Laissez-faire > Fascism > Socialism > Communism
Never go full retard.
What America has now is socialism. Progressive income tax, abolition of private property, government education, central bank, central control of credit expansion and contraction.That's socialism. If you stripped these things away, you'd still be left with protective tariffs, subsidization and regulatory trade barriers, which are they key elements of fascism, but this would still represent a lessening of government's role in the economy.
Wait... Really?
Yes!! If the people calling themselves government had even more of a role in the economy than they do now, America would have communism.
If they had less of a role in the economy than they do now (no central bank, no control over the credit or money supply), America would still have fascism for as long as "government" is allowed to intervene with the economy under the euphemistic false auspices of "regulation".
If they had no role in the economy whatsoever, America would have laissez-faire (my personal preference). Absent an overnight return to laissez-faire (which would be ideal), the economy will therefore have to pass through the eye of the fascist storm on the way back to laissez-faire.
The Subjectivity of Value
As demonstrated by economic luminaries Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, all preferences are ranked in relation to each other. To quote Rothbard from Man, Economy and State:
In order for any measurement to be possible, there must be an eternally fixed and objectively given unit with which other units may be compared. There is no such objective unit in the field of human valuation. The individual must determine subjectively for himself whether he is better or worse off as a result of any change. His preference can only be expressed in terms of simple choice, or rank. Thus, he can say, "I am better off" or "I am happier" because he went to a concert instead of playing bridge (or "I will be better off" for going to the concert), but it would be completely meaningless for him to try to assign units to his preference and say, "I am two and a half times happier because of this choice than I would have been playing bridge." Two and a half times what? There is no possible unit of happiness that can be used for purposes of comparison and, hence, of addition or multiplication. Therefore, values cannot be measured; values or utilities cannot be added, subtracted, or multiplied. They can only be ranked as better or worse. A man may know that he is or will be happier or less happy, but not by "how much".
Accordingly, the numbers by which ends are ranked on value scales are ordinal, not cardinal, numbers. Ordinal numbers are only ranked; they cannot be subject to the processes of measurement. Thus, in the above example, all we can say is that going to a concert is valued more than playing bridge, and either of these is valued more than watching the game. We cannot say that going to a concert is valued “twice as much” as watching the game; the numbers two and four cannot be subject to processes of addition, multiplication, etc.
Let's explore why this is relevant.
Practical Implications
Given that I view all human interaction through the lens of the private property ethic and the non-aggression principle, my preferences are ranked as follows: Instant abolition of government's role in the market > incremental lessening of government's role in the market > incremental increase of government's role in the market > instant maximization of government's role in the market.
Like it or not, fascism would mean less government power than what currently exists. I personally have an extremely high time preference for abolishing government's role in the economy completely. All government intervention in markets should be opposed, but if I were to take a position against incrementally decreasing government's role in the economy that is equally strong or stronger than my position against incrementally increasing government's role in the economy, I would effectively be taking the position that bigger government is better if I can't get no government at all. This outcome would be in conflict with my actual preferences, which would indicate that I'm suffering from some degree of cognitive dissonance.
Conclusion
The implementation of fascist market controls would only constitute an increase in government power if the government didn't already have a role in the economy. By contrast, if only the fascist market controls remained after a removal of the socialist market controls, this would constitute a decrease in government power.
Of course, fascist market controls should not be allowed to remain either as they constitute an immoral violation of property rights and will just result in a return to socialism, but socialism must be rejected more vociferously than fascism at present or else government power will only ever increase.
Otherwise, if history is any indication, this won't end so well.
About the Author
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
"Everybody owes me something" isn't just retarded; it's the most arrogant and destructive philosophy on the planet.
laissze-faire for the win!!!!! this is markie btw :)
You said it, Markie. ;-)
Yet another grand slam. Keep it up Jared!
You and I are in as full agreement as possible, with one tiny exception: there can be no return to laissez-faire, at least here in the U.S., because there's never been. We had government intervention in the economy even before we had the Constitution, and the first central bank was established at the get-go.
Of course this would be great but you have to be aware, and I think this is where everyone misses the point, ideologies are not what is bad, what is bad is human nature, you'll never get to the state where someone or other won't be trying to get control. And to get control they have to have some form of government whose mission will always be to get the best for themselves and the rest will be the ones who will get it for them. And this goes for any idea you might have, each and every one of these ideas are Utopia, they are not accessible because each and every one of us is actually programmed to try to get the best for himself and the ones who succeed are the most aggressive and pitiless among us. I hope I made myself understood, sometimes it is difficult for me to express in words what I am actually thinking.