China Disproving Libertarianism?
Its finals, so no time for a long post But I saw this post by Francis Fukuyama, and I had to comment. Now I know Fukuyama has taken some hits because of his overly optimistic view of the future in “The End of History” and because of his neocon past. However, this is an interesting view of China that I had never seen before, and I think it should be shared with the agora.
The underlying assumption in libertarianism is that more government is bad, and local governments are better than state and national governments because the people would have more direct control. As a practical corollary to that, it was assumed that all of the human right violations in China stems from action authorized by Beijing; that it was the large national government that was trampling the right of the peasants that had little to no direct oversight.
However Fukuyama suggests that it is the local governments that initiate the harmful initiatives that curtail human rights, and it is the central government that wants it to stop but lacks the power to make that happen. It is almost like a twisted version of a libertarian paradise. The central government is too weak to coerce the state and local governments, but instead of freedom flourishing, it flounders.
Right now I don’t have the time or the research to make an argument on this one way or the other, but I thought it would be an interesting thought to start a day with.
Comment by Hanno on 29 April 2008 at 9:37 am:
You could make similiar claims about the US government during Civil Rights going up against the Southern states over segregation.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 29 April 2008 at 10:12 am:
Thanks Prescott. Very interesting. For the record, I still believe in Fukuyama’s End of History thesis, even if he does not.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 29 April 2008 at 10:14 am:
Although, a conversation I had with Tet at Basil Thai has made me wonder about the validity of the End of History, but not from Huntington’s perspective…rather from the perspective of constant and chaotic overthrow of social orders by rapidly changing technology. I think it’s at least possible that someday people who really understand how to use technology (the computer geeks) will become more powerful than the centralized governments and it will lead to some bizarre new form of techno-government…I’m sure Tet could elaborate on this…
Comment by thetodd on 29 April 2008 at 10:30 am:
Has Fukuyama fully changed his mind about the End of History? As a transhumanist, I am most familiar with his “Our Posthuman Future” (an anti-transhumanism book).
From that book, I got the impression that he believed that the End of History theory would hold as long as human nature remained the same, but if technology changes human nature, then governments may also change.
Comment by tet on 30 April 2008 at 10:54 am:
Prescott, this is not disproving the kind of small-group libertarianism that I espouse whatsoever.
The reason that the small governments are riding roughshod is that the populace of China are unarmed. This is why I believe that no police unit within a given area should have armaments or armor greater than that of the citizens. If the peasants could shoot back, you’d better believe they wouldn’t need a strong central government to protect them.
Libertarianism without guns is a non-starter.
Todd, as another transhumanist, I consider Fukuyama an enemy.
Billy Joe, I’ve already covered a war between the geeks and the fascists in The Fork in the Road last July. [Post-literate warning, contains text that must be read to be understood.]
I’ll have an updated and revised version of the piece in my book.
Tom