Written in December 2010
Originally published 12-30-2010
Say
you have an idea, an invention, or a way to improve a product. You
want the exclusive right to get paid for your idea and secure your
intellectual private property. So you go to the local, government-run
patent office to do so.
Now
nobody can compete with you unless they change their idea until it's
different enough by government standards. Then you have a virtual
monopoly. Monopoly is government protection of industry. So
libertarianism and state capitalism are practically the same thing,
especially when it comes to economic issues and the protection of
property.
And
all patents are registered at the federal level, so it's a
centralized state capitalism, i.e., fascism, which easily sways
towards totalitarian state socialism as soon as the state comes to
favor building up its bureaucracies and creating government jobs when
it thinks it can survive without cementing its business ties. So
state capitalism and state socialism are the same thing.
So
libertarianism and state socialism, though traditionally perceived as
opposite, are really more similar than anyone could imagine.
And,
obviously, anarcho-socialism cannot exist in any real way, because
you can't take commercial or propertarian liberty away from the
individual without having some form of public or socialized
governmental organization with which to do so. So anarcho-socialism
and state socialism are the same for all intents and purposes.
The
public chooses at detriment to property owners, and property owners
continue to possess and own at detriment to the remainder of the
public.
Public-possessed
means of production, private-owned means of production. What's the
difference? In any remotely statist system, all private citizens are
members of the public, and all public entities are operated by
government agents for private profit.
I
saw someone on TV talking about North Korea, saying that as soon as a
country comes to embrace capitalism, democracy is never far behind.
But late-night host Craig Ferguson says that capitalism and democracy
need each other to balance out, because one is evil and the other is
good, like the Olsen twins.
But
does democracy develop in order to protect capitalism, or rather, in
response and in opposition to it?
This
country is built on the idea espoused by Franklin, Jefferson, and
Rousseau - that private property rights are secured by public
consent.
So
now that we've realized that both socialism and capitalism are
bullshit and basically the same thing, where do we go from here?
For
more entries on theory of government, please visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment