If you break it down there are really only 2 forms of "government" we will discuss the philosophy of both. But first I need to justify my claim that there are indeed only 2 types of government. My argument is that the 2 types of government are socialism and capitalism (or government and no government). Now my definition of "socialism" in this case if a little different then the literal term I just can't find a better word. Of coarse there are different versions and extremes. For example America doesn't consider itself a "socialist" country, but the fact is we tax people so the government can provide things. 1: Socialism (stateism) is the belief that a central power is needed to control the masses and make life better and more fair for all. There are different degrees of socialism (stateism) for example in America food production is still "owned" by the private sector sorta. The idea is that people can't be trusted. The government needs to protect people but in order to do that we need to pay taxes. We need a military and police force to protect us from evildoers. We need social security Medicare and wellfair so poor people can survive. We need roads and libraries. We need minimum wage so we don't become indentured servants. No matter what the policy is however, it sums up to the government taxing you in exchange for providing a service. Hence all forms of government are forms of socialism. 2: capitalism (anarchy) is a form of government (or lack there of) where the government does not interfere. The extreme is complete anarchy. Capitalists believe that taxation is theft plain and simple. They believe that any service that the governments provides through taxation can be provided by the private sector. An example of a capitalist policy would be mall security. Hiring trained guards at the mall would be far cheaper for the mall then having to pay the state (Mafia) for police (protection) Companies would build their own roads and bridges. Capitalism is a system of voluntary trade fueled by incentive. So what it all comes down to is weather or not stealing from the people to provide them with services they need is justified. I for one am a capitalist. How about you?
I think you are misrepresenting what capitalism and socialism are. They are not types of governance. Both can exist with or without the state.
Possibly. I already said my definitions are a little different. I'm arguing a philosophical point not so much a litteral one Maybe I should change it from "government" to "culture" The point though is either you are forced to pay for stuff you need BS chosing to pay for stuff you need. I'm sure we have all read the article about how.much the military pays for toilets. Society would be far more efficient I think if supply and demand were allowed to run it's coarse. We also need to stop distinguishing services as government and non government. Military, police, education, roads, These are all things that cost money. Why is it the governments jobs to provide these things? Your being forced to pay taxes for these things weather you benefit from them or not.
I think OP that you would have been better to say that society exists in one of two status, free or not. Capitalism or tyranny. I get what you were sayin tho lol [quote name='"lenny88"']I think you are misrepresenting what capitalism and socialism are. They are not types of governance. Both can exist with or without the state.[/quote] I disagree with both existing simultaneously. True capitalism is no government, and while you can have capitalistic elements in a government i still hold to the idea that they are mutually exclusive. Freedom or not. Gov exists to supress the natural rights of people, so how can they possibley be mixed? Can you be slightly imprisoned? Can someone only half steal from you, or half kill you? I know its rhetorical so you dont have to tell me But you are right about socialism not being a gov, its more a idealogy about distribution. A completely silly one at that.
So Credit Unions and Workers co-ops wouldn't exist in an AnCap society? I disagree. What's stopping pockets of voluntary socialism popping up in an AnCap society, absolutely nothing.
Yea. One thing people forget is that just because there is no government wellfair doesn't mean no one will help the poor
Your asking for another's opinion begs the question: why is democracy in no way mentioned in your analysis? Why so black and white about it? Your first idea is grossly misrepresenting socialism. The idea is not that "people cannot be trusted", the idea is that chauvinistic materialists can't be trusted. There need not be one centralized and super powerful government to rule over voluntary communities dedicated to fairly distributing the means and fruits of production. Also reconsider what anarchic capitalism necessarily implies; If a capitalist regime overthrew the government it seems only to be an extension of logic that they'd reinstate another controlling body to protect their assets/resources/wealth/treasures/families ect. It is logical that the economically successful, living in a society with schisms designed to separate people into classes based on arbitrary successes, a necessary component of competitive economics, would fear an anarchic mob of impoverished citizens, thus they would create new forces to police their communities. It would only be a shuffling of the deck in my analysis. Also, in response to the argument about helping the poor voluntarily... I'm not saying that this doesn't or wouldn't happen, but it is undeniably favorable for certain capitalists to have poor people populating their markets, as it gives the competitive edge to these certain institutions with monopolistic tendencies, who would be protected within a system of absolute-deregulated trade. With the most assets, they're free price things cheaper than the smaller fish, thereby accruing more capital for themselves, and intensifying the process further. That would be them capitalistically, and exponentially gathering power that can be used to corrupt people easily. My latest theory on politics is that the government should consist of a group of geologists, botanists, agriculturalists, doctors, and others who are committed to understanding the truth about the nature of the land we currently inhabit (planet earth), and communicating it transparently, through information derived from repeatable experiments. Or at least i would like to see a group such as this to have a say in any institution affecting policy. Not to govern by force, mind you, but to offer advice from an unbiased point of view to the best of their ability.
I dont see how you interpreted what I said to imply that they wouldnt exist. Society can organize without government........ and besides only in a free society without government could people be free to organize anyway they want.... how dont see how I implied they wouldnt though? Maybe I was stoned when I wrote it?
Like others have said, the words capitalist and socialist are not the words you were looking for. I also think that you are painting a very complex subject black and white. That being said, I am for limited government that collects taxes and uses that money for infrastructure, education and healthcare. Military aswell but to only to an extent.
ONLY?! I hope you realize that you are a sith by your own description. @OP I don't want to repeat other criticisms so I'll just point out one thing. Taxation IS theft...it's not a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of acceptance.
Once again I admit a poor choice of words. Lets get back on topic. Where do statists draw the Line between government theft being justified or unjustified?
Statist impersonation: It's justified when I agree with the program/policy and unjustified when I oppose the program/policy. I've no standard for determining what is just, so I use my opinion.
its not that i dont have a standard for determining what is just, its that my standard is my own opinion. now that youve got my turned on, im going to smoke a joint of bible paper and massage my balls with your tax money.