Socialism denies both freedom of contract and freedom to choose one's own entrepreneurial endeavors. #libertarian #libertarians #ancap #freemarket

in photography •  9 days ago 


That's why I am #antisocialist

Get your own Antisocialist tee here:

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

In an absolute world, any "ism" is wrong. The freedom to choose one's own entrepreneurial endeavours is one tricky proposition. What if it is an entrepreneurial thief? Just as Ayn Rand stressed the importance of a free will, there is also the idea of ethical objectivism which places the boundary of free will in such a way it doesn't interfere with the rights of another.

The first time a community comes together to build a road ... they have started on a path toward socialism. At that point, they have a social contract with each other to build the road. Initially, it is the action of active partners. Unfortunately, laziness develops where the individuals hand over the responsibility of building the road to a "representative". Once again it is initially relatively harmless but as the individual becomes further removed from the process, it becomes more harmful. Eventually, both the responsibilities but also the rights of the individual are taken over by the "representative" who not only makes the road but dictates that a road must be made. This is an artifact of centralizing governments. Eliminating taxes and strengthening property rights is not sufficient. People need to pull back not only the rights but also accept more responsibility.

You can turn any idea into an "ism" just by defining it. That's why I don't worry about "isms".
It's wrong to use violence against the non-violent and those who are not violating your property, no matter what you call it.

Cooperation and sharing are good, but once you introduce coercion or theft it is no longer good, no matter what your goal is. Again, call it whatever you want, with or without an "ism". The name isn't what matters; the violation is.

I meant that when an "ism" is in its absolute state is the problem. I tried to clarify in my own mind about a month ago in a post attempting to map Socio-Economic Spaces. Libertarianism adds an additional dimension to my thinking. If it is defined control held by an individual vs control held by different parties, it would lie at the very center of the model as opposed to the distal regions.

In this slide, a healthy society would fall somewhere in the center of these three aspects. A little capitalism is healthy because it allows individuals to succeed in their enterprises. A little communism is healthy because there are some things that individuals do not have the resources to do themselves (roads, hospitals, schools). Even a little religion is healthy in society for psychological reasons.
There is a boundary condition that applies to any society that once exceeded turns from a healthy exchange to a toxic one. This isn't in the same dimension of coercion or theft. There are sufficient examples in history to demonstrate how communism and religion can lead to toxic conditions. Talking about capitalism, we can look at present-day examples to illustrate the point. A good example would be Walmart but it isn't the only organization that could be used. A typical pattern is there is a community with several small businesses ... each providing a reasonable income for the owners. Walmart enters the community and over a few years cause all the other businesses to close. While the local businesses might be selling products that are manufactured locally, Walmart sells products from China and companies who pay their employees less. Unlike the small businesses which recycle capital within the community, the large company siphons the capital out of the area. This kills the community and the Walmart store closes. At no point did Walmart act out of coercion or theft. It out-competed the individual owners. It doesn't matter if the country that this place is fully Libertarian. If the foreign country subsidizes the production of its companies (eg. China) multinational companies will have an unfair advantage.

I recognize that the concepts of good and evil are too passé but it is possible for individuals to do evil things that don't need coercion but are not technically theft. Consider the actions of Mark Zuckerberg in Kauai. He bought 700 acres of property and put a wall around it. He is fully within his rights to do this. However, his property encircles the property of others. Technically he hasn't stolen their property but the other owners have to trespass on his property to visit their own. An acquaintance of mine has a neighbour who has redirected the rain from the roof to a spot which now causes it to flow onto my friend's yard. My friend now needs to build a wall to prevent this from happening. The neighbour has every right to redirect the rainwater to anywhere on his property. His actions only accelerate the runoff to my friend's property. Both illustrate that individual action can lead to unhealthy consequences in society.

This final illustration shows that the distal aspects of any society fold upward and show that the more extreme the society is, the closer in characteristics the society is to societies of polar opposites. The power structure of the US is very similar to the once communist (now socialist) China. Both societies a few individuals at the top who dictate to the lower orders in order to benefit themselves. I would suggest that neither society is particularly "good". There is a neighbour of Russia called Belarus. I mention this because it might be an example of a "good" society but still on the extreme. Alexander Lukashenko might be a benevolent dictator. While his country is very socialist because of the state ownership of many of its companies, the ownership was retained because of the decline of the non-state owned industries. His fiscal policies are contrary to Soviet-era policies which created oligarchies and mass unemployment. I only mention this Alexander Lukashenko and Belarus in this context because it is the only post-Soviet country that hasn't been a complete failure with regard to its people's welfare. In one sense communism was like a terribly addictive drug. Going cold turkey hasn't proven to be successful yet. Belarus is being weaned off the drug. It might require a few decades of a benevolent dictatorship to peacefully get past the danger point. Introducing Libertarian ideals to this society would end up with negative consequences at this stage.