Our elected representatives seem to care more about the “business” than people.
Well, they do care about business, but business is what generates wealth, and it is what we use to put the food on the table, pay the mortgage, and then have luxuries of life. Pressures to corrupt elected officials exist, because they have the guns, and if you control them, you control the guns. This is why we have three separate branches of government, and why local, decentralized control of government (i.e. guns or legitimated coersion) is important. If the officials have been corrupted too far, then it is very difficult to change. These things have a tendency to carry a lot of the momentum of history. The theory behind America is that once the government works against the people rather than for it, it needs to be removed, by a violent revolution if necessary. But as far as this business thing is concerned, I'd never vote for someone who was anti-business.
They believe an ideology that is just as insidious as Merxism, which is that a “free” market is the best way to regulate society.
Er... this seems a bit odd. I don't believe the thousands of elected officials in my country believe in one ideology, unless it's a very general ideology.
Argue against me, the crumbs may fall from the table, but in real terms there are 10 people at this table and 1 million on the floor waiting for these crumbs
Montesquieu:
In a state there are always some people who are distinguished by birth wealth or honors; but if they were mixed among the people and if they had only one voice like the others, the common liberty would be their enslavment and they would have no interest in defending it, because most of the resolutions would be against them. Therefore, the part they have in legislation should be in proportion to the other advantages they have in the state, which will happen if they form a body that has the right to form the enterprises of the people as the people have a right to check theirs.
Me: Pure democracy (rule of the majority) is tyrrany.
Our middle class serves these rich fucks, we are the problem, and we care more about safety then freedom.
Well, see, if this is the case, then it really isn't bad thing, is it? I mean, if I personally care more about safety than freedom, I can do all kinds of things. I can, for instance, deprive myself of the freedom to leave my home, and stock up on weapons to defend myself from intruders. But I think you meant to say that they (those guys out there) care more about safety and less about freedom than you, Panarchy do. The problem is that those guys out there want to take away Panarchy's freedom to protect themselves from bad things. That's why we need constitutional constraints. Maybe we need some more. Do you have a suggestion?
Western society is fundamentally flawed; our freedom is based on the subjugation or others.
It's based on the subjugation of others, but every moderately populated society in history has been, as well. The nice thing about Western society is that the subjugation is for the purpose of maintaining liberty. However, I'm guessing you are an anarchist (opposing subjugation), but I've only ever studied one form of anarchy, and that is the free market kind. But you seem to be opposed to free markets, too, so I'm not sure what you mean.
This is another thinly disguised threat; if we treated the poor world fairly we would be poorer.
I guess I don't subscribe to the fairness criterion, because it's so indeterminate. For instance, a socialist/communist idea of fairness has to do with the distribution of material goods: everyone gets the same amount of stuff. But free market capitalism is also fair: everyone is allowed to do with his stuff whaterver he likes so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another. But these are in conflict, because one can acquire more stuff in capitalism, but one cannot in communism. Likewise, the rule of governments that you call unfair is this: every government is to represent the interests of the people it rules over. The president of the United States represents the American people, the Prime Minister of Britain represents the British people, and so on. There are reasons for this rule, and they are the same reasons that the mayor of Los Angeles shouldn't always make the decision that is best for the mayor of Chicago. But some of these things, like subsidizing farmers, make it difficult for foreign farmers to make a profit, so maybe we should stop subsidizing farmers, who make up less than 2% of U.S. GDP. Maybe we should take away provisions in the law specifically designed to keep Detroit manufacturers from going out of business. But food and manufacturing are two of the most important industries we can have during wartime. I'd hate for my country to go to war and realize that, because of the enemy, we can neither feed ourselves, nor build machinery necessary to defend from invasion. Um, but I guess that's maybe worrying too much about security.
Oh. from the abstract:
We live in a hierarchical state yet we have the power to change this, why don’t we?
In a sense, we don't have the power to change it, because most people don't want things changed. I'm afraid of change, and I think it's perfectly senseible to feel this way. I'd love to see how an anarchist society could function, and, if it were successful, I might start yelling to replicate it. But, you know, it's never been done before, and there's no more new world to do these experiments on. The libertarians are trying New Hampshire, though, so I'll be watching to see how that goes. |
