Anarchy Doesn't Work PERIOD! Really?

wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
January 29, 2010

Security in Anarchy

Posted by Kathryn Muratore on January 29, 2010 12:34 PM
A commonplace point of contention between minarchists and anarchists is whether police and/or military services can be provided without the state. I was reminded of this debate as I drove home from work late the last few nights and passed the Department of Homeland Security. Each night there has been a small SUV that appears to belong to a private security firm blocking the entrance.
The libertarian in me is disgusted by the corporatism on display — but this is nothing new, and, besides, it’s another too-powerful, bloated bureaucracy, so disgust is to be expected. But, the anarchist in me is incredibly amused at the irony here: the agency charged with providing security for the entire nation does not provide security for itself!
Click to expand...


:rofl:
 
wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;Rvwh9_HsUmU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvwh9_HsUmU&feature=related[/video]

"That dog just can't take it!"

:happy-very:
 
JimJimmyJames

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
bbsam said:
You got something against contractors?
Click to expand...

In theory, the privatization of government services seems to be very appealing to those of us who would like our government to function for the least amount of cost.

Unfortunately, privatization is just another scheme to tranfer wealth from the taxpayer to private corporations. Our elected officials are so in bed with their corporate donors, that lucrative government contracts are given to these donors who in turn often times charge much more then the cost if the government had simply got the job done in house.

I have read that the military is a prime example of privatization being used to scam the system. So much of what the military did at lower cost is now outsourced.

I have always been for welfare reform. But the people I want to start with is not the single mother of three in the projects. It is the corporations who manipulate our government to transfer our collective wealth to them.

Prime example where to start the reform? Stop providing military services, under the guise of protecting our freedom, to corporations to protect their international business dealings.
 
wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Well said Jim! It's easy to confuse privatization with free markets but in fact they are not one and the same by any stretch. Lew Rockwell in a Mises 2002' piece said the following concerning privatization:

In policy circles, people use the word privatization to mean not the bowing out of government from a particular aspect of social and economic life, but merely the contracting out of statist priorities to politically connected private enterprise.
School vouchers and Social Security "privatization" are the most notorious examples at the national level. At the state and local levels, any government contract awarded to a grafting business interest is deemed "privatization." A Washington think tank recently proposed that the CIA could become more efficient by contracting out to Washington think tanks.
What’s at stake is the very conception of the role of freedom in political, economic, and social life. Do we regard freedom as a useful device within the existing structure, or as an alternative to the current political system? This is not a matter of bickering libertarian sects. The very future of the idea of free markets is at stake.
Click to expand...

Many paleo-liberals have seen through the smoke and mirrors that is called privatization and although they may have other motives (not always evil motives mind you) they were correct in opposing. It's one thing for gov't to contract out schools, social security, even medical care which is what much of Obamacare is and will be but the gov't is still the boss acting as the contracting party, contractor to contractee. Free market is where gov't ends all efforts on it's part of providing say for schools, or retirement accounts and even medical care and allows a true open and free competitive market with no one having the control of gov't to use for market advantage. It's bad enough that under neo-liberal leadership of Washington, the corp. toehold on all things gov't is still as fully entrenched as before but buying into the idea of privatization as some free market operation is at the least misleading. How is it that privatizing an industry to be doled out by contract from the gov't to a protected private corp. monopoly free market?

If this is the system you believe in then 1930's and 1940's Italy is your model as it was also for other admirers like Churchill and FDR. Is it really hard to believe when we were also friends with this guy at one time too?
 
bbsam

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
rocket man said:
yes fedx gound
Click to expand...
lol. Why would you even think of them. They are nothing. Move along. Nothing to see here.

And Jim, you make excellent points. Wonder how many corporations are going to lobby (with their money) for candidates that support your statements?
 
JimJimmyJames

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
Now that the Supreme Court has further blessed corporations with the same rights as an actual person, getting any politician to listen to his/her non-corporate constituents will be next to impossible.

Remember, what's good for GM is good for the country. Ironic how the government now own's GM.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Click to expand...
 
Top