Cities are Cesspools of Socialism?

I got a fiery reply to my offhand Facebook comment that "Cities are cesspools of socialism". I thought I would share my rejoinder.

I wasn't judging city people, I was judging city government. I'm a happy anarchist, looking forward to the day when humans live in a voluntary society based on non-violence, creativity, and free association. (Not that I think I'll see it in my lifetime, but maybe my children's children's children.) I don't put all city people in one basket, and I don't put all small town people in the same basket. There are great people no matter where you go. There also are nasty, brutish, bitter people in every city and every small town. There are opportunities in big cities that are unavailable in small towns, but there are opportunities in small towns that aren't available in big cities.

The US dollar is on the verge of hyper-inflation and possible meltdown. And cities will quickly become disaster areas when food service, water, sewage, trash service, police, fire, and electricity become unreliable because the politics and money that keep all of that running become unstable. I study economics, history, science, politics, and philosophy enough to know that the US empire cannot continue. The more politicians keep propping it up with wars, taxes, laws, cops, jails, guns, bombs, and debt, the harder it will fall. And state and city governments will fall as well. We won't be immune out here in the woods, but we're not totally dependent on government largesse, the way a city is. That's all I was talking about.

"I would prefer a socialistic approach to a capitalistic one, don't you concur?"

I prefer a sociable approach. And socialism is anti-social and violent. I prefer freedom. I don't like politicians pointing guns at my head or threatening to do so.

"After all, if we lived in a communist or socialist country, all of its citizens would be provided for. All would have gainful employment, shelter, food and clothing."

That's what the promise says, but history, logic, and morality say otherwise. I don't mind you living in a socialist society if you choose, but please let me choose to opt out. Socialism and communism are no problem until they use guns to force everyone to conform to their system.

"Instead we live in a capitalistic Republic where profits are put ahead of people."

The "capitalist republic" we live in is a fiction. Both of those words are filled with false premises. The word "republic" is a fiction because I supposedly have "representatives" but they are under no legal or contractual obligation to actually represent my wishes or needs. All government is a fiction in that way; We are obligated to the state, but the state is not obligated to us. The word "capitalist" is also a fiction, because Karl Marx misused the word when he coined it. All "capital" refers to is the tools you use to provide your product or service. So "capitalism" refers to a business which puts money from profits back into its tools and buildings in order to improve products and services. We don't live in a "capitalist" system. The right word is "mercantilism". Mercantilism is a system where politicians take money by force from some of the people and give it to their preferred big donor corporations. A mercantilist system syphons money from the less politically-connected "little guys" in order to fund fat cat politically well-connected donors.

Modern Medicine

I have a bad attitude toward most of Modern Medicine. I explained my medical skepticism in a recent e-mail to a friend:

You need to know that I'm not just picking on modern medicine. These doubts are warranted for ANY heavily goverment-funded, regulated, and licensed industry. For example, ... now that I mention it, let's examine something very mundane, Consider the tow-truck or cab industry. Without the government in the way, any schmuck could put a sign on his car or truck and go out picking up people who need a ride or hauling someone's broke-down car somewhere. You could probably get a tow or cab ride for 10 bucks, anytime, anywhere.

If I'm towing my Mercedes, I would call the more expensive and reputable company. But for hauling my winter beater, I'd call the cheapest thing I could find. Same with cabs; If I'm out on a fancy date, I go with the better reputable cab company. If I need a ride to work, who cares? Instead of having a wide range of towing and cab services and innovations, we pretty much have the one-size-fits-all government-licensed cabs and tow-trucks. And only so many are allowed per city, so competition is almost non-existent. Innovation is almost non-existent, because competition is not there to make innovation necessary to cab and towing companies.

Same with the medical system. Very little competition. All possible free-market innovations are not even thought of. There's no incentive. And medical research is completely crippled and steered in the wrong directions by billions of dollars of government funding. So, medical science is probably as screwed up as climate science. Only, we have no way of knowing the actually truth, since the studies are usually government-funded. Because of Medicare, Medicaid, and sweet insurance plans for government employees, at least 3/4 of all medical care is directly paid for by government. Add that to medical regulations, medical subsidies, government's medical research funding, and the government-controlled medical schools.

Have I forgotten anything? You get the idea. The biggest things controlled and monopolized by government are ALL worthy of skepticism; public safety, medicine, public utilities, airlines, zoning, public parks, state-funded research, state grants, roads, space exploration, wars, courts, schools, . . . When you start thinking outside of the "only the government can do these things" box, incredible new ideas start springing to mind. And, if money could be made coming up with non-government solutions in these areas, the ideas would multiply exponentially.