Showing posts with label property protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property protection. Show all posts

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Using Profit Incentive to Promote Protection of the Poor

Written on June 5th, 2012



   In an Agorist, Panarchist, or Polyarchist society, everyone would be expected to submit their disputes to some - not necessarily the same - independent third party arbitrator, so nobody could choose not to be governed, but we'd all have more choices in regards to who governs us, as well as in what respects.

   Given that most people in America today think that the rich should pay more in taxes than the middle-class and poor, I think it is very likely that such an outcome would arise simply through the eventual acceptance of a social / economic custom, whereby people urge one another to only choose who governs them from among a set of governments that tax the rich more than the poor. The governments that don't would be picketed, boycotted, have negative information spread about them. Their managements could be confronted by any combination of their workers, outside protesters, disgruntled former citizens, or potentially even sued for fraud by agencies of fair, neutral, and independent court systems (see "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy for a more detailed description of how courts could work absent compulsory government).

   In an Agorist, Panarchist, or Polyarchist society, property protection / insurance would be a function of "governments", and the problem of wealth disparity would be addressed - to the extent to which people with property want to keep it safe from those who would take it (and keep themselves safe from those who would kill them in order to take their property - and so they would be willing to pay more in order to do so. This would be on top of the fact that they would already be paying more to protect their property because they have more of it than most other people, so this system could even function like an accelerating (exponential) progressive tax.


   The wealthy who don't pay to have their property protected / insured would have no reason to expect people not to steal it (this is a proposition which could even be construed to suggest that uninsured property claims are illegitimate). Any "government" protecting the wealthy's property for a reduced premium would - essentially - be doing a charity service, which risks their bottom line, so there would be less of a financial / business incentive to allow for the vast accumulation of wealth in private hands.




For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/tax-cuts.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Monopoly and Property Rights

 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:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...