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.

Want Democracy? Vote for the Market, not Politicians.

I'm stirred up by all the people looking forward to independent candidates in the 2012 election, and their illusion that things will change "if we just get the right person into office". Politics is like spinning your wheels in the mud. Only freedom can save humankind. Politicians, leave us alone.

There are two types of people in the world; those who just want to be left alone, and those who just won't leave others alone.

The Free Market turns greed-mongers and parasites into Servants of their Customer. They are forced into doing noble and heroic deeds.

Politics does just the opposite; It gives greed-mongers and parasites the levers of power to run everyone's life and reach into everyone's wallet to pay for it all. We end up with an ever-growing Warfare / Welfare State.

There is no responsibility in politics like there must be in the marketplace. Politicians spend other people's money and wreck other people lives. Why should they keep any pledges or oaths? The nature of the system doesn't change when Independents are elected. The political system has no responsibility like the marketplace has.

Tea-Partiers say things like "Go directly to the public" or "Get an Independent Candidate who will make a Pledge". WTF! How does that get enforced in politics? It doesn't. You wait years until the next election to change anything. In the Market, you are DIRECTLY pledged to the public, because the day you break your pledge as a producer or service provider is the day you close the doors of your business. The best pledge-keepers are found in the marketplace.

Politicians, on the other hand, don't have to kiss anyone's butt if they don't want to, ... not even their biggest contributors. They don't have to follow the "words on paper" that is the Constitution. There's no enforcement as there is in the marketplace. No direct payment or loss for actions, as there is in the marketplace. Politicians can break every pledge, and they are still "entitled" to keep their position of power until their term runs out (with cushy benefits and retirement packages). Yes, there is the option of recall or impeachment, but how often does that happen. And why should we have to go through the trouble of "recalling". The marketplace has a better way; consumers simply turn their backs on an unscrupulous or stupid businessman, and their business goes "bye bye" within days.

Politics makes a crude attempt at predicting market needs, but they are too slow, too narrow-minded, too destructive of innovation, too stuck in "One-Size-Fits-All" mentality, too indebted to their campaign contributers, too worried about the latest opinion polls, and on and on. Politics cannot do anything to "help" Business and Trade.

I would even argue that courts, police, national defense, and private home defense would all be cheaper and better in a free market. My argument is common sense; Government Monopoly causes a never-ending rise in prices and a never-ending fall in quality and innovation. Government is the ultimate monopoly.

True "Independence" and "Democracy" is enabled in The Free Market. Some Anti-State Voluntaryists are starting to call it "The Peaceful Market" because it is the marketplace where no one is forced to buy or sell something they don't want to buy or sell. People have been taught to fear the words "Free Market", but all it means is people peacefully and freely associating with whomever they please.

I'm for anything that's peaceful. That rules out all politics.

Political Activism vs Apathy?

A friend of an online friend accused me of being apathetic because I don't care to fight for truth and justice in the political arena. Here's what I have to say on that topic.

My argument with all of this political crap is this: if we want a world that is a fair world, we should start out by being fair in our own dealings. If we don't want to be bullied by a big government, we should start by not bullying those around us.

And, since you have taken it upon yourself to try and stir people to action by accusing them of apathy, I feel the need to reply to that blanket accusation.

When someone disagrees with your point, and when you answer "you are apathetic" or "you have given up", that is NOT an argument. It's better called a "guilt trip". There are some interesting arguments about how to better the world, but replacing logical argument with rhetoric and name-calling isn't one of them.

Like most internet arguments where we argue with faceless "rivals", I might come off as very harsh. So, I apologize for that. I don't mean to attack mistaken people, I want to attack mistaken ideas.

Like many people, I have strong opinions about politics. Unlike many people, I think joining the game of politics to change our political problems is not a good idea.

I didn't always feel this way. As recently as the year 2000, I was on the ballot as Libertarian Party candidate for Michigan Representative of District 88, running against the incumbent Patty Birkholz. I received the most votes of any LP State Rep candidate that year - thanks to having no Democratic rival. :-) I was also on the ballot in 1994 and 1996 running for Allegan County Commissioner. I also worked on many other political campaigns and party events. I co-founded and chaired the Libertarian Party affiliate for Allegan County.

But I've learned a lot, and I'm not afraid to say when I'm wrong. I haven't "given up", I've learned to stop spinning my wheels. A great quote is, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got." A sure sign of insanity is trying to get different results by repeating the same action.

Politics got us into this mess. In the past year, I've read 3 books (1,2,3), and listened to a 4-volume audio-book, about the years leading up to the American Revolution. It's obvious from studying this history that the common people were left out of the political process, as they are left out today.

That whole "We the People are the Government" and "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" mantra is nothing but political theater. That mindless chant keeps the tax slaves fighting amongst themselves, instead of attacking the cultural ideas that create this system that has its boot on all of our throats. Naturally, you don't hear these ideas suggested in government schools or pop media.

You said, "It all needs fixed first by not allowing attorneys to hold a voting position in government . it is a conflict of interest, and should be out lawed . then we could get laws thru to limit law suits on medical and this would bring insurance rates down for the consumer. this is only a fraction of what needs done."

So we need more stupid laws to fix our problem of "too many stupid laws"? I don't think so.

As far as a "conflict of interest", I'm with you on that. Everything in the government is a "conflict of interest". The Executive Branch employs tens of thousands of bureaucrats who push unfunded mandates, stupid rules, and taxes on us little guys. And if you have a problem, you can sue in Federal Court. Good luck; the Dept of Justice is part of the Executive Branch, and Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the Executive Branch.

And, even when you have Democrat politicos fighting Republican politicos, they are very careful not to set too many precedents that might blow back in their face after the next election changes the powers-that-be at the top of the Federal Gov't. As for the US Congress; those congress-critters are mainly good at dodging responsibility, so most of them "go along to get along". They kick and scream about the legislation getting pushed by the other side of the aisle, but then they offer their own version of the same exact legislation.

"Lets get some good laws that will finally fix the bad laws."

"Let's get the good politicians in there and push out the bad politicians."

Déja vu, anyone?

This is exactly the "solution" that got us to where we are today.

There are no quick fixes. Political power-mongers have been shaping the way people think for 10,000 years. We can't fix politics until we fix how people think about politics. Right now, it's nothing but a fight for the levers of power. And only rich people and large interests can win that game. By opting out of that game, we reduce their power to proclaim a "mandate from the people".

The problem is not the Abuse of Power, the problem is the Power to Abuse.

You said, "I sure hope a few of us can get a movement started and force issues on the ballet."

The key word being "force". All Government is Force. Government doesn't produce anything. Government doesn't add anything to the marketplace of goods and ideas. Trying to use government power levers for good is a losing proposition. Government only redistributes wealth and hands out favors to political pals. That's all government is good for.

Until a substantial number (no need for a majority) of intelligent people understand the equation "Government = Force", we are only going to travel further and further down the rabbit hole.

PS - Here's an entertaining and intelligent article commenting on the 2004 campaigns and conventions.

When Will They Figure It Out? by Butler Shaffer

Excerpts:

Like those who refuse to acknowledge a naked man at a party, nobody was willing to take note of the fact that millions of Americans have become painfully aware of the utter meaninglessness of political activism and voting to their lives. We have long had a one-party system in America – the Establishment Party – with indistinguishable candidates from indistinguishable branches of this party offered as "choices" to voters.

There was a time when political conventions and campaigns could be counted upon to evoke a snippet of intellectual interest – at least enough to keep intelligent souls energized about the process. The last major presidential campaign with an ideological base to it was probably the Goldwater candidacy in 1964. His words – written by my late friend Karl Hess – "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue," had substance to them.

The political establishment depends upon the continuing participation of men and women who believe in the preposterous; provided it has been certified by the kind of political conventions and media coverage to which we are subject. What sends members of the establishment into a state of delirium is the question: what if they gave an election and nobody showed up? What if men and women understood – as more are discovering – that no matter who they vote for, the government always gets elected, and the same fundamental policies will be adopted?

+++++++++++++++++++

"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker." H.L.Mencken

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right... " H.L.Mencken

"The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds." H.L.Mencken (1880-1956)