My recent spat with the Englishman has served to highlight a strain of libertarian thought that, frankly, disturbs me. It is the same gut feeling that Mr Civil Libertarian voiced a little while back.
We often hear libertarians talk of utility – indeed that very term cropped up in the discussions of the past couple of days. We see a strain of thought that decrees that cost is an overriding factor – i.e. because it is “too expensive” then it is wrong, obsolete, should be scrapped. The strain of thought that says, because this choice suits me, then it must suit everyone and everyone will be forced to fit in with my choice because we must get rid of those choices that are “too expensive” or do not provide sufficient “utility”. It is a line of thinking that takes account of the cost of everything and appreciates the value of nothing. It is nihilistic and deeply repugnant.
While it amused me to see a suggestion that taxpayer’s money be used to subsidise taxi travel as a replacement option for rail, the blinkered “anything but this” option was apparent – despite logical arguments that proffered an explanation for the alternative being relevant and despite it being highlighted that cost is not something measured purely in monetary terms. This discussion happened to be about rail, but it can equally apply to any number of issues where we desire a collective response to a common need. Public transport, universal health care and education are just three. The pure libertarian philosophy would say that these things are nowt to do with government and the private sector will handle it perfectly well.
Well, actually, when real life intervenes, no, it doesn’t always do that. We can argue whether subsidies are right and we can argue about whether private companies can provide public services (yes, of course they can) and we can argue about whether taxation is moral – and I swing both ways on these issues – particularly when I’m filing my tax return. However, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the “I’m alright Jack” philosophy is marvellous if you happen to be Jack and Jack manages to go through life fit, healthy, able to drive and never falling on hard times. However, if you need healthcare and cannot afford it, cannot drive or cannot afford to pay school fees, it isn’t so simple – and telling people they shouldn’t breed if they cannot afford expensive school fees merely reiterates my suspicions of misanthropy.
There are things we need collectively, no matter how fiercely individualist we are – and I’m fiercer than most. That said, despite being accused of being a melanoma for saying so, I accept that taxation – evil though it is – is necessary for funding those things we all need and cannot necessarily afford individually. I have recently fallen on hard times so could not afford to pay for private health insurance. And, no, do not tell me that I should rely on charity. Must I die for want of an urgent procedure while I await that shining knight who may never darken the horizon?
So it is, that I part ways with my libertarian fellow travellers. I am happy for market forces to apply to industry and commerce. I would like to see trade barriers lifted and government to stay out of the matter – with, perhaps, the exception of intervening to prevent cartels and monopolies corroding the marketplace. Because, you see, large corporations are as bad as the state.
However, I have never been so misanthropic as to suggest that those who cannot afford healthcare should fall back on charity and charity alone – it’s too hit and miss. Although I am happy to see charitable organisations stepping into the breach should they want to do so.
Equally, while I have my own transport, I would not wish to see the systems we have sacrificed on the alter of political ideology – because they are expensive, they have no place. The use of the term “cattle class” said much, very much, and it was not to the credit of the person who said it.
I believe, passionately that people, left pretty much to themselves will do well. That government should get out of our lives with its pettifogging bureaucracy and regulation. However, there is a place for it, and funding essential services that we may all need at some point in our lives isn’t such a bad thing. It’s when it gets out of hand that it’s a problem.
It is very easy to sit astride one’s high horse and make declarations about how the little people – or cattle class – should be, what their choices should entail and decide that because we, in our superiority have made a choice, the proles should all do likewise.
There lies the road to totalitarianism and totalitarianism in the name of libertarianism is no less repugnant for that.
I think, on balance, I am probably not a libertarian at all. More a classical liberal. So, that’s it. I’m shedding the libertarian tag and going with the classical liberal. Like a moth-eaten old pullover, it’s a more comfortable fit.
erm… can I just say that the opinions of one person, don’t reflect the views of everyone.
Blaming all libertarians for the hard-line of one individual is folly.
I’m not blaming all libertarians by any means and I share a strong train of thought with most of those I encounter. However, Tim is not by any means alone. You only have to look at the earlier discussion I linked to where we had the “no true Scotsman” argument. It is, unfortunately though, consistent with the pure ideology. You can’t argue with that and I cannot go along with it.
I’m a moderate in all things. My opinions haven’t exactly changed but I cannot and will not be associated with the more extreme version of the ideology.
I’ve never really considered myself a doctrinaire libertarian – more a classical liberal/moderate libertarian. Indeed, I find the obsessive hair-splitting and one-upmanship so tiresome.
So, yes, I’ll join you in adopting a classical liberal outlook, with a dose of conservatism for me.
You’ll not be surprised – given my vituperation about cabs-for-cripples on the railway discussion – that I agree with you wholeheartedly. ‘Libertarianism’, as it seems to be represented across a large number of blogs, is a license to sneer at the sheep and cattle who ‘demand’ they have their backsides wiped by the state. My beliefs are informed by two facts from my own family history. My grandmother was born in a workhouse in 1900. Her grandfather died in the same workhouse in 1901. If ‘charity’ is the answer to keeping people alive, then you’re asking the wrong question.
Yes, yes, all of these things are true, although the thinking man’s libertarians – not the Guidos, Mark Wallaces and, perhaps, Englishmen of this world – would merely point out that providing these ‘essential services’ is what makes them expensive in the first place. Hindering by helping, and all that.
Beware the conservative and the neoliberal dressed like a libertarian…Mr Civ Lib makes this point pretty well, although not in those terms.
Some things are expensive no matter who provides them, simply because of the investment necessary on the part of the provider. The question then becomes; do we want or need this provision? If we do and it is essential – health being a prime example, how do we ensure that a highly expensive commodity is made affordable to those who need it when they need it. The US system is an example of how not to do it. The NHS is another. 😉
If the railways were entirely privately owned and managed the system would be radically different to what we currently have, but I suspect that there would still be a market for it.
I found this post really interesting, as what you say mirrors quite well a discussion I had with my wife about statism vs. min/anarchism… Her core objection to getting rid of (most if not all) of the Government as we know it was precisely what you said: what about healthcare, or looking after the elderly or infirm or mentally ill? When it came down to it, it came down to the fact that – like you – she did not envisage that people would want to look after those less fortunate/wealthy than themselves, and people would effectively be left to fend for themselves (and die). The irony being, of course, that it was the statist in the discussion who had the misanthropic, cynical view of humanity…
These are clearly very important issues that would need to be addressed before any min/anarchic system were put in place. However, do we really have so little faith in ourselves that a system based on voluntary action could not be developed to replace the NHS (e.g. a selection of ‘mutual societies’ offering competing lost-cost health insurance policies from which people could choose their preferred supplier, if any)…? If not, then perhaps we fully deserve the illiberal system that we have now…
I dunno, maybe you are right, mutuals could spring up spontaneously out of the void left by the state. I would like to think so. I would also like to think that they would be better to deal with than the state apparatus we currently have – and having just been through the minefield, I wonder what could be worse. That said, a return to the workhouse would be dire.
And, I certainly have no problem with people choosing their supplier, far from it – we only have to see how it works in France. You can choose not only your GP, but the hospital and the specialist. The customer is king. If they can do it within a system that is ostensibly more statist than ours, then so can we.
Longrider,
so you’re going over to the Judean People’s Front, then?
“We often hear libertarians talk of utility”
You’re not going to escape utilitarianism amongst the classical liberals, they’re mired in it. Wheras:
“….It is our view that a flourishing libertarian movement, a lifelong dedication to liberty, can only be grounded on a passion for justice. Here must be the mainspring of our drive, the armor that will sustain us in all the storms ahead: not the search for a quick buck, the playing of intellectual games, or the cool calculation of general economic gains. And to have a passion for justice one must have a theory of what justice and injustice are–in short, a set of ethical principles of justice and injustice which cannot be provided by utilitarian economics. ”
Quoted from:
http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/2_3/2_3_1.pdf
In any case, we are where we are. When this country arrives at a state of minimal liberal government, then, by all means, lets fall out over the next stage.
TT point taken. it was really a musing on those aspects that really irk me – and are quickly seized upon by those who would cast us all as misanthropic, selfish monsters. Actually, selfishness is essential to survival, but that’s another matter 😉
“More a classical liberal. So, that’s it. I’m shedding the libertarian tag and going with the classical liberal. Like a moth-eaten old pullover, it’s a more comfortable fit.”
Welcome!
There really are things that must be done, which only government can do. The number of such things is rather smaller than what government currently does though…..
Longrider’s moth-eaten pullover is not the same thing as Longrider himself, rather it is something he is comfortable wearing, and for the moment he has put aside his hipster threads, as he’s seen a few too many wankers wandering around dressed the same.
I think the important thing is to debate these weighty matters rationally; economics, ethics, the limits of government action etc. Personally I seek to educate myself, and also to propagate what I think is true.
If I wished to attack classical liberals ad hominem style, I’d accuse them of being lily-livered, Adam Smith-worshipping, natural law-denying utilitarians, who pay too little attention to economists writing in other languages (such as Cantillon, Turgot, Say, Bastiat, Menger etc), and, because they spend so much time disputing the keynesians, they end up sounding a lot like them.
I probably couldn’t back up these comments, though.
Monetary cost ONLY as you say, is a dangerous tool. Especially when combined with short-termism, demanding that a “return” be shown within (say) either 12 months or even 5 years.
If this was followed, we would have NO scientific research AT ALL.
And that would not be a good thing at all.
For a sideways look at how such a drama very nearly played out, look at this little retrospective piece on a (just) still-living 97-year old. A truly great ma, whom I once met – an inspiration to us all.
Greg, absolutely.
TT – I think the killer quote for me was Tim’s assertion that on the roads, a coach could just drive around the dead body. On the one hand this is staggering ignorance as we well know the police won’t let you just drive around. The only way that you would be able to drive around the obstruction is if you were first on the scene. What really reeks is the expectation that a driver would drive around someone lying in the road without stopping to investigate and call the emergency services. Why not go the whole hog and drive over them? That way we can be certain they are dead.
Much of my musings since then have been a recoil in horror at such naked misanthropy, arrogance, I’m-alright-Jackism and self-righteousness. But, Tim is not alone among those of us who would champion personal liberty when displaying such traits. And, really, despite nitpicking about labels, it’s that that I am musing on here.
However, I have never been so misanthropic as to suggest that those who cannot afford healthcare should fall back on charity and charity alone – it’s too hit and miss. Although I am happy to see charitable organisations stepping into the breach should they want to do so
It does you credit that you think that way but it is not the impression one gets from reading many internet libertarians. Although I agreed with libertarians over most questions of civil liberties, and was allied with them when opposing ID Cards and other spasms of Labourite authoritarianism, I could never call myself a libertarian. It seems to me to be a ideology designed for young fit and reasonably able people and to hell with anyone who doesn’t match up to that. I am sceptical of the ‘small government’ line because for most of our history, we have been governed by small government and the result was not freedom but misery and poverty for most people. What I want is accountable government, government that is accountable to a bill of rights and is accountable to the people for its actions. When government gets smaller, private operators take over and prove themselves to be even less accountable. I am afraid that I still regard most libertarians as Tories who want to take drugs, though I concede that would be an unfair caricature of the positions you take.
Stephen :
I don’t think your criticism of small government based on historical inference quite stands up. If we look at health provision for instance, which LR has already mentioned and is a subject of considerable personal importance to me, the lack of such a thing in the past was due at least as much ( more I would say ) to a virtually complete absence of scientific understanding of disease and the means to combat it. It was only when science began to unlock the mysteries of the human body that proper care for the sick became feasible and hospitals and medical treatment began slowly to be available to more people, the rise of democratic politics started to fuel the idea of universal health care not the direct actions of the state.
It is also not entirely true to say we have been subject to small government for most of our history, we may not have had a huge state bureaucracy but there have been times, under the Tudors or the Commonwealth for instance when the state has been very involved in the average citizen’s life ( or death ). I wouldn’t agree with you either that a reduction in the size of the state will lead to less accountability, leaving aside the serious lack of accountability in our governance today there are many ways to provide services without handing them all over to private operators, would a locally run Police force for instance be less accountable than the present set up ?
That’s a fair assessment. We do need some taxation, if only for defence and preventing monopolies. We don’t need 50% plus. Russia does it at 12% flat rate but then much of that goes into private pockets and wastage. 12% is enough if it is deployed into what’s intended.
That’s the crux of what this post is all about.
When I criticize the size of government I do so from having looked at what it involves itself with. It has no place using taxpayer’s money to fund NGOs and single issue lobby groups, nor should it be funding overseas aid except for immediate emergency relief. I am appalled that we have government departments involving themselves in media, sport and the arts – none of these things should be government business.
Also, while I believe in the principle of universal healthcare, I am not happy about the state acting as sole provider. I would much prefer the French system that has a mix and match approach with the end user being the final decider on his or her provision.
Equally, the DSA can be relieved of its duties as a provider of driving assessments. This could be done more efficiently by outside parties with the DSA acting as the standards holding body. It’s a principle that works well in other fields. On balance, much of what government actually does can be farmed out to people who will do it without the leaden bureaucracy. However, because government is national, it is the ideal organisation to distribute funding where appropriate and to set and monitor standards.
As a slightly tongue in cheek aside… While I have on occasion voted tactically for a Conservative candidate, I wouldn’t consider myself a Tory and I’ve never taken narcotics – not even a drag on a spliff 😉
It is also not entirely true to say we have been subject to small government for most of our history, we may not have had a huge state bureaucracy but there have been times, under the Tudors or the Commonwealth for instance when the state has been very involved in the average citizen’s life ( or death )
The regulation of one’s religious conscience was the main way in which the state interfered in the life of the individual. And yes, state bureaucracy was at a minimum. Is that not one of the libertarian’s primary gripes about the modern state? However I was thinking more of the post industrial revolution, where state interference in business was non-existant. Where there were no laws protecting the rights of workers or women or children. This lack of regulation did not lead to freedom. It lead to poverty and misery and the state was forced, often most reluctantly, to expand to eliminate the abuses. Would London have solved its sewage and cholera problems if not for government money supplied by a Parliament fed up with the Great Stink?
I wouldn’t agree with you either that a reduction in the size of the state will lead to less accountability, leaving aside the serious lack of accountability in our governance today
So the solution is to make it even less accountable? The fact that our government does not work as it should is a pretty feeble reason for getting rid of it. Is it an argument to make it better, to improve democratic accountability and ensure that fundamental rights are protected.
there are many ways to provide services without handing them all over to private operators, would a locally run Police force for instance be less accountable than the present set up ?
But we already have locally run police forces. They came into existence in a piecemeal fashion between 1830 and 1870.
Stephen:
The regulation of one’s religious conscience was very much a political act in times past, not dissimilar to the desire of a lot of people ( not just on the left ) to regulate our consciences on various matters , such as race and gender these days.
The poverty and misery which you accuse the industrial revolution of bringing was always there. Why did people move to the cities ? Because rural life was even worse for most people, yes the misery then became very apparent and that pricked a lot of consciences and led to various factory acts and improvements in sanitation etc. These were the necessary requirements of the new industrial world and as you say the state was very reluctant to get involved, I would certainly agree that this is an area where the state has a legitimate role. Often though this was done in a way we could do with emulating today. Take the railways, the early push for improvements in safety came from the Board of Trade and its tireless inspectors who had little legal power at their command but were able through deep knowledge ( they were ex Royal Engineers ) and force of character to get the companies to improve their ways and to be fair some companies ( most as time went on ) did so without being pushed.
Regarding accountability if you move that from the, largely unaccountable, state to a more local and accessible level you increase not diminish it. Good luck with trying to make the state more accountable !
The police aren’t really locally run, they have mostly amalgamated into larger forces with no clear identification with local communities and ACPO is a private company, accountable to no one it seems. I would have locally elected police chiefs and smaller forces if people want them.
To read some of the comments, it seems that for some people, it is hard to comprehend the world pre-WW2. To say that one is against charity because one’s grandmother was in a workhouse in 1900, and if things had been left to society, not overtaken by the state, it would still be the same now, is completely ridiculous.
Similarly, penicillin was only discovered in the 30s and you could die of any infections before then. Does that mean that health care was bad before that? Penicillin by the way, which was not discovered by the “state”.
The state started encroaching on people’s lives the way we know it after WW2, do some people really think that scientific advancement did not happen before then?
I undestand your point that some libertarians are a bit extreme, or more justly, a bit too pure, and I agreee that it does put a lot of people off.
But the basic fact is that you would be imposing your view on others by way of taking away their money, or time, or whatever, to pay for things YOU think are important, or civilised, whether they like it or not. Railways are a good example: lets not forget they were private to start with, then nationalised. Now, to take the example of SNCF, when Brits marvel at the TGV, the user in France has to put up with permanent strikes and a bad service, provided by a company mired in debt. There might be a benefit for society as a whole, but at what cost? I would also say that you seem to have a very negative view of people. I can understand it, but I believe the reason for the increase in selfnishness in society is exactly because people’s responsibilities for themselves and others have been (or are) taken away by the state. A sort of self fulfilling prophesy of sorts.
I had a conversation with a HR woman at a party the other day and we got to talking about maternity leave. She could not understand that women being able to do that was because someone else was paying for it. People have become so formatted that if you were to say that there is a magic money tree somewhere, they would believe it.
You mention the healthcare in France. Do you know how much money it costs, and that it is always losing money? So much so that it cannot continue like this for very long? So yes, it works (of sort) but it is unsustainable. Which is usually the way of things run by bureaucracies.
I really fail to se how a free society could do worse or waste more.
Actually, regulation started pretty soon after the Industrial revolution got going – the 1801 Health Safety & Welfare of Apprentices Act. It’s been building ever since.
Monoi, we are always going to come up against using other peoples’ money. You want a standing army to defend the realm? Someone has to pay. You want law and Justice – I presume that you do as the rule of law is the cornerstone of libertarian thought. Someone has to pay.
I remain unconvinced that charity would automatically step in to provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times. It might. I don’t rule out the possibility. Any switch would have to be gradual, and you would still be in a situation where funding is necessary. Yes, I know taxation is taking peoples’ hard-eared under threat of violence. I am painfully aware each time I do my tax return – and made even more so when, having fallen on hard times myself, I asked for a little of it back. The reality is that I have been without an income for two months due to state bureaucracy. Maybe a private charitable organisation would have been more realistic and real world about assessing my situation – in which case, good.
As for the French system, yes I am aware of the expense having lived there for this past two years. However, horrendous though that cost is, the end user gets good value for money – they don’t have to hang about waiting to see a specialist and don’t have to endure a postcode lottery for medicines. Could it be run more efficiently? Yes, of course. Could more private sector involvement facilitate that? I expect so – the profit motive will tend to drive efficiency. However, you still come back to the basic problem with those people who cannot afford private insurance. This is not about me imposing what I want on other people – it is a very basic essential need. What are we going to do about these? Let them die? I don’t think you want that for one moment. Have some sort of basic funded safety net? If so, someone has to pay…
This is a classic example of the state going too far.
To me, one of the obvious arguments against the “we must pay taxes for those things that we think should be rights” is the fact that those making the argument constrain it to national boundaries. National boundaries are artificial constructs of history and us being born within a particular country is pure chance. Why should a women born in the UK receive greater maternity pay / leave than a women in Nigeria? Why should public transport be better in London than in Bissau? Why should life expectancy be greater in Japan than Lesotho? If you believe that to not be misanthropic you need to support taxpayer funding of public health, public transport, public education, etc. then your argument should apply to all humanity not just those within your own nation.
Short of getting someone to form a world government, that one is going to be moot. Also, while borders are artificial, people have an attachment to them and economic activity varies along with currency values in different places. So a world currency would be necessary. I’m not sure we are anywhere near that place yet. Euro, anyone? 👿
Also, I don’t think of the things we use tax for are rights – they are a common need. If we all need something collectively that we cannot manage alone, we have to find a means to fund it.
To read some of the comments, it seems that for some people, it is hard to comprehend the world pre-WW2. To say that one is against charity because one’s grandmother was in a workhouse in 1900, and if things had been left to society, not overtaken by the state, it would still be the same now, is completely ridiculous.
Well it would be ridiculous were anyone making that argument. Has anyone said that they are ‘against’ charity? Certainly not I. I am opposed to the reliance on charity in preference to properly funded and accountable public services, and I think you will find that nearly all charities have a similar view.
But the basic fact is that you would be imposing your view on others by way of taking away their money, or time, or whatever, to pay for things YOU think are important, or civilised, whether they like it or not
And why would that be wrong? Providing that fundamental liberties are protected then that is the function of a democracy, to make collective decisions about social policy and the spending of public money.
I had a conversation with a HR woman at a party the other day and we got to talking about maternity leave. She could not understand that women being able to do that was because someone else was paying for it
That is how societies work. People subsidise each other at different times of their lives. As a fit and economically active adult I pay for the maternity leave and child benefit of others. And when I am old and in ill-health then they will pay for me.
Actually, regulation started pretty soon after the Industrial revolution got going – the 1801 Health Safety & Welfare of Apprentices Act. It’s been building ever since
There was a series of factory acts passed during the nineteenth century. But they were very poorly enforced so I think it is fair to say that regulation was extremely light. We can all argue the toss over whether some regulation may be excessive or necessary, but the principle that the state has the right and the moral duty to regulate is surely accepted generally, for the consequences of little regulation and poor enforcement can be read in history books.
I have to say, that I have seen first hand some pretty poor safety management systems – despite regulation being in place. The trend for using contract staff who can be hired and fired at will creates an atmosphere where people can play fast and loose with safety systems and fire anyone who dares to complain. I’m not going to go into more detail here or name names as I do not have the relevant evidence to hand to back it up – suffice to say, what I saw appalled me, and we are talking about a major national contractor.
An argument whether one wishes to define oneself as a libertariam or a classical liberal has taken a bizarre turn into anachronism! Such an argument only makes sense from the late 20th century onwards.
To Monoi, who thinks that state interference began in the post-WWII era, I refer him to Herbert Spencer’s ‘The Man Against The State’ written in the 19th C which shows this is not the case.
To Stephen, who suggests that the state was minimal back in the days before industrialisation, you need to consider the the huge constraints on free trade that were in place, and marked the rise of the nation state. There were monopolies in a great many areas (e.g. wool export), which had a very negative effect on prosperity.
One of the principle battle grounds for liberty, alongside freedom of religion, was in trade and commerce, and I am sure historically-minded libertarians and classical liberals will have the same heros and villains. Where the differences creep in, I think, is in the area of economics, an area very much in scope for rational, cool-headed debate. Otherwise there is a dividing line between utilitarians and natural law types, but I’m sure these dividing lines run across any distinctions between the two tribes we are discussing.
I have to say, that I have seen first hand some pretty poor safety management systems – despite regulation being in place. The trend for using contract staff who can be hired and fired at will creates an atmosphere where people can play fast and loose with safety systems and fire anyone who dares to complain
I can well believe it. Passing laws by themselves solves nothing. You have to enforce them and foster a culture that sees the necessitry of it. However the fact that companies flout H&S regulations is not an argument for getting rid of them any more than the continuing existence of theft is a reason for repealing the Theft Act.
To Stephen, who suggests that the state was minimal back in the days before industrialisation, you need to consider the the huge constraints on free trade that were in place, and marked the rise of the nation state. There were monopolies in a great many areas (e.g. wool export), which had a very negative effect on prosperity
I am sure that restrictive trade practices contributed to poverty but the biggest beneficiaries of ‘free trade’ were the haute bourgeoisie, not the proletariat.
Stephen:
Prior to the repeal of the corn laws people were going hungry because of the artificially high price of bread, these laws were in place to protect the “haute bourgeoisie” and landed interests not the proletariat. Free trade benefited the middle and working classes enormously by expanding the economy, the living standards of the working class were considerably better in 1900 than they had been in 1830 despite the continuing existence of extreme poverty, free trade played an important part in this.
Prior to the repeal of the corn laws people were going hungry because of the artificially high price of bread, these laws were in place to protect the “haute bourgeoisie”
No they weren’t. They were in place to protect the established landowners, who weren’t the rising bourgeois factory owner class.
Free trade benefited the middle and working classes enormously by expanding the economy, the living standards of the working class were considerably better in 1900 than they had been in 1830 despite the continuing existence of extreme poverty, free trade played an important part in this.
The argument is not about ‘free trade’, the argument is about the right and necessity of government to regulate to improve public safety and the well-being of employees and those who find themselves with no work or unable to work. The point is that the libertarian no-regulation idyll has been tried and it resulted in poverty and misery and this is one reason why libertarianism will remain an extremist cult that cannot even retain its deposit come election time.
Actually Stephen I thought we were arguing about free trade, amongst other things, you can’t just separate one part of state interference in free society from another. As I said I agree with you that there is a need for some degree of state intervention, I’m not a hardliner on the issue, however I simply don’t believe that our greatly improved standard of living in the past couple of centuries or so has anything to do with the increase in the role of the state in our lives. It is the result of the runaway success of the capitalist system and the inevitable shift of power to the wider population that has accompanied that. The state has been used as an enabler by those who stand to gain most from this but it does not follow that it is the state that is primarily responsible for it. The process has now gone as far as it can and the state is now assuming a part in our lives which is both oppressive and counter productive, it needs to be cut back.
Regarding the “haute bourgeoisie”, these weren’t generally the new generation of factory owners many of whom had humble origins and often tended to be non-conformists as well. In fact I’m not really sure who they were unless it was the old Anglican but non aristocratic establishment, Whigs and the like. I think the term is a bit boiler plate Marxist really.