Ah... so you are preaching libertarianism again?
What can I say, I'm a believer.
I never meant to imply that Corporate Anarchism was a realistic ideal. The very nature of corporations in a free market, is that ultimately one of them has to come out on top, whether that be through mergers or market competition. The end result is an entity which controls practically all means of consumtion, without any Nationalist or military check presented by a government and national military.
Therefore, in order to maintain power, the mega-corporation simply needs to convince people to consume, which is why I described it as A Brave New World without psychedelics. Whether they do so with low-low prices or coercion is irrelevant, it isn't like a monopoly where shifting consumer trends and upstart competition creates fluid industries, which keeps a monopoly's powers from being limitless and indefinite. The same can't be said, however, when the big fish eats all the small ones, since the big fish owns all aspects of life, and is thus able to control consumer trends and industry natures from its own gigantic umbrella.
Autocratic, if not Fascistic, since as you've kindly pointed out, Welsh, Fascism relies heavily on nationalist sentiments to perpetuate the power of the sate. With no state to speak of, there is no nationalism. Unless, of course, the Corporation becomes the new state, and the situation is no longer anarchic.
My point here is that it's historically unrealistic and utopian. While we may wish this to be true, in fact... history shows us that it isn't.
In what sense? When non-aggression is fronted by libertarian interests, it's usually assumed that the state is there to enforce it. The state has to exist in order to enforce it, because non-aggression cannot be a utopian ideal, as there will always be an aggressor. It's a matter of human nature to try and screw one's fellow man, which is why the state must exist to protect us from each other.
The Libertarian argument is that the state does not have the right to protect us from ourselves.
This is why the suggestion that non-aggression should only apply as a guideline is ludicrous, and that anybody who thinks so has to be off of his rocker.
I hoped that clarified things for you, Welsh, I didn't exactly communicate as effectively as I thought I did, which I'll get to in a minute.
You mentioned the consequences of justifying self-defense, and I agree. Ultimately, whether or not one does act in self-defense is irrelelvant, the key is being able to provide reasonable proof that one has acted in self defense. The establishment of self defense is brought about by an investigation, and while you could argue that some crafty criminal mastermind could effectively make a crime look like self-defense as opposed to murder, then I would counter with a "how do you know they don't do that already?" There's a whole string of serial killers that were never brought to justice and they made no effort to hide their malice. What makes you think that the current system is any better when it comes to finding and prosecuting criminals?
This is pretty foolish, Brady. "The poor to act collectively?" You're kidding.
No, I'm quite serious. This is my serious face.
A Libertarian government is one that removes itself from special interests, and allows people to settle them collectively or locally as opposed to nationally. If the wealthy lack the means to use government to coerce, and the only legitimate presence of force is that which is accountable to tax payers and voters, they would have no choice but to react to collective action on behalf of the previously disenfranchised.
Washington is a breeding ground for special interests and their lobbies, which can easily corrupt national policy, since the very nature of the Federal government is that it removes Representatives and appointed policy makers from their voting constituencies. (appointees especially, as they can easily be swept under the carpet, and the average citizen is largely ignorant of their influence)
By limiting the powers of the Federal government, the administrating bodies most accountable to voting constituencies are the ones which affect local policy are also the ones with the most influence. When the Fed becomes transparent, it's impossible to corrupt its policy without making an overt action.
And yet, all of this ultimately requires an aware and informed consumer who is better able to react to harmful trends, which I think tools like the Internet have enabled more than any other. The nature of a world where people are no longer given lip service by politicians which create a false sense of security also provides the incentive to become informed where there was none before. The world is a harsh place, and people need to be aware of that. How can people react to harmful influences on the country when you can't detect the problem before its too late, and there's no incentive to become informed about the problem?
Of course, Libertarianism isn't something you can just be bourgeoisie about. It's an all-or-nothing sort of thing in order to breed the truly informed consumer and equal society. The nature of politics is one where Libertarian platforms have to focus on issues that decrease corruption in government, increase civil liberties, and create fair, universal systems.
Somebody will always dissent, which is why the party has to remain realistic, and why Badnarik screwed the pooch by making a big stink about legalizing Marijuana.
The danger is not government, but bad government. And government run by special interests, is especially bad.
What the Libertarians would say is that the state is the instrument of evil. Perhaps. But it is those for whom the state serves as an instrument, that are the real problem.
Which is why the state must be accountable to the people as a whole, as opposed to a few. How accountable is the state to us when the legal code is so monstrously complicated that the people with the right resources can navigate the law to impunity? How accountable is the state when our own elected official can effectively declare himself exempt from laws that he himself has passed?
Are you thinking about privitizing education all over? And thereby create an even dumber workforce?
Hells to the no.
Education is one of the few things I'm directly in opposition to regarding the Libertarian norm.
An educated citizenry is the one that is most capable of protecting its freedoms. Having a gun isn't enough when one can be duped into submission. This is why I think that universally accessible and comprehensive education is key to the government's ability to protect our rights. If people were more well informed of the world and its nature, then they would be more keen to spot corrupting influences.
"Investing in education and making it better" is not easy. Making education better requires a complete overhaul of the school system as it stands. What point is there in investing more in a school system that allows teachers impunity through tenure? Our public school teachers are the most inept, and corrupt educators in the developed world. Not to imply of course, that all teachers are bad, but when there's no real incentive other than the personal one to excel in the field of education, the overall quality of education diminishes.
That's why I feel a Federally run voucher system is key. The private schools that are nothing more than yuppie circle jerks can continue to charge an excess, but the schools that actually have an interest in education will be forced to provide efficient and comprehensive services. Schools can't be infallible, they have to conduct themselves as a competing business, otherwise its administrators and faculty would be (and are) corrupt with a lack of scrutiny.
The answer to bad government is not "no government" but "better" of "good" government.
Which is what I'm trying to accomplish. I'm no anarchist.
.
