Initial Thoughts on Government Bodies

I befriended a person named LowKey who is an anarcho-capitalist libertarian strong supporter of Hoppe. I have decided not read any of Hoppe's work until I read the works of historical and traditional libertarians such as Friedman, Hayek, Locke, and Mill.

Personally, I have been all around the political spectrum. Switching from libertarianism to social conservatism, to social democrat, to finally back to social conservatism. There are a lot of ideas that I agree with and disagree with while reading some articles from his website. Even til now, I switch from position to position. Essentially, I'm a moderate.

An open, free markets are necessary but regulation is needed in extreme cases. Monopolies need to be prevented. Businesses and corporations are not people and should not have the same rights as an individual. Yet, I do agree that there can be such a thing as a Corporate Personhood so we can sue corporations who commit a crime against an individual and humanity.

It is difficult for me to figure out how a corporation cannot completely devolve into being profit-driven unless the corporation is set up like a monarchy (privately owned) or an oligarchy (share-holders). I fear that publicly owned corporation will eventually become unethical and profit-driven.

The government should stay out of people's lives unless their actions hurt the common good. Yet, there needs to be very explicit ideas of what is the common good. People have used this excuse of protecting the common good to do unspeakable evils. Like Mill, I propose that the 'common good' and the areas which the government should intervene is to protect us from foreign or domestic invaders, prevent monopolies, and protect the human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond these few topics, I have not put enough thought into the matter to hold a firm opinion.

What I do know is that the government should stay out of equality of outcome, focusing rather on providing opportunity for all to compete at a level playing field. Prejudice, including systemic prejudice, does exist, but that is not the responsibility of the government other than of providing them a right to freely participate as a producer (but not necessarily as a consumer of unessential goods).

At least from my perspective as an educator, I am skeptical of anarcho-capitalism. There needs to be some sort of safety-net that protects people from harming themselves. I suspect that they replace the safety net from the centralized government with the Church.

Whatever the governmental system, an educated society is needed to make it continue to be up and running. If everyone is educated and competent to make their own decisions (and stand up for what they believe in even at gunpoint), then a large majority of the problem these government systems essentially goes away because the people in power are both noble and are making informed decisions.

Different levels of education within citizens is a problem within a democratic society as well. If people are uneducated—with an educational emphasis on the humanities (virtue, character, tradition, and history)—then they will vote for policies based on gut visceral reactions rather than with long deliberations and practices backed by history and research.

Within democracy, there is as an assumption that if the citizens truly understood that they have a voice, they would wake up from their slumber and lift themselves up, rising to their level of responsibility. Yet, I do not see that happening in all situations. Rather, just the opposite. Many do not have the drive to push themselves to the limit, deciding to be unproductive consumers.

Also, the spirit of cooperation is fundamental in a democratic system. However, this results in the most effective decisions to be cut down the middle resulting in mediocrity for everybody.  Yes, finding middle ground prevents corruption, but it also prevents individuals to reach the pinnacle of themselves. There needs to be someone who makes the final decision.

While at the same time, I am concerned that the destruction of centralized states—and the opting for tribes of individuals sewn together by social contracts—will ultimately lead to the worst form of extremism.  In comparison to LowKey—whom I find passionate and whose strong empathy for society as a whole results on severe bouts of depression because of how horrible everything is—I am confused and frustrated by another anarcho-capitalist, Volnost. He's wily, zany, and unpredictable person who's completely fallen into the meme and internet culture. His previous account was suspended, and I'm fairly positive that this suspension did not result from a reasonable and rational conversation.

As of right now, this is why I opted for social conservatism. Yes, there should be a free market; people should be free to make their own choices. However, a properly running society is fragile. What could take years to build up can be easily torn down in minutes. So, there needs to be systems set in place to protect the innocent and uneducated, especially children.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Confessions of Saint Augustine Summaries

The Discussion Between Crito & Socrates – Plato