4 ms·

> That it will allways become corrupted, sooner or later. Systems of governance will always fail. This is just the way things are. The very best one can do i

by bdunbar 13y ago

> That it will allways become corrupted, sooner or later. Systems of governance will always fail. This is just the way things are. The very best one can do is what was done in Philadelphia in 1787: design a flexible system of checks and balances. It will not last forever. It will last for a good while. Such a system may allow for a peaceful revolution into whatever sucessor form of governance happens. I suggest one valid successor to American representative democracy is anarcho-capitalism. Consider: if government is going to fail us in novel and horrid ways perhaps the solution is to remove the concept of government.

c54 13y ago
You suggest anarcho-capitalism, but consider this: Currently, we have a state-capitalist society.I say state capitalist because every company that was 'bailed out' is effectively a state institution. There's an important distinction between the free market and capitalism. Free market socialism can exist as well as state capitalism. The only entity in our current system powerful enough to, say, prevent corporations from overfishing any fishery to destruction is the government. Similarly, government issued and enforced carbon credits are the only thing preventing (or attempting to prevent) even more drastic pollution. The list goes on. The main reason we need government right now is to put a check on corporate power (although sometimes it doesn't seem that way, I admit). And the main reason we need a check on corporate power is because of the profit motive and the concentration of wealth towards the upper ranks of any corporation. Instead of anarcho-capitalism, how about anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialism? In a socialist society, the capital (ie the means of production) is owned by the workers rather than the rich boss sitting in his office. Even more so, in a capitalist society, you need some entity in place to protect your capital (land, factories, slaves, etc) from being used by someone else, even if you're not using them (and even if you 'own' so much that you're limiting others' very ability to survive). There are 2 ways to do this: 1) Look to legislation enforcing capital ownership and a state-run police force. And 2) establish a police force / military of your own, under your own control. The first is what we have now, and the second would quickly collapse into a military ictatorship or oligarchy. The way I see it (from the above reasoning), there's plenty of reason to think that "anarcho-capitalism" is an inherently contradictory statement. tl;dr: I agree with the anarcho- half of your suggestion, but not capitalism.

by bdunbar 13y ago

c54 13y ago

You suggest anarcho-capitalism, but consider this: Currently, we have a state-capitalist society.I say state capitalist because every company that was 'bailed out' is effectively a state institution. There's an important distinction between the free market and capitalism. Free market socialism can exist as well as state capitalism. The only entity in our current system powerful enough to, say, prevent corporations from overfishing any fishery to destruction is the government. Similarly, government issued and enforced carbon credits are the only thing preventing (or attempting to prevent) even more drastic pollution. The list goes on. The main reason we need government right now is to put a check on corporate power (although sometimes it doesn't seem that way, I admit). And the main reason we need a check on corporate power is because of the profit motive and the concentration of wealth towards the upper ranks of any corporation. Instead of anarcho-capitalism, how about anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialism? In a socialist society, the capital (ie the means of production) is owned by the workers rather than the rich boss sitting in his office. Even more so, in a capitalist society, you need some entity in place to protect your capital (land, factories, slaves, etc) from being used by someone else, even if you're not using them (and even if you 'own' so much that you're limiting others' very ability to survive). There are 2 ways to do this: 1) Look to legislation enforcing capital ownership and a state-run police force. And 2) establish a police force / military of your own, under your own control. The first is what we have now, and the second would quickly collapse into a military ictatorship or oligarchy. The way I see it (from the above reasoning), there's plenty of reason to think that "anarcho-capitalism" is an inherently contradictory statement. tl;dr: I agree with the anarcho- half of your suggestion, but not capitalism.