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.

My Political Roots

My political roots are anti-intervention and anti-big-central-government.

My old-school conservative parents gave me that attitude. But I took it to its simple and logical conclusions.

In studying history and politics, I finally found that you can't draw a line and say "this part of government is okay to have intervention and big centralized power, and this other part is not okay." You pull the string, and the whole ball of yarn comes undone. The more you look into the history of political meddling, the more you find out that everything the government does is NOT good for morality and NOT good for business. Even so-called "just" wars. Even well-intentioned programs like welfare, the park service, anti-drug laws, consumer protection laws, and public utility monopolies.

Warfare: I was taught the old-school conservative idea that trade was the best way to exert influence on foreign countries. The US should be beacon of freedom and prosperity that leads other nations by shining example, and not by threats and intimidation.

War should be a last resort, and for defense only.

Welfare: Same with domestic government programs;

The more the government can keep it's hands off voluntary human associations,

the more we will have maximum prosperity and benevolent social arrangements.

Welfare should be a last resort, a safety net for those in most dire need.

I found out that the Warfare/Welfare State excuses for foreign and domestic intervention as a "last resort" could be stretched and stretched, until just about anything goes as far as domestic meddling and foreign meddling by the US government.

Everything I ever studied about the history of these "last resorts" led to the conclusion that the "problems" which necessitated more warfare and more welfare were problems created by past government warfare and welfare. The small interventions always created more and more conflict, until the government jumped in, claiming that it was intervening as a last resort. Government always claims that it has no other option but to jump in and interfere. For the good of "the people" of course.

This all boils down to my favorite quote from the beloved Harry Browne, master of the libertarian soundbite; "The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, See, - if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."

Slavery, Government, Capitalism, and What Really Matters

Misleading questions with misleading answers.

There is a debate where one side focuses on the fact that business owners used chattel slavery to make money, while the other side focuses on the fact that without government support, slavery could not have been as profitable as it was.

In reply to a writers quip, "Libertarians would love to lay slavery at the feet of government precisely because slavery is a sin of capitalism", I gave this answer:

Libertarians don't need to "lay slavery at the feet of government". We lay slavery at the feet of aggressive individuals. "Government" is a collective term whose definition is slippery. The guilt of any crime is "laid at the feet" of individuals, not collections of individuals.

Instead of spending time arguing over words like "slavery", "government", and "capitalism", let's get down to the basics. I think a lot of confusion is stirred up when we frame the libertarian agenda as "anti-government". Libertarians are largely anti-government, but that's not a core principle. The core libertarian principle is non-initiation of force. Libertarians are against the "first use" of "non-defensive" force against person or property.

The Non-Aggression Principle is the root of all libertarian principles. When any individual (whether in a group or singly) uses aggressive force, libertarians are against it.

The goal of libertarianism is a peaceful and prosperous society based on individual liberty, property rights, and individual responsibility, instead of what we have now; a blood-soaked "might makes right" culture of dominance and force.

Fixing Government

Why is the wish to “fix government” so universal, and the wish to find an alternate system so rare? In my view, the alternative system is right under our noses. (hint: it starts with "Free" and ends with "Market")

This reluctance to search for what is right under our noses is what perpetuates the idiocy of big central government: it goes and goes, grows and grows... We keep searching for a way to make government work "the way it should work".

The hope that energizes this "political way of doing things" is that we can eventually find a way for "Representative Government" to work as a truly fair and just "representative" system. We've only been working on it since Greece 750BC. Just a few more years, and we'll get it right. How stupid are we??

I'm convinced it's not "stupidity", it's emotional blockage from being immersed in this idea through popular media, bad parenting, religion, education, and culture in general.

We have been taught from childhood that Representative Constitutional Democratic Central Government is the cat's meow. After we grow up, we see that things don't really work as well as we were led to believe. We see that all of our biggest problems can be traced back to government meddling.

Both Left and Right see this "broken system" clearly. But the solution is muddled by emotional thinking, which is not “thinking” at all. Each side is scared of the other side gaining power. But what both sides fear most is questioning the idea of “representative government”. They're happy to chop away at the branches of the problem, but they don't dare Strike the Root. That would require too much introspection and empathy.

Even after our political system lets us down so completely, we still can't bring ourselves to dare think about dumping the system. We feel like government is the framework of society.

Without government we would have no roads, no mail, no charity, no environmental protection, no protection from alien invaders, no communication, no protection from criminals, no recreational parks, no protection from greedy businessmen, no way to enforce private contracts. And on and on.

So, we spin our wheels trying to fix the system. We set up opposing parties, one that cares more about social justice and equality and another that cares more about protection and productivity (notice that liberal concerns are motherly and conservative concerns are fatherly).

One side blames the other side for every thing that is wrong in the world. This is just a foil to repress the consciousness of the answer under our noses. No conspiracy necessary. Our psychological block is so strong that we are blind to the big picture. We all grow up immersed in a culture of dominance - of "Might Makes Right".

"I have seen the enemy, and he is us".

The "let's try to fix it" foil has developed over the years to the point where both right and left actually admit that the answer lies under our noses. The Right asserts love for the free market and family values, the Left asserts love for community and charity. But it's a half-hearted assertion.

If they really had this great faith in community, charity, free markets, and family values, they would stop supporting the iron fist of the government, and let these things blossom on their own. Society would thrive without government programs "assisting" these natural and voluntary arrangements of mutual assistance.

The War on Immigrants

The war on immigrants is the same as any other war.

Governments use wars to distract from problems they have created at home. Riding on the wave of mob-hysteria created by their wars, they expand their power, wealth, and dominance.

War is the health of the state. Even if there seems to be good reasons for going to war, as in WWI & WWII, it's not worth the price we pay in lost freedom, wrecked lives, and ruined economies.

Americans fought the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 to avoid the single-digit taxation from England. How is America's level of taxation now?

Americans fought WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War, in order to fight the spread of Socialism, Fascism, and Communism. How is America's level of Socialism, Fascism, and Communism now? Things get worse with every war and with every election cycle.

Every war, large or small, is used as an excuse to expand the dominance of the state and shrink the rights of individuals. War is just a way to get the populace riled up and running to their masters for protection. And the Spin-Doctors keep Waggin the Dog!

Strong borders will cost billions of dollars, and those billions will go to the usual military-industrial corporations, making those corporations more dominant in US policy-making.

Those corporations already own the big media, the Pentagon, the White House, big pharma, big politicians, etc. They get money from big-government programs like the "border war", the "drug war", the "war on climate change", the "War on Terror", and so on. And then they use that money to drum up new wars and worries - false flag operations, whatever it takes, ... Whatever they think they can get away with.

I suggest We Don't Get Fooled Again.

The R's & D's play "good cop, bad cop" in a sleazy display of Political Theater, and everyone lines up to cheer their team. No matter which side you are cheering for, big government and big corporations are always the winners, while tax-payers and basic human rights are always the losers.

Better to admit that Constitutional Representative government is a failed experiment, many times over. Let's start looking for ways to dismantle the biggest, most expensive government in the known universe.

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)