I've always been labelled as having a problem with authority, which I don't in the right circumstances I respect authority like in a work circumstance I'll talk to people who know things better than I do as they're a subject matter authority or when work is assigned to me fairly by an authority, I'll accept those. What I have a problem with its nonconcentual authority. We're born into a social contract that we never agreed too, expected to take direction from leaders we likely didn't and don't support while expected to be grateful of poor services in education or health care. All while a large percentage of our income gets stolen to enforce a laws and projects we don't support. When a junkie robs your money for their heroin addiction that's wrong, when a government steals your money for a power addiction that's taxes.
Why do this to ourselves? Because some people lack responsibility. If someone else is running things and it goes wrong it's not there fault they have a gummerment to blame for things going wrong. This is about as emotionally immature as thinking all things are part of God's plan. At least Moses put the effort of putting his stupid ideas on stone, says someone ranting with permanence of one's and zeros but bear with my hypocrisy as I'm trying to tell you to live your life your way without interference. Live with 1 rule, do nothing to interfere with the freedom and liberty of another individual and help support the liberty of others when they make it clear they need it. Let the natural laws take care of the rest. Want to fight gravity? Enjoy falling on your face, want to use an addictive substance without self control? Enjoy your show painful death. Want my property or product of my labor without my consent? Enjoy a bullet to the face.
Won't somebody please think of the outlaws?!
In the early days of the new world countries, primarily the Americas in this example people were allowed to be outlaws. Outlaws aren't necessarily criminals they lived outside the law. This was a double edged sword, a person wasn't expected to follow the law but didn't live with its protection. The universe may make us different but Samuel Colt made us equal. If an outlaw was to commit crime in an area under the law, they would be brought back to that area to face that areas perception of justice. Now we have nowhere to go, we're forced to live someone else's life. This is something our society has lost. Now people who disagree with the law are labelled degenerates, criminals and scum. With the state justifying violence and property damaged against non-violent offenders of laws they don't consent to in the name of a society they don't want to be members of. In a democracy a win of 1% means 49% of people are forced in to something they don't want. Making those peoples wants and needs irrelevant, therefore making those people irrelevant.
What's the answer?
Most of us can't afford a private island and if we could it probably doesn't have the resources we need, if it did the nations we could trade with, would impose a hefty import duty for demonstrating the pointlessness of statism. The other option is sudden revolution but revolutions tend to do just that revolve. That leaves us with progressive change, 1 mind at a time. Educate yourself, your friends and family in libertarianism and anarchism, the former is merely a stepping stone to the latter and is not a place we can let ourselves to get stuck. I warn you now it's an up hill struggle, in talking politics to a socialist and telling them I'm between anarchism and libertarianism they threatened to punch my face in for being a fascist who wants to see the world burn. Clearly they were low on the IQ scale but anarchism does pose a serious threat to socialists, as it is a political system the limits the rights of people in the name of the people, through committee and other government mechanism. Given my above observations socialists can be seen to be people who want a gummerment to blame and deem themselves to have the right to seize property and the fruits of people's labour.
In conclusion if you truly want to be free pick up some Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Howard Zimm. Think for yourself and question everything.
Showing posts with label AnCap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AnCap. Show all posts
20170507
Why Corporatism isn't Capitalism
Corporatism
The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The above are the Googled definitions, I feel capitalism is missing that it should be a deregulated market. That is essential, regulations are made by the government. If you take the power to control the markets from the governments then you remove the drive to have business based lobby groups, only social matters lobby groups need exist.
This stems from a comments socialists tried to make, first about banks being the epitome of free market yet when they deregulated they failed, therefore free markets will fail. Which isn't quite right, they failed when they got greedy and try invent value where there was none by loaning to themselves. Whereas credit unions don't take those risks, when one credit union does take that risk the league of credit unions is able to manage the problem and it teaches a lesson to the other credit unions, keeping them all in check. A capitalist market would have let those banks fail and taught the public to be careful who they trust with their money.
What about intellectual property? What about it? How's that working out for the human race with pharmaceuticals? Personally I suffer from chronic pain and I'm financially restrained this leaves me unable to afford the latest medications because there's no competition in creating them, the IP holder is allowed a have a monopoly. As we see with Martin Shkreli and some secondary level science students without that regulation there could be a competitive market see here for an example. But that will stop people wanting to develop. Not true, there will be a significant period of time between release and another body recreating the product, this should allow for reasonable profits to be made to fund the next round of R&D for the next product, with a reasonable percentage going to the business or business lenders (see here for why shareholders are a bad idea).
Markets operate under natural laws, before you think you've got me, a natural law is not a regulation, it's an observable effect. For example the law of gravity, we don't need taxes going to gravity police for gravity to be enforced, you try break the laws of gravity you fall on your face. Want more examples? Evolution is probably the best place you can observe markets in action, an animal develops a trait that is successful, it eats more or survives better and therefore gets to pass on its genes to the next generation who then have those traits. As they're natural laws they can be observed and people can learn what limitations to operate within.
When deregulation happens development can prosper, a company can release a product to the market if it works out, it does well and others will try do the same either cheaper or better. This causes a cycle of development, constantly driving down costs for the consumer. If it fails, then back to the drawing board. If you don't think that's the case then look at the evolution example above (and stop skipping paragraphs).
What about dangerous products? Let's start environmentally, individuals and organisations will still be expected not to intentionally cause harm to others, as per the NAP If your pollution damages property that isn't yours then you need to pay for the repair. Make companies culpable for the damage they cause.
Health similar to the above if it causes harm to someone other than the user then it could be regulated, that's not to say addictive substances should be banned because people steal to get them, people shoplift clothes for the sake of it and no one calls for the ban of clothes. Essentially it's the right of any adult to choose there conscious state. To dictate someones conscious state is to tell someone how to think. This act of deregulation brings drugs out of the hands of criminals into a openly competitive market where clean cheap drugs will win out. A company selling quantities likely to cause overdose should face prosecution.
To surmise, Corporatism is a system that allows those on top to stay on top when they don't belong there, whereas Capitalism is a system of greater flux that has more room for people to prosper as individuals.
The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The above are the Googled definitions, I feel capitalism is missing that it should be a deregulated market. That is essential, regulations are made by the government. If you take the power to control the markets from the governments then you remove the drive to have business based lobby groups, only social matters lobby groups need exist.
This stems from a comments socialists tried to make, first about banks being the epitome of free market yet when they deregulated they failed, therefore free markets will fail. Which isn't quite right, they failed when they got greedy and try invent value where there was none by loaning to themselves. Whereas credit unions don't take those risks, when one credit union does take that risk the league of credit unions is able to manage the problem and it teaches a lesson to the other credit unions, keeping them all in check. A capitalist market would have let those banks fail and taught the public to be careful who they trust with their money.
What about intellectual property? What about it? How's that working out for the human race with pharmaceuticals? Personally I suffer from chronic pain and I'm financially restrained this leaves me unable to afford the latest medications because there's no competition in creating them, the IP holder is allowed a have a monopoly. As we see with Martin Shkreli and some secondary level science students without that regulation there could be a competitive market see here for an example. But that will stop people wanting to develop. Not true, there will be a significant period of time between release and another body recreating the product, this should allow for reasonable profits to be made to fund the next round of R&D for the next product, with a reasonable percentage going to the business or business lenders (see here for why shareholders are a bad idea).
Markets operate under natural laws, before you think you've got me, a natural law is not a regulation, it's an observable effect. For example the law of gravity, we don't need taxes going to gravity police for gravity to be enforced, you try break the laws of gravity you fall on your face. Want more examples? Evolution is probably the best place you can observe markets in action, an animal develops a trait that is successful, it eats more or survives better and therefore gets to pass on its genes to the next generation who then have those traits. As they're natural laws they can be observed and people can learn what limitations to operate within.
When deregulation happens development can prosper, a company can release a product to the market if it works out, it does well and others will try do the same either cheaper or better. This causes a cycle of development, constantly driving down costs for the consumer. If it fails, then back to the drawing board. If you don't think that's the case then look at the evolution example above (and stop skipping paragraphs).
What about dangerous products? Let's start environmentally, individuals and organisations will still be expected not to intentionally cause harm to others, as per the NAP If your pollution damages property that isn't yours then you need to pay for the repair. Make companies culpable for the damage they cause.
Health similar to the above if it causes harm to someone other than the user then it could be regulated, that's not to say addictive substances should be banned because people steal to get them, people shoplift clothes for the sake of it and no one calls for the ban of clothes. Essentially it's the right of any adult to choose there conscious state. To dictate someones conscious state is to tell someone how to think. This act of deregulation brings drugs out of the hands of criminals into a openly competitive market where clean cheap drugs will win out. A company selling quantities likely to cause overdose should face prosecution.
To surmise, Corporatism is a system that allows those on top to stay on top when they don't belong there, whereas Capitalism is a system of greater flux that has more room for people to prosper as individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)