That’s probably because I don’t really have ‘political’ views in the sense most people mean (ideological charges). I’m pretty much apolitical and totally amoral. Politics and economics are, to me, sociology. If I argue in ‘favor’ of anything it’s basically just smashing trouble-makers and idiots, and my views on how to best do so.
For the most part I’m a fan of market resolution, down to the provision of weapons. But, in the real world with actual people, I’ve got no problem seizing control with Nazi-like tactics and basically beating the tar out of communists and media-democrats; and using blatant ‘rights violating’ force to destroy democratic taint. Of course, the problem with the Nazis is they were pretending to be socialists and tried populist appeal. Whereas I would say, law and order and to Hell with ‘popular opinion’ (read: media opinion).
While I do like elements of Singapore, no, and it is certainly not my ideal organization. For one, Singapore is still too democratic (at least formally if not practically), and it is not explicitly owned by its upper-crust, nor is it totally immune to the world of democratic politics outside its shores. Also, mainly for the last reason, it remains on a halfway mark. I would like ultimately for there to be more privatization of simple security work, roads and so forth as well as more or less no actual censorship (“They say what they want, I do what I want”, ala Bismarck; or as Burke says “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”) Also the marijuana and pornography being illegal is another bizarre facet of the democratic world, the government ought not aim to regulate things that simply can not be controlled (their supposed harmlessness aside).
Autarchy, the real power is in the executive (CEO, King, Dictator, your choice). The executive board (the super-rich stockholders) can hire and fire, nothing else.
So why would your “executive” (really the executive and the legislator) be for free market capitalism? Why would your “executive” accept all of the positions you outline (e.g. free speech, drug legalization, etc.)?
I can’t imagine people being happy with having no say in what happens to their lives and property as a result of some “benevolent” dictator somewhere. Such a dictator would at least have to impose restrictions on free speech, free assembly, etc.
Because 1) you have the right culture and 2) because he is part of a corporation which is owned (and he is controlled indirectly) by the board, who are the largest shareholders and landholders. And he gains his revenues (as do they) through property equity increases. Generally, military despotisms do not improve property values (unless the other option is Maoism).
So allowing people to criticize the feudal lords and smoke pot will somehow increase property values? I really can’t imagine how allowing people to spread ideas which encourage instability would increase property values and output. And I certainly don’t understand how allowing people to use drugs would increase the “equity value” of the state.
What you’re speaking of is replacing a free market economy with a compulsory materialist state. If the state were profit-seeking, which is what you seem to be speaking about, then there would be numerous invasions of private property which would not be consistent with increasing the general welfare. Take, for example, drugs. Why would any profit-seeking state legalize drugs, or at least why wouldn’t any profit-seeking state heavily tax drugs? Though individuals might seek drugs to increase their own personal utility, such drug use would inevitably reduce national output, since the drug users would suffer various health problems and die an early death. Another example could be land which people reserve for personal enjoyment like, say, parks. What would a profit-seeking state gain from a park or a large backyard? Absolutely nothing. Instead, such a state would seek to cramp people into smaller living spaces and use the additional space to build factories, labs, etc.
You do not understand the gulf that lies between the modern state and what I propose. What you say is true if we are talking about something like a Republican ‘limited government’. It is not true if we are talking about a privately-owned government formed by the multilateral contracts of interested parties. What I propose is contractual, but it is indifferent to the ‘consent’ of have-nots and rabble-rousers.
As James Fitzjames Stephen said in Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, "To me this question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing. It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what cases is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete solution of the problems which such a history would offer. "
I am not buying that you just happen to post every day from the same shared classroom computer over the stretch of hours. I don’t know everything there is to know about how the internet works but having the same IP address as Htut and not being the same person seems incredibly unlikely.
Anyhow, you don’t “favor” anything but we don’t understand what you “propose”? Saying that anarchy is chaos is a pretty big error too. Why should we care about your opinion?
No-government isn’t chaos inherently. It just tends toward chaos. Because people are retarded, and on top of that social heirarchies, compulsory status enforcement and power-relations are inevitable.
I just skimmed through this thread and I’m sorry if this has already been addressed, but what is a contractual government (Assuming you aren’t referring to a Lockean social contract)? And this type of government wouldn’t have “compulsory status enforcement and power-relations”?
It’s contractual in the sense that it is a corporation with a prospectus formed by property owners, which has an executive board consisting of the ultra-wealthy majority holders. ‘Social’ contracts are screwball.
It would have compulsory status enforcement and power relations (it’s not in Bizarro-world or the Twilight Zone). But these would be defined and organized around the principle of land equity and the interest of the majority holders.
All right, is there an option of opting out? If I’m a small property owner apart of this corporation and the ultra-wealthy holders decide to use my property for something of which I don’t consent to, am I going to be forced to comply?
Of course.
This doesn’t seem much different than a Democracy (tyranny of the majority).
I don’t think that “people are retarded” is a good supporting argument to that anarchy tends toward chaos. I really don’t know what to make of the rest of this or again, why I should care about it. What is land equity?