Four kinds of liberal state and Zeno's Paradox

In a “Consensus State”, adults could only accept rules and laws voluntarily as any state violence would negate both their individuality and their rationality. The problem with this is: where does adult life begin and childhood end? Also, if children were always treated as such, when would they ever grow up? This system of government would have a small “parliament of consensus” of about 60 members from different parts of the country, with possibly an elected president. Policy would need the agreement of every member in order to be carried out. A second, probably much larger body would be the Constitutional Senate. This would debate the exact roles and powers of government and state among other constitutional matters and also have the power to impeach the president. Although it is important for the different wings of government to have clearly defined roles, in order to get anything done it would need both a large, unelected civil service and the Senate would become more of a talking shop for intellectuals.

The second is a “selfish state”, where, through a perverted and contradictory form of collectivism, individuals are taught only to think of themselves. Charity is more than a weakness; it becomes a “moral cannibalism”. Besides being a proponent of the late (thank fuck!) Ayn Rand, this was also how Stalinism operated; by actually atomising the working classes into complete dependence on the regime, and independence from each other, the State attained ultimate supremacy. This also happens in parliamentary democracy, where a minority, usually the weak, are sacrificed for the majority.

A third form of liberalism concerns property. If the hoarding of inherited property denies it to others, it could be nationalised and everyone would rent from the government, the revenue replacing most taxation. Secondly, it could be fairly allocated to everyone had some property somewhere. A third, constitutional option, defines property as “that which one can use on one’s own for one’s private and economic purposes, any further hoarding being a violation of other’s right to property.” One problem with the government owning land is that it could be stated quite legitimately that the government owns enough land (for example the MOD and the Duchy of Cornwall in Britain) and cannot be trusted as a landowner.

Fourthly, liberal nationalism. Autarky would be achieved through a self-sufficient economy and limiting migration. Of course, this creates the obvious contradiction of both creating a self-sufficient, modern economy in a limited geographical area while trying to “liberally” limit immigration (and emigration).