: Your incredibly optimistic about the capacity of the laissez faire capitalist holy trinity of business people, voluntary organistations and informal care to correct all these problems which I think require regulation and public interest planning (hang about I didnt say by a state or a highly centralised authoritarianism), the question I have is why hasnt the existing mix, which in places like the US or UK is very biased in an unintelligent/unenlightened way towards laissez faire, resolved this? And wouldn't your stateless Capitalism, implying a lack of regulation, lead to accelerated short-termist planning and extinguishing of precious resources even faster?: P.S. Cuba's got a cure for Cancer and they didnt need capitalism or free masonary to do it.
Look, the idea that Capitalism is the answer to all the world's problem is bunkum.
Now, the idea that Capitalism, coupled with the rule of law, ie; the Constitution and Bill of Rights (interpreted as they were meant), now your cooking.
Between the economic force of Capitilism, a government that has it's duties and functions clearly defined and guarantees for the rights of the individual, how can you go wrong? That this Trinity is far more successful to providing greater political and economic freedoms than anything the world has seen is beyond debate.
The examples of Communism/Socialism that are paraded out for us to admire are pitiful. The 'cure' for cancer...Cuba? C'mon. Gimme a break. No strings now, a 'cure', a real cure. Tell me more.
I was once informed, by SDF, as I recall, about the working Communism of Kerala.
Kerala? Where in the blazes is that I wondered.
It so happened I met a very erudite fellow at another message board, gentleman by the name of Singe, who I was able to ask about this state. Come to find out that, yes, Kerala is a successful Communist state in India. But the reason for it's success is that the central Indian government ships taxes collected from other states to keep it going. That's success?
That's subsidy.
That's taking money earned by some to be given to others who didn't earn it.
I'm really charry about successful communist states. There's always a gimmick. Like Cuba; Once it's sugar-daddy rolled over and died the Cuban's standard of living decreased even more.
The greatest danger that I see to the American success story is encroaching state power, for the best of intentions, I'm sure.
The argument about dwindling resources is something that has had some people all a twitter since that book was written by Erlichman (I think that was his name) predicting ecological gloom and doom within a decade or so. Didn't happen. Scare tactics, no?
I still think that those who need help should be given that help. But in America that help has turned into intergenerational dependence. Who benefitted? Certainly not the generations of people who recieved tax-payers money. Did those who supply that money benefit?
The ones who benefitted are the ones who administer the programs. As a matter of fact, it benefits them even more to ensure that these sorts of programs never stop.
Let people do for themselves the things that people are capable of doing for themselves. The things that people can't do for themselves; defense, coin money, post, make those things government functions.
I have far less faith in my countries willingness to do the right thing today then ever before. The Waco massacre to me is a red flag. The bombing of Yugoslavia is another red-flag. There are real problems in the US, I can admit that.
But Socialism/Communism/Liberalism/Greenism is not the answer. Those systems ensure less freedom in all areas of life.
