Government and Economics!

Their are many people on the political right inside the political spectrum, including the followers of Ron Paul and their Libertarin organization, that wrongly believe that the government is the source of all societies problems and that limited government would allow us to be happy individuals,… free, and independent!..They wrongly believe that philosophy is the foundation of ours and every society! They reject the idea that I subscribe to,… that it is economics, that rule! It is economics that is the foundation of all societies 

Socialism and capitalism are economic systems that are opposites. therefor they oppose each other! The nature, and the characteristics that flow from these opposite economic systems, basically are… cooperation and planning as opposed to competition and not planning!

Government is an entirely different entity!…You can have under either economic system a government that is intrusive, rigid, and dictatorial! A government that feels it is surrounded by enemies so it feels that it’s only recourse is to circle the wagons and demand rigid discipline and conformity from it’s people in order to protect everyone from the enemy! This is a normal political reaction to a threat from external forces and is predictable and to be expected under any political system that is charged with the responsibility to protect a group a nation or an entire system!

Socialism as well as capitalism can have a political system that is representative of the people. Political democracy can thrive under socialism and capitalism when the objective conditions are conducive for democracy to exist!

The opposition that exists, primarily between the forces of socialism and capitalism has very little to do with government. It has everything to do with economics!

Socialists believe that eventually under the conditions of material abundance the need to compete for material survival will no longer be necessary. That the needs and the desires of all of the people will be provided to them from their advanced technology and from the soil of the earth that belongs to everyone like the air that we breathe!

The apparatus that will provide this to the people will not be a political state but rather trained professional experts with computers and modern technology that can measure the resources of the planet and can determine a balance between what can be taken from the earth so as not to upset the balance between nature and humanity!

According to Marxists the state will wither away and a new human being will be born out of this environment of economic security. That human will be a social scientific human being that is self reliant and has compassion and awareness of his surroundings. It will not be needed to have police or a court system to force him to be social with his fellow human beings!
You will have an administration of things not an administration of people!

Explore posts in the same categories: Anarchist, athiest, Bush, capitalism, centrists, communism, conservative, democrat, dialectics, economists, fascist, finance, futurist, globalist, greed, Industry, Liberal, Libertarian, marxism, materialism, moderates, opportunists, private, profit, progressiive, public, republican, revolution, science, social, socialism, socialist, system, Uncategorized, universal

3 Comments on “Government and Economics!”

  1. Rich Paul Says:

    The problem is the force. There are two ways to convince people to cooperate: threat and promise. This can also be stated as force and contract, or carrot and stick.

    In a socialist system, people are forced to behave as the planners decree, and have no choice in the matter. They are slaves to the planners. The planners claim that they are working for the good of all, and they may be trying, but without market prices, there is no way for the people to express what they consider good. In other words, the planners have no choice but to impose their will on all, since they have no way of knowing the will of all. Add to this the material poverty of a socialist society, where a small group of planners attempt to solve an extremely difficult set of problems, and the product of the force based society is always famine and riot.

    A capitalist system, however, is based on peaceful and free cooperation. People contract with each other if and only if they believe that they will benefit from the arrangement. No resources are wasted torturing or killing dissenters, or “re-educating” dissidents. People who wish to act in a particular way are free to do so, so long as they do not infringe on the equal rights of others. People are encouraged into particular directions of endeavor by their ability to reap greater rewards in those fields most urgently needed, but nobody is forced to operate in a different way. If you want to produce that which nobody wants, you are free to do so, you just need to bear the cost of your hobby yourself.

    The choice between capitalism and socialism, therefore, is nothing less than the choice between freedom and slavery, between peace and turmoil, between prosperity and poverty, between life and death. I choose capitalism, freedom, peace, prosperity, and life over socialism, slavery, turmoil, and death.

    What do you choose? It may be the last choice you are ever free to make.

  2. despicable Says:

    Their are two types of cooperation,…Forced cooperation and Voluntary cooperation!
    It is the nature of humans to cooperate voluntarily when they sense that by doing so they and the people that they are cooperating with will mutually benefit from that cooperation!
    Forced cooperation is slavery!
    By promising someone something that they will receive a benefit if they cooperate and if that benefit is not forthcoming than the cooperation will end as well as the trust in the person that made the false promise!
    And that is as it should be!
    Cooperation has to be on the basis of trust! And the conditions that makes that trust possible is past experience with the person or agency that you were interacting with!
    Any society that does not deliver on promises made to their citizens,.. is doomed to be a failed society! ..And that is s it should be!
    Human intelligence that creates a plan that will unselfishly create an abundant and civil society is more likely to succeed than an economy that does not have a plan and selfishly and individually competes by freely exploiting people and resources in a dog eat dog fashion so as to gain more than than they give to the person they are competing with and to society as a whole!
    This kind of competition can only have a dehumanizing effect on those that compete!

  3. Rich Paul Says:

    Most of what you said there does not contradict what I said, until you get to:

    Human intelligence that creates a plan that will unselfishly create an abundant and civil society is more likely to succeed than an economy that does not have a plan and selfishly and individually competes by freely exploiting people and resources in a dog eat dog fashion so as to gain more than than they give to the person they are competing with and to society as a whole!

    This is impossible. Our current society, with 300,000,000 (that’s 300 million) planners, each of whom is empowered to the extent of his past success, has managed to achieve an average annual income of 38,400 dollars (more or less). To contend that if you move all decision making to a few people (less than 10,000), and that those minds, pursuing political goals, will somehow outperform a society which allows each and every one of it’s (non-imprisoned) citizens to make their own decisions is insane.

    Moreover, without a market which allowed citizens to express it’s wants and needs as prices, along with asserting it’s willingness to forgo other consumption in order to have those things (because money can only be spent once), even superhuman decision makers, genetically engineered to be able to outperform the 30,000 decision makers they are replacing, would have no way to collect information in order to meet those needs.

    Your errors on exploitation and “dog-eat-dog” competition mostly seem to come from a failure to understand the basic concept of value. Don’t feel bad, it has taken economists decades to understand value. Even Adam Smith, one of the greats, started out with a fatally flawed “labor theory of value”, which inspired such lunatics as Marx, and encouraged the mass slaughters of all the socialist dictatorships of the world.

    The correct answer is that value is subjective. If I value a dollar more than you value an apple, we exchange. That does not mean that I have won and you have lost, or visa versa. We are both better off, because we both have what we value more. This is a very simple co-operative solution.

    As for exploiting people, that is an old socialist error. It goes like this:

    1) If someone (an employer) chooses to reward me at a mutually agreed rate for performing some sort of work for them, then I have been exploited, and I have lost while they have gained.

    2) If someone (a government) forces me to do work that I do not choose, for rewards (if any) I cannot negotiate, with the only benefit of my doing as commanded being that they refrain from killing me, then I have been freed, and live in a workers’ paradise.

    I’m not sure what sort of twisted thinking leads to this conclusion, but it is clearly wrong.

    As for exploiting resources, the owner of a resource generally does some pretty complex math in deciding whether to use it immediately or to save it for later. If you owned an oil well, you would be concerned about the value of the oil today, your estimates of the future value of oil, the cost of exploiting the resource, now and in the future. All of this determines the market value of the resource, as well as how quickly or slowly it is exploited. These values, in turn, reflect how society can best benefit from the resource. All of this is encapsulated by the market, so those who have no knowledge of economics may assume that such people are operating without a plan, but I assure you, they have plans, they have contingencies, and they have thought about the possibilities much more thoroughly then any dictator or committee responsible for “society as a whole” could possibly do. This is because they stand to lose a great deal if they guess wrongly. On the other hand, society does not generally lose a great deal if an individual plans wrongly, because for every individual who underestimates a factor, there is likely to be another who overestimates that factor. This tends to lead to an optimal result for the whole society, while shifting the control of resources to those who have demonstrated an ability to think and plan well.


    You also wrongly assume that capitalist societies do not have plans. They have at least one plan for each adult who resides within their borders. They are organized in a decentralized fashion, and the plans are tested against reality instead of against projections. People who plan well do better than those who plan poorly. Some people may even choose to let others do all their economic thinking for them, in which case they tend to make less money, but have more security. Other people choose to take risks and do their own economic thinking. They may make a great deal of money, or they may lose a great deal of money. Such is life.


    As for the dehumanizing effect of competition, mankind is a product of a competitive system, called evolution. It is not nearly as forgiving as capitalism, where even abject failures will be supported at some level either by the mindless work that they are capable of doing, or if they are completely unable to function, they will (probably) be supported by voluntary charity. The only case in which incompetents were not supported would be if they were so numerous that they threatened to consume so much and produce so little that society would collapse.


    Note that what we have now is nothing like a free market economy, as the government has poked it’s nose into nearly every corner of production and consumption, making society poorer than it should be. But this cannot be resolved by more government, but rather by allowing people to be free to decide what matters to them, and to vigorously pursue their goals.


    You might want to check out a basic text on economics, so you can understand how these things work. I suggest “economics for real people”, which is a great introduction to Austrian economics, written for people completely new to the subject, but with enough information and clarity of presentation that even people who have studied economics previously can gain a great deal from reading it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: