This is why Libertarians want smaller government and a return to the gold standard. Instead of politicians going to the banks for money (so they can print as much as they want) they will have to come to the people. A long time ago in America one man used to be able to support his whole family with an average simpleton job, due to the purchasing power of the gold standard. Now a days it seems like man and wife are both working to barley make ends meat. Corruption is inevitable with big government. I have explained this repeaditly.

Power corrupts. The more power the government has to make decisions on favor of one man or another, the more power the individual politician has. If the individual politician can be swayed, his vote decided, by persuasive lobbyist offering large gifts and campaign contributions, than the one who can afford to make use of that approach wields his power. Therefore, the more power government has, the more corruptible each politician, the more the man or group with money will buy him, the more the man or group with money rules your life. You can’t afford lobbyist to represent your viewpoints, I imagine, to persuade your representatives to vote your way… But Hollywood studios can, and Car companies, and financial companies.

The key is to reduce the power of government to minimize the effects of government corruption. I’m not saying that’s easy. The legislature, in and of itself, has a lot of power, but a return to constitutional principles and the elimination of government programs, subsidies, drug prohibition, education and road money coming from the federal government, and so on, would be a good start. Unfortunately, it’s not in the interest of the politician; their interest is to sell their vote and become wealthy.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

'Voting' with your money gives millions of times as many 'votes' to overpaid scumbags as it does to the poor. That is NOT democracy.

Politicians have been in the pockets of the bankers long before the gold standard was eliminated and long before the Fed was created(the Fed was created because politicians are in the pockets of the bankers). Hell, the constitution was created by wealthy businessmen behind closed doors with the intent to limit democracy as much as possible.

"Small government" isn't democratic. The majority of the population will not vote for the size of government libertarians want. Countries with freer markets tend to be more undemocratic. Your best hope would be an enlightened dictator.

I never once said that the American government was democratic. I said the free market is democratic.



Anyone can save their own money to be sucessful (ever see "The Pursuit of Happyness"?). In a free market it will be a lot easier.



The American government was created as a Republic.



This is true; the corporations have always tried to bend the government but the bigger our government became the easier it was for them to do so.

Having a gold standard does give the people power. It's just that, the people will have to fight against someone like FDR who comes along and confiscates it.

Democracy simply doesn't work the way it is intended. I realize that the sob-won't-anyone-think-of-the-puppies-sob leftists are a lost cause with regards to democracy, but I'd have a lot more respect for real leftists if they didn't insert "democratic" into everything as a fix-all solution.

That doesn't negate the argument. Political systems in which a small group can vote many more times than other people are considered to either be oligarchies or extremely corrupt, not democratic. Why should that be any different in economic systems?


No it doesn't. This country was a plutocratic oligarchy before the elimination of the gold standard, before the creation of the Fed, and it is just as much so afterwards. Political power comes from the barrel of the gun, not from what backs up currency.

You’re missing the point. You are responsible for providing for yourself. Everyone chooses how much wealth they have by how they spend and save their money. If I save and you blow all your money on beer, why should we have the same wealth? Why should someone come a long with a gun and force me to give up half of what I produced. It’s immoral and unjust. Don’t talk to me about oligarchies; every single communist nation in the world is an oligarchy. You can call the free market whatever you want but, we arn't supposed to all have the same amount of wealth because it's based off of how much you produce. The free market isn't perfect but theres nothing better.




Gold by itself is inflation proof. While we sweat and bleed for the money we make, the Fed comes along and prints as much as they want… We still don’t know where most of the bank bailout went. Yes, having a gold standard without a central bank would return power back to the people. Instead of congress going to the Fed to print (counterfeit) money they would have to come to the people. This is why gold also helps keep peace (because they can't fund wars off the printing press); congress would have then to tax (high taxes could cause riots) and couldn’t devalue and/or steal our money without us even knowing about it. I’m not sure about you but, my parents always told me that when you take without asking its theft. It’s immoral; it would be the same thing as a farmer selling watered down milk.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.”

-Thomas Jefferson


P.S. I bet you didn't know the Fed printed $600 billion dollars a week before they passed the bank bailout (stole from us without knowing about it). The Fed is an oligarchy.

Considering they earned their votes through producing a better society for those around them, granting people jobs, producing ever-improving valued products, creating new products all together.... I'd rather trust that vote than the vote of a ditch-digger or janitor whose overall contribution to society is indeterminably insignificant and would be wholly impossible without the first. It's only natural the organizer would make more than the engineer, whose designs would never be created without him, who would make more than the mechanic, electrician, or info tech, whom really on his designs in order to have something to make, would make more than the custodian. Some men are merely better and worth more than others, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

Okonkwo :

Me:
The concept of revolution to create Anarchy dooms anarchism. The chaos of the destruction of the state is no place for the birth of Anarchy. In order for Anarchy to survive, it needs structure. Complex structure. The most likely way to get that is to evolve from existing social orders either indirectly or directly. Either by subverting states or creating the pre-Anarchic state. By subverting states, I don’t mean taking over their governments but to use their governments to create the Anarchic social order, much as Israel was created.
To create the pre-Anarchic state, one must establish a social order to which the next step would be a logical evolution. Switzerland is not too far from that, just a little bit too far is all.

This is a response to the point that capitalism has a democratic basis in that people vote with their cash and hence select industry/technology/company that becomes successful

Your argument seems to be that in a free market disproportionately rich people can manipulate the end game and make certain companies successful?

How does that work? Give me an example?

your argument just conjures images of a rich person with shares in Burger King buying lots of burgers to make sure the company does well

Rich people can't manipulate an economy
Government can,
According to the theory of the democratic market American car companies got voted out and Asian/European car companies voted in
Obviously the US government reversed that decision, for now at least



I don't think anarchism can be consciously achieved by a collective of people
its something that will happen spontaneously due to technological development

The concept that you can now download any book, film or piece of music for free,
essentially making a small segment of property as Proudhon would say "impossible"
seems to have been one of the first really concrete examples of anarchism

Me:
There was the Wild West, but it really didn’t create an anarchy. I watch Anime for free on the Internet. I hurry, because I know it isn’t going to last. I want to see as many as possible before the gate comes down.

I happen to think that it’s possible to do it with people. I’m just not the right person. I have a system, but I have the charisma of a toad that’s been massaged by a sixteen wheeler.

You might be right about technology. However, the same tech that makes possible freedom, makes possible tyranny. I’ve been watching a few of the games on the Internet. With money, you can make better sites than you can make without money. With money, you can hire talent. It was the Internet that killed Kerry.

There is one other factor. Time is running out. We are in the technological acceleration. This century, barring a survivable cataclysm, is the last one for unmodified Humanity. The same tech that might make Anarchy possible, is going to end Humanity unless we get our act together. Still, the AIs might figure out a way for Anarchy to work. After all, they should be rational.

Me:
The Harvesters are the indispensable men. Without them, everyone dies. Yes, the Elites can become Harvesters, but then, they aren’t Elites anymore.
The Harvesters came before the Elites. The Elites are Johnny come lately on the scene. A few short millennia between the beginning of civilization and the end of Humanity, that’s all.
Yes, some men are better than others. The better men are not at home in a pigsty. In the natural order of things, men slaughter hogs instead of serving them. Who knows, maybe the natural order of things will return. Hopefully, in time to save Humanity.

Yes, in a way.

Some things (economy, infrastructure, scientific research) ought to be coordinated centrally to guarantee their proper workings.

Not really. As an anarchist I don't much.

As a human being, I'm willing to support some honest pragmatic changes for the benefit of individuals, though. There's no reason to shoot individuals in the feet to "support the revolution."

The whole "dollars as ballots" idea is horribly irrational and undemocratic! In democracy, each person has one vote. But in capitalism, some people have a hell of a lot more dollars, or votes, than most other people. This is the opposite of democracy, it's plutocracy! A kind of economic oligarchy. Not to mention, this argument ignores all of the influences of powerful corporate decision-makers over what is promoted, produced and distributed apart the will of the populace; as well as how the producers (workers, who are also consumers) will be "compensated" (Exploited). If all that mattered was consumer preference, prices would dwindle down to nothing! Capitalism is soooo far from a democratic system, but is rather a form of exploitation, oppression, and authoritarianism.

Trade isn't mutually beneficial when one side has far more bargaining power than the other. When the means of production and natural resources that we all depend upon and contribute to are owned and controlled by a few powerful capitalists, everyone else is at their mercy. The balance of freedom, liberty, and power is heavily in the owner/boss's favor. Thus the exorbitant profits to the parasitic bosses, and paltry, starvation wages to the hard-working producers they are exploiting and stealing the value of their labor's product from. In mutualist anarchy, you may be able to preserve a "market" based on a more just concept of voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, with all producers receiving the full product of their labor, but private ownership for anything other than non-exploitative personal use is, as Proudhon said, theft! I am well convinced that after the removal of the oppressive capitalist state, people will not stand to depend upon or be exploited by a small number of rich, powerful owners/capitalists. They will democratize such common resources and establish real liberty and justice for themselves.

On the surface this seems true but lets look in to this a little. The rich have more money (surprisingly) but where did this money come from. Oh, i know the poor. so why did the poor give money to the rich? Probably because they believed it would benefit them. Either that or they're stupid. So if the rich indeed have more money and therefore more power it is for one reason only. the poor chose to give them their power (or vote) in exchange for some good or product. they didn't tell them what to do with the money. So if you want a more socialist society theirs a simple solution without any annoying rules. stop giving your money to people who you don't trust to do good with it ( by "legal" binding or otherwise) and give it to organizations who promise to use it for the common good (say feeding the poor).

Still it cant be that simple. look at all the badness and overpowering and capitalism. the rich can do whatever they want. well the only reason for that is that the poor let them do what they want. how do they do that? they rest their power in a organization that lets them do what they want. Whats its name? the government. and thats the true culprit. without the government there can be all the socialism or capitalism the people want. it their choice who to give their power to (the cheaper assholes or the , arguably, expensive socialists) .