My opinion on this debate is explained here without going into the fact that nations don't really exist, nor do they have any characteristics of their own.
There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation. In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.
If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary. People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies. If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith. Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.
So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive. I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant. Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues.
It is easily understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings. Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things. Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things. Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives. So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.
The same thing goes for abortions. Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.
If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense: the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe. It never has happened and it never will happen. If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Time For A New Social Contract
The social contract... some say a necessary bond between individuals in society in order to keep it running smoothly, others say a scam used to blind people to the violent reality of the state.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Falsehood of Social Tragedy
The apologists for state violence always fall back on some form of social tragedy. Social tragedy is always used as a way to show the state as a source of security for some extreme circumstance. Some common examples are:
1) What happens if you are in need of some medical service you can't afford?
2) The poor will be without school.
3) The poor will be without food
4) The poor will be without housing
5) The elderly will have nowhere to go
Each of these statements is supposed to incite some sort of warming of my heart, which is supposed to lead me to changing my mind and advocating statism in these areas. But the state's apologists make significant errors that go unnoticed on the surface.
The statist makes the mistake of assuming having these things is a right and not a good. I will use schools as an example to discredit this assumption.
Education is what we should all seek, whether it happens in a classroom environment, experience in the world, or a library. Schools are buildings that have to be built and institutions that have to be managed by teachers and principals and others to provide instruction. There is no right to possess the labor of others. There is a right to seek it and obtain it as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights, but there is no right to force others to provide it to you. Educational statists who argue it is a tragedy the poor will not be able to attend school ignore the real tragedy of statism. The state provides schools by seizing money from people under penalty of the law. They essentially say "give us your money, or you will be thrown in jail. If you refuse to pay, and resist being thrown in jail, we will increase the amount of violence against you until we either force you to go to jail, or you are killed."
In my opinion, anyone claiming life's circumstances as a tragedy, and as a valid reason for statism argues for the worst tragedy of all; violence committed by one human against another.
If we truly want more houses for people, more health care options, schools... whatever it is, why not work to actually create more of it, rather than arguing for violence? Therein lies a second tragedy in statism. People, instead of working towards their stated goals of more homes and so forth, instead simply seek political solutions, which by definition is always a state solution, and therefore a violent solution. Of course, it's easy at this point to make the case that the politicians will use their new-found power to enrich themselves (for instance, bureaucrats eat up 70c of every 1$ spent on welfare themselves).
We live in a world of scarcity. People have to create everything we consume... our food, computers, houses, hospitals... all of it. These things do not come out of thin air like they do on Star Trek. Man has two options in getting economic goods; the economic and the political. The economic means is the method of creating. Selling whatever you can to trade for goods... whether it's your brains, your labor, or something someone passed on to you. The political means is the method of violence. It is the means of forcing other people to do what you want.
--Apologists for statism always point to some tragic thing that has happened or would happen without the state... and curiously it is always an attempt to show people as being the victim of scarcity. They ignore the much larger tragedy of statism, as statism requires the tragedy of people thinking actual violence committed against some humans by other humans is ok.--
Is it a tragedy that health care is not affordable to everyone? Well, it's sad to see people suffer, but health care services have to be produced. Their scarcity is a part of life.
Is it a tragedy that many pretend throwing someone in a rape room (jail cell) because they refused to give money to, or obey the wishes of someone else, is ok? I would say it most certainly is.
We all must deal with the reality of scarcity on this planet. Becoming smarter and producing more efficiently, finding new ways of doing things... these are all economic means which lead to the alleviation from scarcity. The political means, in practice, does not lead to the alleviation of scarcity. It leads to the spread of violence, immorality, and when there is nobody left to coerce, poverty.
So let's not be deceived when these apologists for violence try to use some form of social tragedy to strengthen their position. The deck is stacked in our favor; the emperor has no clothes.
1) What happens if you are in need of some medical service you can't afford?
2) The poor will be without school.
3) The poor will be without food
4) The poor will be without housing
5) The elderly will have nowhere to go
Each of these statements is supposed to incite some sort of warming of my heart, which is supposed to lead me to changing my mind and advocating statism in these areas. But the state's apologists make significant errors that go unnoticed on the surface.
The statist makes the mistake of assuming having these things is a right and not a good. I will use schools as an example to discredit this assumption.
Education is what we should all seek, whether it happens in a classroom environment, experience in the world, or a library. Schools are buildings that have to be built and institutions that have to be managed by teachers and principals and others to provide instruction. There is no right to possess the labor of others. There is a right to seek it and obtain it as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights, but there is no right to force others to provide it to you. Educational statists who argue it is a tragedy the poor will not be able to attend school ignore the real tragedy of statism. The state provides schools by seizing money from people under penalty of the law. They essentially say "give us your money, or you will be thrown in jail. If you refuse to pay, and resist being thrown in jail, we will increase the amount of violence against you until we either force you to go to jail, or you are killed."
In my opinion, anyone claiming life's circumstances as a tragedy, and as a valid reason for statism argues for the worst tragedy of all; violence committed by one human against another.
If we truly want more houses for people, more health care options, schools... whatever it is, why not work to actually create more of it, rather than arguing for violence? Therein lies a second tragedy in statism. People, instead of working towards their stated goals of more homes and so forth, instead simply seek political solutions, which by definition is always a state solution, and therefore a violent solution. Of course, it's easy at this point to make the case that the politicians will use their new-found power to enrich themselves (for instance, bureaucrats eat up 70c of every 1$ spent on welfare themselves).
We live in a world of scarcity. People have to create everything we consume... our food, computers, houses, hospitals... all of it. These things do not come out of thin air like they do on Star Trek. Man has two options in getting economic goods; the economic and the political. The economic means is the method of creating. Selling whatever you can to trade for goods... whether it's your brains, your labor, or something someone passed on to you. The political means is the method of violence. It is the means of forcing other people to do what you want.
--Apologists for statism always point to some tragic thing that has happened or would happen without the state... and curiously it is always an attempt to show people as being the victim of scarcity. They ignore the much larger tragedy of statism, as statism requires the tragedy of people thinking actual violence committed against some humans by other humans is ok.--
Is it a tragedy that health care is not affordable to everyone? Well, it's sad to see people suffer, but health care services have to be produced. Their scarcity is a part of life.
Is it a tragedy that many pretend throwing someone in a rape room (jail cell) because they refused to give money to, or obey the wishes of someone else, is ok? I would say it most certainly is.
We all must deal with the reality of scarcity on this planet. Becoming smarter and producing more efficiently, finding new ways of doing things... these are all economic means which lead to the alleviation from scarcity. The political means, in practice, does not lead to the alleviation of scarcity. It leads to the spread of violence, immorality, and when there is nobody left to coerce, poverty.
So let's not be deceived when these apologists for violence try to use some form of social tragedy to strengthen their position. The deck is stacked in our favor; the emperor has no clothes.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Countries Don't Exist
As I watch my step kids play with their maps, it hit me like a bolt of lightning how ingrained in mankind the delusion of government is. The propaganda machine begins almost instantly in life. These kids, who are 2 and 3, are given these maps to play with, in order to teach them about the world and so forth. But these maps have all sorts of lines on them which don't exist on the earth. These lines are meant to separate the different states within the borders of the united states. The problem here is these states don't exist, and neither does the country that they are inside of.
Sure, there is a piece of land that is shaped just how the map shows, but where the borders between the states do not exist. When we travel from state to state, and pass where the borders on this map are drawn, we do not encounter anything but a sign to let us know... and that sign was made by man, not the Earth. There is no gigantic wall in place in which man had to alter to get through, there is no sort of portal which takes one to the next state, nor is there any other extraordinary obstacle in the nature of the earth which separates these states. There is ONLY a sign which reads something like "Welcome to Nebraska" or "Florida Welcomes You."
Indeed, if one looks at the Earth from space, one will not observe lines as they exist on a map. So why are they there?
Well, the answer to that is pretty well known. The lines are there to divide the jurisdiction of the different state governments. The sign that says "Welcome to Nebraska" is actually just communicating "You are now subject to the laws of the government which we have named 'Nebraska.'"
I will take a moment here to address a common objection to what I am saying. The argument is that these borders don't exist and neither does Nebraska; all that exists is the land and the people... they are really just things man has used his imagination to manufacture for his own reasons. Some people argue that if that is true, then Gold must not exist either, and that what does exist is the metal. It's true that "Gold" is but a name given to the metal, but the borders are nothing physical which can be touched at all! They are merely lines drawn on a map and signs on the road created by man... You can grab gold and touch it and feel its texture, you cannot touch a border and feel its texture. Again, borders are imaginary lines which cannot be felt in reality like metal can.
But at a young age, we are all taught that these states exist just as sure as gold exists. That is not the case. What really exists is land, lines on maps, and people with guns.
If you define government as I do, "an organization made up of people who claim for themselves the right to use aggressive force against peaceful individuals" then you must admit government to be a criminal organization. (If you are a new reader, I suggest checking out the links to the side and some of my older blog posts; I do not expect you to accept the definition I have given here at will)
So what are we doing when we talk about the different "countries" and the different "states" around the world? We are subjecting our interpretation of the world to the imaginations of criminals.
How radical does it sound for a person to say "I don't believe countries exist"? Because that is the truth, they do not exist. What exists is land and people with guns fighting over who gets to take advantage of the land and the people in a given area. And when we teach ourselves that these countries exist in reality, we accept borders at a very early age, and actually believe they are meaningful in some way. It is also easy for this to lead to the ideas of nationalism which are used to manipulate people into serving their "country" by killing others in its name, and pledging allegiance to it (which ultimately means pledging allegiance to that same group of criminals known as the government).
When I say I don't believe countries exist, what I'm saying is everything that divides these pieces of land up into separate countries, and in the end separates mankind as a whole, is made up by various different gangs, and I will not play along. I will not treat others around the world as different from me just because they were born on a different piece of land. As long as people believe these countries exist in reality and not in man's mind, the human species will always be divided.
As far as I am concerned, the belief in countries is no different than the belief and Santa Claus. Children are taught that this jolly fat man in a red suit brings presents every year in Christmas. Eventually, they find out that is not true, and it's really their parents doing all they can to give the best childhood possible.
Children are taught that countries and states exist, and that they are separated by borders. Rarely do they ever come to the same conclusion as with Santa; that these borders don't really exist, and that it's really different groups of thugs dividing land out for themselves. This, despite knowing that borders have changed time and again over time. If I say Santa doesn't exist, nobody would even acknowledge the statement having been made. If I say countries don't exist, well, that's another story for some reason.
Sure, there is a piece of land that is shaped just how the map shows, but where the borders between the states do not exist. When we travel from state to state, and pass where the borders on this map are drawn, we do not encounter anything but a sign to let us know... and that sign was made by man, not the Earth. There is no gigantic wall in place in which man had to alter to get through, there is no sort of portal which takes one to the next state, nor is there any other extraordinary obstacle in the nature of the earth which separates these states. There is ONLY a sign which reads something like "Welcome to Nebraska" or "Florida Welcomes You."
Indeed, if one looks at the Earth from space, one will not observe lines as they exist on a map. So why are they there?
Well, the answer to that is pretty well known. The lines are there to divide the jurisdiction of the different state governments. The sign that says "Welcome to Nebraska" is actually just communicating "You are now subject to the laws of the government which we have named 'Nebraska.'"
I will take a moment here to address a common objection to what I am saying. The argument is that these borders don't exist and neither does Nebraska; all that exists is the land and the people... they are really just things man has used his imagination to manufacture for his own reasons. Some people argue that if that is true, then Gold must not exist either, and that what does exist is the metal. It's true that "Gold" is but a name given to the metal, but the borders are nothing physical which can be touched at all! They are merely lines drawn on a map and signs on the road created by man... You can grab gold and touch it and feel its texture, you cannot touch a border and feel its texture. Again, borders are imaginary lines which cannot be felt in reality like metal can.
But at a young age, we are all taught that these states exist just as sure as gold exists. That is not the case. What really exists is land, lines on maps, and people with guns.
If you define government as I do, "an organization made up of people who claim for themselves the right to use aggressive force against peaceful individuals" then you must admit government to be a criminal organization. (If you are a new reader, I suggest checking out the links to the side and some of my older blog posts; I do not expect you to accept the definition I have given here at will)
So what are we doing when we talk about the different "countries" and the different "states" around the world? We are subjecting our interpretation of the world to the imaginations of criminals.
How radical does it sound for a person to say "I don't believe countries exist"? Because that is the truth, they do not exist. What exists is land and people with guns fighting over who gets to take advantage of the land and the people in a given area. And when we teach ourselves that these countries exist in reality, we accept borders at a very early age, and actually believe they are meaningful in some way. It is also easy for this to lead to the ideas of nationalism which are used to manipulate people into serving their "country" by killing others in its name, and pledging allegiance to it (which ultimately means pledging allegiance to that same group of criminals known as the government).
When I say I don't believe countries exist, what I'm saying is everything that divides these pieces of land up into separate countries, and in the end separates mankind as a whole, is made up by various different gangs, and I will not play along. I will not treat others around the world as different from me just because they were born on a different piece of land. As long as people believe these countries exist in reality and not in man's mind, the human species will always be divided.
As far as I am concerned, the belief in countries is no different than the belief and Santa Claus. Children are taught that this jolly fat man in a red suit brings presents every year in Christmas. Eventually, they find out that is not true, and it's really their parents doing all they can to give the best childhood possible.
Children are taught that countries and states exist, and that they are separated by borders. Rarely do they ever come to the same conclusion as with Santa; that these borders don't really exist, and that it's really different groups of thugs dividing land out for themselves. This, despite knowing that borders have changed time and again over time. If I say Santa doesn't exist, nobody would even acknowledge the statement having been made. If I say countries don't exist, well, that's another story for some reason.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The State is the Embodyment of Evil
Why is politics what it is? By that I mean, why do people get so upset and passionate when discussing their political ideas? We seem to be able to discuss any other topic without this sort of "us versus them" mentality that tells us "anyone who disagrees with us is 'bad'". Some have suggested parenting is just as bad as politics, but I'm not so sure about that. Anyways, there is no doubt that politics has this sort of affect on people. What is the big deal?
Ok, for those of you who just think I am some radical, off the wall utopian anarchist, this answer was one of the few things I took away in my college education, but a simple enough explanation to understand. The answer is Democracy is not all it is cracked up to be. Democracy is NOT about free choice or self government. It is about the elimination of free choice and self government. Every time the state makes a decision about how everyone is to behave, free choice is stolen away. Every tax dollar that goes to a government welfare program is charity dictated to the tax payer, instead of the tax payer getting to choose for himself what charities are worth putting money into. And the fact that these decisions are not freely made is simple to show. Choose not to pay your taxes and see what the consequences are. You may get away with it for a while, but sooner or later your wages will be garnished, or you will be put in prison, etc. So to answer our original question, politics is so dividing, and so able to inspire passion, because the government forces people to behave in a certain way with every decision they make.
Being forced means 1) it's not something you want to do and 2) you are NOT permitted to listen to your own conscience. But more importantly, to tell everyone in society that there exists this power to force the world to do what you want, to force your own world view on everyone, is sure to open competition between various groups as to what that world view should be. It is ludicrous to think there will ever be any agreement on such an end, which is why those competing for power will always be there.
And since state power always means force, or coercive power, every expansion of state power is the expansion of coercion. If the state is going to take care of medical bills, the state must coerce others, known as taxpayers, to pay for everyone's medical bills. There is no way of getting around that issue... even Barack Obama said that what separates the state from other entities is the "monopoly on violence." So, is coercion good or bad? Of course it is bad. Yet it is the tool which the state must use with everything they do. Because of this, the state spreads negativity even when the people who support it have good aims in mind.
I'll say it again: The State Operates By Forcing Peaceful People To Take Some Action, Or Prevents Them From Taking Some Action Every Time They Expand. Coercing peaceful people is the very definition of crime, and I would argue the very definition of evil... and that is how the state operates on a day to day basis, without batting an eye.
Ok, for those of you who just think I am some radical, off the wall utopian anarchist, this answer was one of the few things I took away in my college education, but a simple enough explanation to understand. The answer is Democracy is not all it is cracked up to be. Democracy is NOT about free choice or self government. It is about the elimination of free choice and self government. Every time the state makes a decision about how everyone is to behave, free choice is stolen away. Every tax dollar that goes to a government welfare program is charity dictated to the tax payer, instead of the tax payer getting to choose for himself what charities are worth putting money into. And the fact that these decisions are not freely made is simple to show. Choose not to pay your taxes and see what the consequences are. You may get away with it for a while, but sooner or later your wages will be garnished, or you will be put in prison, etc. So to answer our original question, politics is so dividing, and so able to inspire passion, because the government forces people to behave in a certain way with every decision they make.
Being forced means 1) it's not something you want to do and 2) you are NOT permitted to listen to your own conscience. But more importantly, to tell everyone in society that there exists this power to force the world to do what you want, to force your own world view on everyone, is sure to open competition between various groups as to what that world view should be. It is ludicrous to think there will ever be any agreement on such an end, which is why those competing for power will always be there.
And since state power always means force, or coercive power, every expansion of state power is the expansion of coercion. If the state is going to take care of medical bills, the state must coerce others, known as taxpayers, to pay for everyone's medical bills. There is no way of getting around that issue... even Barack Obama said that what separates the state from other entities is the "monopoly on violence." So, is coercion good or bad? Of course it is bad. Yet it is the tool which the state must use with everything they do. Because of this, the state spreads negativity even when the people who support it have good aims in mind.
I'll say it again: The State Operates By Forcing Peaceful People To Take Some Action, Or Prevents Them From Taking Some Action Every Time They Expand. Coercing peaceful people is the very definition of crime, and I would argue the very definition of evil... and that is how the state operates on a day to day basis, without batting an eye.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Capitalism is Socialism, Socialism is Capitalism
People do not refer to a dictionary every time they learn the meaning of a word... most words can be defined by looking at context in which they are used, and as a result, we have people using the same words with various different meanings. For the purposes of this article, let me define the terms Capitalism and Socialism, in order to make my point.
Capitalism - Capitalism occurs when the mean so of production are in private hands. In this system, the role of the state is to do whatever it must to protect private business from failure, and regulate as is deemed necessary.
Socialism - Socialism occurs when the means of production are commonly owned. The role of the state is to act as a conduit to enforce the public will in the production process.
From what I gather, these are the two most common definitions of these words. These two definition are virtually identical.
The role of the state under our definition of capitalism is to control business. The role of the state in our definition of socialism is to control production. Business and production are the same thing. Trade occurs in capitalism either to fulfill a production need or to consume a product. Obviously, under socialism, resources will still be sent back and forth in order to produce something for consumption. Again, capitalist business and Socialist production have the exact same meaning.
If the role of the state under capitalism is to regulate business and protect them from failure, does it matter that the means of production are privately owned? After all, to assume a position of regulating business as they see fit, the state assumes a position of control. Not to mention the position of deciding who is worth bailing out and who is not. As more and more regulations are written, and more and more state control is put on private business, the term private becomes a mere technicality. Ownership is about control. If the state operates businesses as they see fit, why not simply claim ownership and admit that they are the ones running things? Well, in America it's because the citizens wouldn't allow it, at least not yet.
Our definition of socialism already defines the state as the people in control. Sure, they claim to do what the people want, but have you seen the government's approval ratings lately? And who among us really knows anyways? Ron Paul could be the most popular politician in the country and lose every election he runs in because as private individuals, we don't know who everyone is voting for. It seems pretty clear the election process is not 100% honest... So I think it's pretty safe to assume the state will do whatever they want, regardless of what the people think under socialism...
If these two systems are the same, why the conflict? Well, my theory is that it gives people the illusion of choice. But these two systems are really not the same. There is little difference between a republican who says he thinks regulated free markets work and a democrat who wants to overhaul various sectors because free markets don't work. Neither of these people believe in free markets; both believe in central control.
The real confusion here exists because this is a poor definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not about regulating business and bailing out losers. In fact, that is what fascism is about. Capitalism is about letting people make decisions with their property freely, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's property. As far as the role of the state goes, capitalism is not a system in the planning sense of the word. In a pure market, there is no central authority enforcing systematic decisions. There is only private property working in a constant flux to satisfy ends of people. Nobody is forced to give the state money for any service.
In a previous blog post I discussed customary law, if you think the state is needed to enforce private property rights, I suggest you study customary law.
So am I saying fascism and socialism are the same thing? Technically no, but operationally yes. Both systems are about state control of business (and both have lead to mass murder by the state, surprisingly socialism more than fascism. Joseph Stalin was more of a blood thirsty tyrant than Adolf Hitler). Under socialism, the state admits control by assuming direct ownership. Under fascism, control of the production means are left in "private" hands, while the state issues orders telling everyone what to do.
The lesson here: define your terms before you go around saying capitalism is bad because of the bailouts. Indeed, define your terms correctly before you go around saying you even live in a capitalist country.
---"Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig Von Mises is a great work regarding socialism and fascism---
Capitalism - Capitalism occurs when the mean so of production are in private hands. In this system, the role of the state is to do whatever it must to protect private business from failure, and regulate as is deemed necessary.
Socialism - Socialism occurs when the means of production are commonly owned. The role of the state is to act as a conduit to enforce the public will in the production process.
From what I gather, these are the two most common definitions of these words. These two definition are virtually identical.
The role of the state under our definition of capitalism is to control business. The role of the state in our definition of socialism is to control production. Business and production are the same thing. Trade occurs in capitalism either to fulfill a production need or to consume a product. Obviously, under socialism, resources will still be sent back and forth in order to produce something for consumption. Again, capitalist business and Socialist production have the exact same meaning.
If the role of the state under capitalism is to regulate business and protect them from failure, does it matter that the means of production are privately owned? After all, to assume a position of regulating business as they see fit, the state assumes a position of control. Not to mention the position of deciding who is worth bailing out and who is not. As more and more regulations are written, and more and more state control is put on private business, the term private becomes a mere technicality. Ownership is about control. If the state operates businesses as they see fit, why not simply claim ownership and admit that they are the ones running things? Well, in America it's because the citizens wouldn't allow it, at least not yet.
Our definition of socialism already defines the state as the people in control. Sure, they claim to do what the people want, but have you seen the government's approval ratings lately? And who among us really knows anyways? Ron Paul could be the most popular politician in the country and lose every election he runs in because as private individuals, we don't know who everyone is voting for. It seems pretty clear the election process is not 100% honest... So I think it's pretty safe to assume the state will do whatever they want, regardless of what the people think under socialism...
If these two systems are the same, why the conflict? Well, my theory is that it gives people the illusion of choice. But these two systems are really not the same. There is little difference between a republican who says he thinks regulated free markets work and a democrat who wants to overhaul various sectors because free markets don't work. Neither of these people believe in free markets; both believe in central control.
The real confusion here exists because this is a poor definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not about regulating business and bailing out losers. In fact, that is what fascism is about. Capitalism is about letting people make decisions with their property freely, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's property. As far as the role of the state goes, capitalism is not a system in the planning sense of the word. In a pure market, there is no central authority enforcing systematic decisions. There is only private property working in a constant flux to satisfy ends of people. Nobody is forced to give the state money for any service.
In a previous blog post I discussed customary law, if you think the state is needed to enforce private property rights, I suggest you study customary law.
So am I saying fascism and socialism are the same thing? Technically no, but operationally yes. Both systems are about state control of business (and both have lead to mass murder by the state, surprisingly socialism more than fascism. Joseph Stalin was more of a blood thirsty tyrant than Adolf Hitler). Under socialism, the state admits control by assuming direct ownership. Under fascism, control of the production means are left in "private" hands, while the state issues orders telling everyone what to do.
The lesson here: define your terms before you go around saying capitalism is bad because of the bailouts. Indeed, define your terms correctly before you go around saying you even live in a capitalist country.
---"Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig Von Mises is a great work regarding socialism and fascism---
Liberals, Conservatives, and Tension
Where does tension come from, and how does it build? Tension comes from conflict. No matter how big or small the conflict is, with every conflict comes an equal amount of tension. The "size" of the conflict depends on the level of importance the issue is to the parties involved. This is a subjective matter; if you don't think so, look at your partner's list of pet peeves. Most likely you will find something on that list that you think is completely irrelevant.
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)