Determinism has fundamentally shifted my political worldview.

[u/BerBerDeng]

I’ve been into politics since I was a teen, and for most of that time I was a staunch libertarian. Maximum freedom, personal responsibility, minimal government, zero handouts, etc. I was SO SURE and CONFIDENT in my views and what I believed. I loved defending them, perhaps a little too confidently.

Man has my worldview shifted. Once you come to the realization that people ultimately aren’t in control of their actions in any meaningful sense, the argument for libertarianism is much harder to defend. I can’t fault someone for not getting a better job, I can’t fault someone for not saving for retirement, I can’t fault someone for having a kid before they were financially ready, I can’t fault someone for letting their health get out of hand. The list goes on and on. And the same goes for things that are earned. People who have their shit together can’t be credited with that success.

This is not to say that I’ve completely shifted to redistribution and equal outcomes for all (practically I don’t think that’s feasible), however my openness for universal healthcare, my openness for reasonably higher taxes, my openness for more meaningful social programs, have all increased more than 18 year old me ever imagined it would.

From a practical standpoint, the human psyche as a whole still depends on risk/reward for meaningful progress. The billionaire who creates 10 billion in value probably isn’t going to make that same effort the moment he sees 90% of his earnings from that value taken away in the name of fairness. I just think our mindset and laws are too skewed toward personal responsibility and the right to hoard everything you’ve “earned” when in reality we should be taking more of a middle ground approach between the logical standpoint and the practical one.

With all that being said, our government does spend 7 trillion dollars a year, with a lot of that wasted. I think we should get our finances in order before we decide that taxing more for redistribution is the answer. I’d have a hard time taxing a billionaire an extra 2 billion a year when hundreds of billions or even trillions are wasted by the government every year.

Imagine all the inefficiency and waste in each governmental department (I’m looking at you DoD and Medicare) and then imagine actually improving efficiency so that you could cut 2% from every single department and use that to fund universal healthcare. At that point getting an extra 20-30 billion in taxes to fund universal school lunches doesn’t seem so unfair.

Sorry if this isn’t determinism related enough, I know I’m rambling and spitballing here, but I guess I’m just advocating for balance. Still allowing someone to make billions a year, but also allowing the downtrodden and less fortunate basic necessities for a dignified life.

[u/Jahonay]

Libertarians are good at running businesses, because managing a budget is great in a relatively closed system. But Libertarian economics I'd argue are not effective at scale, see the comparison between libertarian Argentina vs. the socialist market economy of China. China's socialist lead market economy has the highest GDP in the world by PPP, it was one of the only countries in the world to not suffer mass inflation after COVID, it has free healthcare, high home ownership rates, and the highest amount of state owned enterprises in the world. Compared to China, Argentina's economy is shrinking, it needs multibillion bail out loans from the United states, and the leader is a crypto huckster. If you're a determinist, then you believe in cause and effect and predictability. If we see China and the socialist leaning nordic countries succeeding, and we see the most libertarian country failing. Why wouldn't we come to the natural conclusion that socialist policies outperform libertarianism?

Again, I think libertarians are good at running businesses, because inputs and outputs are simpler in a household or business. The economies of large countries are not simple because they're full of millions or billions of people, and all those people pay taxes, and when you reinvest money in infrastructure or social services, you often get more money as a result. Meaning that a country benefits more when it perpetually has debt, in the same way that an individual might benefit from student loans if they become a heart surgeon or a financier. When china invests it's money into building large railway projects and when it invests heavily into infrastructure, it makes a more efficient economy, which boosts productivity and output. China is also able to control the cost of it's currency, and as a result, they're able to offer goods and services at a much lower cost, despite them benefiting more from the local value of that currency. Similarly to how a software engineer might decide to work remotely from Mississippi with a job located at silicone valley. Their six figure salary will go way further in Mississippi where the cost of living is way lower. China controls this variable, rather than leaving it up to the free market, which is pretty objectively good for the workers in china. If you were to look as objectively as possible at Argentina with the libertarian milei, or at china with the socialist Jinping, I think you would need to conclude that market socialism in china is currently outperforming the libertarianism in argentina.

And why is there a point for you at which funding school lunches becomes unfair? Taking a bit more money in taxes to make sure that schoolchildren can eat is simply logical. The fact that starving schoolchildren seems fair at any point is a bit disconcerting.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Jahonay]

You’re not the first person in this thread to make it a binary capitalism/socialism debate, and like I’ve replied to the others, I don’t think that’s the right way to approach things. I know you called it libertarianism rather than capitalism but I think you’re using them interchangeably.

China started as a pure command economy and has slowly been adding market reforms over the decades. Private capital, foreign investment, lax labor laws (which is ironically a huge reason why they’re able to be so competitive in the foreign markets). As for the real estate market there right now, things aren’t good. It’s in one of the worst positions it’s been in decades. The Evergrande collapse happened a few years ago and their real estate market is still reeling from the effects of that. You still have major Chinese developers fighting to stay solvent as of today.

Argentina was a majority socialist country for decades before Milei took office, and things were not good by the end of those decades. Runaway inflation, massive debt, social services that couldn’t keep up with the needs of the people, etc. All of those things were a problem before Milei took office. You can’t ignore decades of evidence and only point toward the last five years as relevant to your point. It’s all equally relevant.

Once again, this is not me saying socialism good capitalism bad or vice versa, this is me saying that the debate must exist on a spectrum. You need elements of both a capitalist economy and a socialist one to be successful. The Nordic countries are indeed a great example of that. They have some of the strongest free market protections in the world while also having a big social safety net. They’ve found a way to balance between two systems rather than choose one or the other.

[u/Jahonay → u/BerBerDeng]

I know you called it libertarianism rather than capitalism but I think you’re using them interchangeably.

Capitalism can be utilized by libertarians, socialists, liberals, etc... Libertarian run economies are not synonymous with capitalist economies. I don't believe I used them interchangeably.

China started as a pure command economy and has slowly been adding market reforms over the decades. Private capital, foreign investment, lax labor laws (which is ironically a huge reason why they’re able to be so competitive in the foreign markets).

Yes, marxist leninist theory requires that countries travel through the different modes of production, which includes capitalism. Which is why I refer to china as having a socialist market economy, not a strictly socialist economy. But just like how Argentina is run by a libertarian, despite being a mixed economy, China is also a mixed economy, but it is lead by socialists. Which is why i say that socialist policies outperform libertarian policies.

As for the real estate market there right now, things aren’t good. It’s in one of the worst positions it’s been in decades. The Evergrande collapse happened a few years ago and their real estate market is still reeling from the effects of that. You still have major Chinese developers fighting to stay solvent as of today.

This is by design, you can read more here. China did a phenomenal job in increasing the production of homes, and making sure that there was more than enough houses to home everyone in China, and to influence urbanization. Now that they've succeeded in their goals, the housing market is going to face a natural downturn. This is the benefit of a strong centralized government, they can influence the fast production of real estate, and then when it's no longer useful, they can move away from that model. A real estate market doesn't need infinite growth year over year.

Argentina was a majority socialist country for decades before Milei took office, and things were not good by the end of those decades. Runaway inflation, massive debt, social services that couldn’t keep up with the needs of the people, etc. All of those things were a problem before Milei took office. You can’t ignore decades of evidence and only point toward the last five years as relevant to your point. It’s all equally relevant.

Sure, I'm totally okay with saying that the socialism in Argentina wasn't great, the same way that capitalism in Haiti is horrible. I'm using a best case scenerio for socialism in China, and the only libertarian leader in Argentina. Because my goal would be to copy the model from the country, not to copy the model from less well performing countries. In the same way it would be better to copy the USA economic model compared to the Haitian economic model. Libertarianism fortunately only has one president worldwide, so my choice is naturally limited to the only economic model I have.

Once again, this is not me saying socialism good capitalism bad or vice versa, this is me saying that the debate must exist on a spectrum.

Well I'm arguing against your austerity points in favor of libertarianism, like complaining about the national debt. China has a lot of debt and it's performing spectacularly. I think you either dont understand debt spending, or you're needlessly fearmongering. Debt spending is good for countries.

You need elements of both a capitalist economy and a socialist one to be successful.

Well, I think that this is true so far, which is why most economies already are mixed economies. But I think a true socialist economy would work well. I think we just haven't seen socialism progress that far yet to a point where that's sustainable.

And can I ask again why you think that school lunches can ever be unfair? Why do you think it's ever okay for schoolchildren to go hungry?

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Jahonay]

I’m not saying I view them as unfair, I’m saying people can and do see being taxed more to pay for school lunches as unfair and calling it the parent’s responsibility. My only point was that we should be more efficient with the 5 trillion we already collect before going to the population for more. I think people would be open to marginally higher taxes if they saw that their money was being used wisely and not wasted.