|
Virtually all of the so-called socialist/collectivist "for-the-gretaer-good" ideas are not wrong, per se, but how those folks propose to implement them is nothing short of gang-rape - Might Is Right. For instance, there is nothing "wrong" with redistribution. A free market social system does and will redistribute wealth - those who are productive (The Producers, The Servers) tend to benefit. But the recipients (The Buyers, The Served) also benefit from the effort, energy, creativity and courage of The Producers. In socialism, the belief is that consequences are always good, because the majority decide that something is good. There is nothing "wrong" with democracy either - as long as it is practiced in a free market. Political democracy fails for many reasons, but IMO the fundamental reason is because voters do not have don't need to back up their choices with private property. Meaning, they can vote for, say, welfare and leave it up to the system to provide - always by confiscating property from those who have it and redistributing it to the "needy". The philosophical axiom here states that everyone has the right to such-and-such and it is everyone else's "duty" to chip in and pay for it. There are no consequences The free market democracy demands that all individuals back up their choices with their own private property. So if enough people believe a widget costing $1 serves them (they win; the widget is worth more than their $1) , the producer of that widget wins too. Should the widget prove not to live up to expectation, the buyer goes elsewhere with his $1 and our producer loses - until he reinvents his widget or creates a new one, or uses his resources (private property) in other ways that serve his needs. In a free market individuals decide for themselves how they allocate their private property, begining with the fundamental one - their own lives. Every individual is mortal - he will die. Therefore his main resource - time - is strictly limited. Add to this fact the inherent unproductivity of human existence - sleep, commuting to and from work, and a plethora of unavoidable time-wasters, and one's fundamental resource - time - becomes a lot less. To me the greatest danger from the collectivists might is the time penalty. Taxation is a time penalty. If I earn $10 an hour and the govt takes 50%, I've been robbed of this portion of my life. If I refuse to pay, I go to jail. Jail imposes a time penalty. Before I go to jail, the ATO and the court will take my time too. As long as we have governments or rulers, there will be some form of confiscation. Voluntary taxation supporting a minimalist govt is a long way off. Hong Kong and Switzerland came close, but sadly, they are moving away from laissez-faire. My preferred social system - "Galt's Gulch" or market anarchy won't be relaised for a a long time, perhaps never, as long as political democracies remain popular. * Although Ayn Rand was a minarchist, IMO Galt's Gulch from Atlas Shrugged is socially-speaking, a market anarchy. That being the case, we are stuck with taxes - like it or not. To move toward liberty and freedom, the idea of private property must be understood and respected. Therefore taxes must be lowered and the requirement for individual personal responsibility emphasized. No personal responsibility, no freedom. No self-governance, no liberty. Frank Zappa once remarked "If you want to judge me, make sure you have enough data to judge me." People who choose to argue against libertarinism, objectivism and classical liberalism would best be advised to know about these philosophies before simply hanging negative labels. Below are a couple of links I consider essential for collectivists. To me, it a a selfish "win" when a collectivist gets a little bit of insight - so call me an activist, crusader or proselytizer - I enjoy this :-) The mp3s linked below are provided by the great folks from the Mises Institute: Charle Adams - The History Of Taxation Robert Lefevre - The Lefevre Commentaries The Lefevre commentaries are from the 60's and early 70's. Some of the audio's noisy, and the examples are of the time - the cold war, Vietnam. However to me, the message is timeless and Lefevre is
an excellent communicator. Cheers
| 
