The Case for a Freemarket and Republicanism

[Nighthawk]

The Freer the market, the freer the people.

The only purpose of a national government is to govern, that is- to defend the freedoms of it's citizens, to protect it's citizens from those who would do harm, and that is pretty much it.


For everything else, like schools, public services and the like, Local and State Governments exist.

But a government, does not any right to interfere with the private sector. The government should not have any regulation.

Why?

Economics is a social situation, not a government one. Economics is artificial. The government and economics are two different things.

The fact is, the US is the land of opportunity because of Capitalism.


Capitalism: the belief that anyone who works hard enough, will get his reward, and is the least oppressive of all forms of government. Anyone who works and takes advantage of his rights under Capitalism, will find themselves far.

"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary." -Ayn Rand

"Capitalism is the politico-economic expression of the principle that a man's life, freedom, and happiness are his by moral right." -Nathaniel Branden

"Freedom is not a sufficient condition to assure man's proper fulfillment, but it is a necessary condition. And capitalism--laissez-faire capitalism--is the only system which provides that condition." -Nathaniel Branden

Why am I talking about this? Some guy on a server yesterday was arguing with me about this.


And about Republicanism?

No country on Earth is a direct Democracy. If there were such a country, it's population would have to be no more than a couple thousand. Why?

Direct Democracies are slow. To get a simple bill passed in Congress and the house of representatives might take weeks, Democracy would take months to tally up all votes.

And even if you could do it quickly, it still becomes mob mentality, rule of the majority.

And every single law you want passed, would have to be voted on.

So how many people would bother to come? Two? Three?

God bless America.

[Italian Jew]

The only purpose of a national government is to govern, that is- to defend the freedoms of it's citizens, to protect it's citizens from those who would do harm, and that is pretty much it.

What if the private sector is doing harm to citizens?

Capitalism: ...and is the least oppressive of all forms of government.

Capitalism really isn't a form of government; it is a type of economy. If it was a government, then you would have already defeated your own argument by including this quote. Capitalism does go hand in hand with government though and is just as important as a form of one.

Our country is too big to be run without any government influence on the economy. Every now and then you will need some kind of presence by the government to help insure capitalism, but you would not want too control where the economy turns into complete socialism. Likewise, you would want much freedom for the individual, but not to the point where people could do whatever they wanted.

Your Direct Democracy statements also have some bearing on this. Smaller, more direct democratic nations tend to be VERY capitalist or socialist. Why is that? Little control by the government. The government with a socialistic economy would be the real deal, a community based government. The government with the capitalistic economy would be more like a small village where the people reap what they sow. Neither of these instances would suffice for a large country.

For instance, large countries that try to instill full blown socialism into their economy wind up having to sacrifice basic principles of the theory so they can function. You no longer have the goal of the community based government (you wind up usually with a dictatorship) and the people suffer because:
1) There is a limited supply of resources on this planet, so everyone cannot be sustained equally
2) The rest of the world doesn't share the same goal or principles as you, so they wouldn't be backing your government completely (your community would be isolated from the rest of the Capitalist world and your citizens suffer from it)

A full blown Capitalist country would just be a massive direct democracy. No government control whatsoever on the economy means a small government. You wouldn't be able to defend the entire US with a reduced Republic nor with an enlarged Democracy. The small Republic wouldn't have the power needed and the large Democracy would take too much time to respond (if at all).

In order to sustain a large nation, you need to blend whatever aspects you need from both extremes for a moderate and flexible system. A lot of shit happens to large countries, so they need to be able to react and change to altering circumstances. You do want to give freedom to the economy, but the economy shouldn't run the country. You also don't want the government to run the economy, because that would essentially be the government running people's lives. Instead, you want the government to be guided by the economy and vice versa.

Just don't fuck off into one extreme unless absolutely necessary and everything will be peachy as can be.

Also, don't get too miffed at what people argue about in the servers. Those who choose to blurt out shit in game usually don't know what they are talking about, so they don't take the time to appropriately express their ideas (or maybe something they heard in History class).

[PotshotPolka]

sigh, the one day an intellectual argument drops in my lap but I'm too tired to actually debate.

[Nighthawk]

In theory, the company shouldn't be able to harm anyone because they would lose money in the process.

Of course, that is theory.

Republicanism is the best form of government (and you appear to agree with me).

I like your balanced view a lot. I agree that a perfect country strikes the exact center of what it should be.

Of course, that center is different for each person. In my opinion, when we regulate the economy, it should only be out of absolute necessity. But with the automotive companies- they should just be left to fail if they can't handle themselves. The only time we would regulate the economy would be to stop a company from being abusive (like if there is a breakdown of my theory at the top)

[Hunt3r.j2]

There are really two forms of government. Oligarchy and a republic.

All the others are clusterfucks.

[Italian Jew]

There are really two forms of government. Oligarchy and a republic.

All the others are clusterfucks.

No. The two you mentioned could also be considered clusterfucks because the conditions and who is being governed determines what form(s) would or wouldn't work.

[phatman76]

I disagree with balance. The socialist Raison d'être is opposition to the free market, the basis of Republic. There are two fundamental, irreconcilable views of the world at the core of each. The core of socialism is the belief that a few or one can know the trends and needs of the many better than they can, and that they should be given control of the many for their collective benefit. The core of Republic is that each man is his own best agent in virtually all cases, but that each man may sacrifice a part or degree of his personal liberty to a government which ultimately will give him greater returns on that sacrifice.

That is very simple, very distilled, and ignores the world as it is. However, it shows just how clearly opposed these two political systems are. To take even a part of one and try to add it to the other is indeed impossible. The USSR tried sprinkling in some freedom but that experiment came crashing down on their heads with a massive upset of the socialist system (Glasnost to Yelltsin). Western Europe tried sprinkling some components of socialism into their governments after WWII and since then have slided into stagnation and decrepitude as socialist welfare states.

If you start out with one and think you can strike a balance you are destined to fall down the slide.

The slide of the USA into a socialist state is fast accelerating, and we should rightly fear this, for our children will reap the whirlwind of our transgressions against liberty.

[Italian Jew]

It depends largely on what aspects of socialism would be used and how flexible the setup would be. Even so, it would be impossible for it to work as best as it possibly could, but it just falls as short as every other economic theory. It can work, but the world (or a large piece of it) would need to adjust their way of thinking.

I am just speaking on it in theoretical terms and I am just really suggesting for people to disregard the stigma on the term "socialism" and realize that some aspects of it can prove beneficial. One part will not result in a complete conversion as we have never been a true capitalist nation.

A very sizable chunk of our economic practices are capitalist, but keeping the same set of rules will not work forever. You could try and educate the people on economic matters so they could make appropriate economic decisions, but that may be way too much wishful thinking. At the very least, prevent people from holding Klan meetings because they got "one of those feelings".

[Hunt3r.j2]

No. The two you mentioned could also be considered clusterfucks because the conditions and who is being governed determines what form(s) would or wouldn't work.

Well what I really mean is that only republics and oligarchies can last without turning into something else. Anarchy would make those creating the anarchy rule, turning into an oligarchy, true democracy would just become mob rule, becoming anarchy. A monarchy is really just an oligarchy, since a king or queen has their nobles. A dictator is only the public face of a few other men, who is chosen to lead, so that's also an oligarchy. So an oligarchy is just about the most popular government type in the world.

A true republic would last just as long as an oligarchy. Oh, except for the fact that it's hard to find a few good men who can do their jobs right.

I don't believe in anything but a republic can give people freedom. Anything else is like trying to actually force people to have doublethink.

I personally believe that Darwinism should apply in the economy. Fuck-up? Well, you're just fucked, no ifs and whats about it. Also it'd be nice to have a flat tax for income. Our tax code will have become perfect when only one sheet of paper is needed to file your taxes.

If people screw up their decisions, that's their fault. Their fault for not seeing the bubble, their fault for not pulling out early, and their fault for falling for the herd effect. No one should pay for someone else's bad decisions.

[trakaill]

In theory, the company shouldn't be able to harm anyone because they would lose money in the process.

But with the automotive companies- they should just be left to fail if they can't handle themselves. The only time we would regulate the economy would be to stop a company from being abusive (like if there is a breakdown of my theory at the top)

A bad company/small business will generally loose money acquire bad rep and eventually fail..thats what capitalism is based and why in theory it works and I agree with that!

Now I heard that the death of GM would of seemed in the eyes of a lot of Americans like the death of the United States (this was subjective and wasnt to be taken literally) I can see this argument as GM was the first automotive selling company in the world for years and years...and loosing such asset seem inconceivable to many people.

But to me it seems like it is doomed to fail at this point in time....unless someone some how bans Japanese cars in the US, how will GM ever start selling cars again??..

This leads to my question, if GM is/was doomed to fail.. what is the purpose of the bail out besides cultural/emotional/moral of the American public?????...if that in itself has more pros than cons than go right ahead and spend it..
But if thats not the reason than wouldnt that be very counter productive, every person in the US in complaining on how Bush spent 1.3 trillion $$$ in a pointless war...so yeah not close to the 40 billion spent for the GM thing but still...
Now this has nothing to do with republican/democrat, I just want a better understanding of this finacial move!