revisemos, pues, que nos indica la evidencia histórica ante las políticas proteccionistas en los principales países desarrollados para descubrir si son estas la clave para el crecimiento económico, Es interesante adelantar que, hay factores comunes que se repiten en estos países, los cuales son: 1) el proteccionismo fue en algunos casos incluso perjudicial 2) los países crecieron a pesar de las tarifas arancelarias 3) hubo otros sectores distintos de los beneficiados los que representaron un mayor crecimiento 4) fueron otros factores económicos  e institucionales los que propiciaron el crecimiento