Tag Archive for 'statism'

Is the Left FINALLY Seeing the Light On Obama?

Written by Colin. Published on June 17, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. 2 Comments

John Stewart has let loose on Obama for being just as much of an authoritarian statist as President Bush (US link; UK link). If the left finally willing to recognise that Obama is a statist and that statism has no party (or rather, has adherents in both parties)?

In the philosophical tradition (the French and UK), the left has been libertarian. In the recent pragmatic (US and German) tradition, it has been on the right. It’s time for both conservatives and liberals to unite on common ground to reduce the police-state, wars, corporatism and government spending.

The answer takes courage. It means that Republicans need to not support statist republicans – either don’t vote, or vote Constitution or Libertarian Party. It means that Democrats need to not support statist Democrats – either don’t vote, or vote Green or Libertarian Party. Either way: STOP VOTING FOR STATISTS.

Republicans and conservatives failed miserably last time. George Bush almost immediately proved that he was an authoritarian to the core – yet he received virtually unwavering support. His philosophy was adopted by many conservatives who blindly supported the measure for which they now criticise Obama. When Ron Paul spoke up on this, they ridiculed him (many now support him, even more support his son Rand).

But if this is a partisan change in the right, then it is doomed to fail. The end of a partisan shift, is merely to elect party members (re: Republicans) into office. But a philosophical shift will see beyond partisan allegiance and will seek philosophical progress in whichever party it may be found. The left now has its opportunity to awaken in the wake of Obama’s complete lies on so many critical issues. Hopefully anti-authoritarians on the right will embrace them and ally with them – not engage in partisan bickering.

Describing Government in Anarcho-Capitalist terms

Written by Atanamis. Published on February 18, 2009 ago in General. 31 Comments

I have recently become convinced that modern governments are in fact consistent with Anarcho-Capitalist ideals, they just don’t understand it. To demonstrate this, I will describe government in terms familiar to anarcho-capitalists:

Assumptions:

1) Anarcho-capitalists allow groups of people to form corporations, which can own property.

The concept of a corporation is essential to understand modern governments. In a corporation, many owners collectively fund and own a company. The company can then act in many ways as a person, owning property, producing products, entering contracts, etc. It is the corporation that has customers and liabilities. In many cases, stock holders in a corporation may also be customers of that corporation. The key elements for this article are that corporations can own property, and that corporations pursue whatever goals are desired by the owners of the corporation (who generally can vote on the goals of the corporation and the corporation’s board of directors who select the top positions in the corporation).

2) The owner of a property  is allowed to set the price of rent, and to evict people who do not pay rent, even if that person was born on the property.

A primary complaint of anarcho-capitalists is that people to not “opt in” to government. This is categorically not true though, since most Western governments provide full freedom for people to leave their countries. If I own a property which I rent to a tenant, the fact that the tenant has a child while on that property does not obligate me to give free housing to the child. Particularly if the child becomes an adult and their parent dies, I have no obligation to give the child “free housing” or to help them find another place to live if they can’t or won’t pay rent. In fact, I have a right to seek compensation if they continue to use my property without paying rent.

3) The owner of a property has the right to demand payment for the use of services provided on their property

If I own a piece  of property and provide security guards to protect those on my property, I have the right to demand that those coming on to my property pay a fee for that protection. That fee can come in the form of a one time payment, or I can charge a certain percentage of the person’s profits in exchange for the service. If the person does not agree to my terms, they are free to leave my property. If they do agree and then later refuse the determined payment, I have a right to seek compensation for the unpaid services.

Conclusions:
I’m sure everyone reading this sees where it is going. Using anarcho-capitalist definitions,  modern governments “own” all land in they control. Like any corporation, they claimed unused land, and can buy or sell that land as they see fit. They could choose to sell land to individual buyers, but historically have only “truly” bought/sold land to other “governments” (corporations which sell the use of force). Anyone choosing to live in one has a moral obligation to respect the property rights of the government as a corporation and to pay rent if required. Any business choosing to organize under that government’s legal structure is also a customer deliberately seeking the services offered by the government.

The US government is also a corporation, owned by the citizens who get to choose the goals and leaders of their company. Like any land owner, the US government has the right to evict anyone for any reason it chooses. Like any seller of services, the US government must provide a satisfactory service to its customers (renters and corporations), or it will see them seek out competitive alternatives. Like any service provider, it has the right to charge fees on any calculation it chooses (profit taxes or payroll taxes). Like any owned entity, it has to report to its owner regarding its goals and leadership (elections).

The US is the epitomy of anarcho-capitalist ideals. Their only real complaint is that the US as a corporation chooses not to sell its land to individual buyers, but since anarcho-capitalism holds sacred the rights of a property owner to do as they wish with their own property they have no moral right to criticize what “US Government Incorporated” chooses to do with its assets. As partial owners, they have every right to suggest redistribution of assets, but the corporation MUST listen to the decisions its majority stockholders define. If as customers (taxpayers) they wish to find a new landlord, they are free to do so. Like any property owner, the US enlists arbiters to determine property damage cases with neighboring countries. If we damage Canada with pollution, we end up paying “Canada Incorporated” for the damage to their property, and vice versa.

“Anarcho-capitalism” is not a reaction against infringement of individual liberties, it is either a semantic argument (only governments “own” property in the anarcho-capitalist usage of the word) or it is a rejection of free market ideals regarding ownership of property and the rights of corporations. If they want to run a territory on different rules, they must first purchase some land (from a government under the clear contract that the property will no longer be governed by the selling government, a “real” sale not a “rental agreement” which is normally referenced as a sale in modern usage). There is nothing stopping a government “owned” by a single person. In fact, this is exactly what a dictatorship is! Buy a group of dictatorships, and structure your free association of independent property owners however you see fit.

Claiming a government lacks the right to own and oversee land or charge rent for its usage is simply an attack on the rights of a corporate group of people to own property, and has nothing to do with the rights of an individual to life, liberty, and property. (Obviosuly the above does not apply to a government that refuses to allow its citizens the right of liberty and property to take their person and wealth out of the country. Since they do not actually own the land though in the anarcho-capitalist sense of the word “own”, they cannot take their property only sell their lease on its usage and the rent obligation that comes with that lease.)