From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Tue Sep 12 2000 - 09:56:30 MDT
Barbara Lamar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:51:39 -0400 "Michael S. Lorrey"
> <retroman@turbont.net> writes:
> >
> > governments, again...
>
> Governments, yes. But the USA gov't is supposedly a democratic republic
> with a capitalist economy.
Supposedly, but isn't. In the words of Congressmen Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan,
"No, this is not a free market economy", although they were being rather narrow
in qualifying that based on the existence of our fiat money system. When half of
the income of the average person is confiscated by government via taxation of
all sorts, and when a third of the population is receiving some sort of payments
from that government, and when the average business spends a third of their
overhead filling out paperwork mandated by government agencies, that is not a
'capitalist economy'. Our government was originally a republican democracy
(quite a different thing from a democratic republic).
> The point I was aiming to make was that
> adopting a capatalist economy is not the answer to all the problems you
> listed. There seems to be an inherent unwieldiness to human societies
> with centralized governments attempting to control too many people over
> too wide a geographical range. I think you need to address the question
> of the SIZE of a state before you can even think of avoiding severe
> infringments on the individual's right to act upon his or her own
> decisions.
Many contemporary communists claim that the Soviet Union was not communism or
socialism, but state capitalism..... of course, they can claim whatever they
want, that does not make it true.
I agree that the monolithic state is the primary cause of all the wrongdoing
described. Breaking the monopoly must occur first. If, after that is done, some
wish to volunteer to live under a socialist or communist law provider, that is
their choice, but they should not be able to force people to use their services.
Any time in history when people are given a real choice, without guns to their
heads, most people choose liberty over socialism, so if you end the state,
socialism will, in the words of one person 'wither away'.
Without the state, socialist, communists, and left-anarchists cannot realize
their goals, because their goals oppose human nature and needs so diametrically
that force is required to impose their will upon the people. Without a state,
what would result is a generally anarcho-capitalist society with pockets of
voluntary communal organizations.
Local governments are likely to remain, run on a part time or volunteer basis.
Here in NH, we have a good example among many of the smaller communities, where
10% of the local government positions are paid, the rest are volunteer. The fire
department is volunteer, as is the local constabulary, which is run by the board
of selectmen or aldermen. If something comes up that one local fire or
constabulary cannot handle, the call goes out to other communities neigboring,
and people respond. Large fires will typically bring 6-12 volunteer fire teams
from many surrounding communities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:56 MST