countless discussions have been had about which system is the best one to support us on earth – with wars being fought and millions being killed just to attempt to assert ‘the best system’. with this decision being perceived to ultimately result in either huge success for life on earth or absolute destruction of life on earth – it is obviously valuable to know what really is the true ‘best’ solution. for many of us, answering this has been made much more difficult by the huge amounts of propaganda, deception and confusion that have been generated politically and on all levels of discussion of the issues involved.
my approach here is quite different to that of most observers, In that I am a trained system architect/engineer and although it is usual for those skills to be used in creating computer software systems, the actual base of the subject does not require computers at all – the basis is logic, analysis and the careful application of both scientific and artistic techniques for creating solutions to challenges. in my case I also have a broad range of experience to draw on from other fields and schools of thought, including – but not limited to: martial arts, yoga, meditation, music production, sound engineering, metaphysics, commercial business operations, psychology & holistic health. i feel this gives me an ability to examine this issue of ‘human support systems’ in a way that goes to a greater depth than is common among most others I have found who speak about it (including many who are considered experts) – i say this not to ‘blow my own trumpet’, but just to point to the kinds of experiences that I know for sure help us to better understand the challenges involved here and to explain some of how I came to think as I do. so, first, some quick basics:
definition: what is a system?
wikipedia basically defines a system as: “a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex/intricate whole.”
so the human body is a form of system, a city is a form of system, a government is a form of system, a cell phone is a form of system and a planet is a form of system.
when does a system fail?
a system fails the moment it does not achieve it's intended goals.
what is the goal of a human support system, such as democracy?
when defining what exactly our human support systems are intended to achieve as goals, we hit something of a point of controversy, since many people disagree about what exactly the object is. it might at first seem that everyone must surely agree that we need to do what we can to support life and to give everyone a chance - but that is not the intention or agenda of many humans. in fact, many humans that are elevated to positions of control in society actually specifically intend to hold back or even kill large subsets of the population, while attempting to promote their own groups – and they have no problem supporting and using a system such as democracy to do it. if we say that a system is intended to allow everyone to manifest their desires - then these predatory / dominating humans would therefore seek to manifest their desires - just as they do now, in the form of killing many other people.
is there a way we can define what the goal of a perfect support system needs to be?
yes, we can understand what makes a system perfect by looking at, feeling and understanding our own body (or by examination of any number of other systems). our body thrives when it is balanced – it requires just the right PH level for health (not too acidic, not too alkaline), it requires just the right level of many different nutrients, including sunlight and just the right amount of rest – among many other requirements. it is balance that is key in systems – a motor car will be impossible to drive or inefficient if it is imbalanced, a human body will be ill or die if it is imbalanced and a society will suffer and collapse when it is imbalanced. it may be possible to limp along and deny the problems for a while – like a driver who blocks out the alarm lights on his/her car dashboard so that he/she forgets that the car is overheating; but eventually, the true reality will be forced to the surface as a catastrophe strikes. sadly, many of us – when faced with such catastrophe in our lives, will even then just blame someone else instead of accepting our own responsibility in the causation of the problem and I suggest we learn not to do that if we intend balance and success on earth.
so what is true balance?
balance is defined accurately as being a state where ‘no part or aspect of the whole is overpowered by any other’. so in a car, every component is operating in a way that prevents it overheating or being damaged and in a human body every cell is nourished and free to be exactly as it needs to be.
with regard to human support systems - a system that allows anyone to come to real harm is to some extent flawed. perfect balance is possible.
is capitalism balanced?
wikipedia defines capitalism as: “an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market”
obviously this is a very complex approach to life that adds a significant burden to the mental processes of everyone alive. whereas once it was possible to freely walk down an unindustrialised, uncommercialised pathway and commonly find free food growing on trees, now these trees are all but gone (often removed deliberately to attempt to increase the ‘profit’ of those who grow trees commercially) and we are forced to conform to the system of ‘capitalism’ just to access what was once freely our own.
when we apply a test to capitalism, to find out of if it is balanced or not – we quickly find capitalism is not balanced. since capitalism is an approach that lends itself to empire building and the conglomeration of power structures to attempt to compete with other empires, there is a continued drive within the minds of many of those who use it to continue to expand their ability to affect change on earth via capitalism as a way to maintain their enjoyed position of ‘wealth’ and not be relegated to poverty (along with the majority of people):
who/what is being overpowered by capitalism?
just for starters - anyone who has self acceptance enough to know they don’t need or desire to compete with their brothers/sisters, anyone who re-members that life on earth needs to be free, anyone who notices that ‘money’ is an opposite to ‘free’ and who also prefers ‘free’. how are these groups being overpowered? our current capitalist system has been designed to ensure that a monopoly on violence is held by the ‘elected government’ and since the capitalist system equates ‘financial wealth’ with ‘value’ and ‘power', the government systems are dominated by those fervent capitalists who have the most wealth and who intend to keep things that way. they have usually, therefore, used their position to use the state’s monopoly on violence to ensure that any possible deviation from the capitalist control system they represent is disrupted or silenced sufficiently that their artificial hierarchy and empires are not threatened. the system of ‘private ownership’, being powered by ‘money’ - automatically means that whoever has the most money, has the most land and means of production of ‘things’ - yet the process of getting more money is in no way tied to any measure of wisdom or compassion within those receiving it. in other words, there is no check in the system to ensure that money goes to those who intend to create and maintain balance on earth and, in fact, it is often the case that those who get the most money have little or no interest in the topic whatsoever (see the previous video on wealth distribution in america). ironically, it has often been the case that the supporters of capitalism point to equally imbalanced control systems, such as was found in soviet russia and claim that capitalism is the solution to such problems, when in truth it is not really much better.
in short - capitalism is to human support, what modern military war machines are to friendly discussion.
is democracy balanced?
wikipedia defines democracy as: “… literally "rule of the commoners". In modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.[1] Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority"."[2] Democracy was originally conceived in Classical Greece, where political representatives were chosen by a jury from amongst the male citizens: rich and poor.
According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens”
firstly, we need to notice that there are at least two forms of democracy defined here, one is called representational democracy (the kind that involves a parliament and elections) and one is called direct democracy (the kind that is almost unheard of today, whereby all individuals may vote on all decisions, with no intermediary ‘politicians’ involved). so we need to look at both to fully understand the situation here, however, since both share some features that introduce imbalance i will just address those aspects to make my point and then move on.
both forms of democracy result in a situation where a percentage of the population chooses to limit/control everyone by a code or set of rules – which is enforced in some way. even if the human rights are identified to include a right such as ‘everyone has the right to be free provided they don’t overpower anyone else’ (a right which is a REAL right of all of us) – there will still be a ‘wiggle room’ added in practise, due to the control of this ‘right’ through court action and the ‘rule of law’. in other words, while we may define the perfect set of ‘rights’ to be upheld that should create true balance, the practical reality is that the people involved are usually imbalanced within themselves and their biases will be introduced into any action which claims to intend to defend the rights of everyone. this is demonstrated in that in truth, usually, most of those involved in court cases will walk away feeling they have been overpowered. so while it is theoretically possible to create a balanced society that uses democratic principles, in practise the level of success depends entirely on the individuals involved being balanced enough internally to find balance with the others in society and the actual democratic process is, at best, secondary to that deeper aspect of the dynamics involved.
representative democracy of the type we see in the usa region, britain and many other areas adds dramatically more potential for imbalance into the equation, since it specifically ensures that less voices have a direct say in outcomes, rules and the balancing process of the judiciary/courts – which can only ever have the result of more and more people being overpowered and not having their needs met. such a system is one of convenience only and opens the door to all the kinds of fraud, deception and denial that we have seen over and over and over and over again in countries that are afflicted by it.
is there a theme/thread that runs through all of these issues?
yes, not only does the issue of balance run right through all of this, but so too does the issue of free will. it is free will that must be fully understood and respected now and it is precisely this that has been repeatedly ignored right the way through our earth story. if a group decides they want to explore making music late at night, for example, no-one is being overpowered if they all unite and do that – provided they are far away from those who don’t want to participate. that is the ideal in that example, since no-one is being involved who does not want to be involved. if however, all the possible venues are controlled (allegedly ‘owned’) by people who do not want loud music at night, then the desires of this group cannot be manifested and we have a tension and dis-ease in society that need not exist. this applies to all such creative desires in life and the tragedy is that it does not take much to adopt a respect for free will and to dramatically improve life for all as a result.
a great example of this is cannabis – a freely growing plant on earth. think of how many have had their lives ruined in the american region alone, not by the plant – but by the controlling/dominating agenda of those who claim to be ‘protecting society’ by caging anyone who wants to use the plant. it has taken decades of campaigning to get the situation to start to change, even after it was proven that the plant specifically treats (very successfully) numerous serious diseases such as parkinsons’ disease and cancer:
if free will had been respected all along, by allowing individuals to explore the use of this plant in their own bodies, we would be collectively FAR more balanced and happy. the prisons would be far less packed and far more people would be productive and enjoying life than they are now. the fact is that it IS possible to be harmed by cannabis too, through overuse and ignorance, just as it is possible to be harmed by water, peanuts or potentially even feathers (if you have enough of them!). it is not for anyone to decide what someone else may put into their body, provided the act does not overpower anyone/thing.
what system is better than capitalist democracy?
firstly, you need to know now that most/all of the capitalist democracies that are held up to be in any way successful, have in fact – since day one – been covertly designed to offer zero democracy. while this statement may be met with shock and denials, it is the truth. these alleged democracies are, in fact, just facades designed to deceive as many as possible into thinking that they have a voice and a means of creating change, when in fact they do not. this is not a theory. not only have countless points of evidence of this surfaced over the years, but we even have an ivy league historian that was commissioned to (secretly) write the history of the group/network that covertly orchestrates the fake democracy in america for their own use. he, unexpectedly to that network, published the book publicly! but the book is so academic and not well known that few have read it or know about it. you can learn about the book here:
another insightful and inspired exposure of our current ‘democracies’ is found in this animation:
when we examine the mechanics of capitalist ‘democracy’ we find that, in fact, the idea that ‘capitalism generates the best solutions to problems’ is a total lie with no evidence to support it that cannot easily be refuted. what has occurred is that the most deceptive individuals on earth simply use this falsehood to continue their domination of everyone else - even to the extent that the publicly available educational textbooks on many subjects are deliberately warped and data manipulated to paint a false picture of the effects of capitalism and to spread a totally false version of ‘science’ and associated belief systems. this deception now extends through agriculture, medicine, military, finance and most other areas (sub systems) of life. in short, capitalism is part of the cause of our problems and solves nothing at all. you can, for example, explore the process of money creation and although it may take a few days to grasp fully, you will see how the entire foundation of capitalism and ‘money’ is based on 100% total fraud:
https://www.ureka.org/katalists/view/3905/all-money-is-a-false-promise-debt-is-void-and-invalid
on the question of what systems are better, i prefer the idea of systemlessness, because it results in the closest possible to total free will - by systemlessness, i am referring mainly to an absence of rules and control over the parts of what would otherwise be defined as a system. it is free will that is the foundation of successful life on earth and any rules/system inherently limits that to some extent. a way of life that I see working well on earth is one with various names, such as ‘voluntaryism’, ‘ubuntu’ and to some extent ‘anarchism’. the problem we currently have with discussing ‘anarchism’ is that there are many who misunderstand what the word means and that itself is partially a result of a deliberate misinformation campaign by the highly organised octopus of empire builders - since to fully understand anarchism in it’s true sense is to find a significant key to escape our enslavement (by the empire builders). the word anarchy literally translates as without rules/rulers’, so it can be taken to mean, in a practical sense, ‘the agreement to live peacefully without rules’. to support such a way of life requires significant healing, balancing and evolving on the part of individuals first – which is something that is done voluntarily, rather than through any kind of pressure or centralisation.
examples of this way of being do exist in some senses in some tribes around the world who live in harmony with the planet and their ways are being ‘modernised’ presently in various places, particularly in south africa by the ubuntu movement. you can learn about them here in these videos with michael tellinger:
and
regardless of whether we adopt a system or aim for systemlessness, the fact remains that we need FREE WILL just to survive and adapt at all on earth and thus we need to always fully respect free will, rather than inflict control on earth and each other. to do this requires us to learn much that many of us have not yet learned, to balance our own minds, emotions, hearts, intentions and bodies and to evolve our aspects that have become frozen in time – whether due to our own reluctance to change or due to traumas incurred during our lifetimes.
tried and tested methods already exist for those to use who desire to heal now and it is largely to aid in that process that i am creating the social network at https://www.ureka.org called ‘ureka: earth heart community’. if you are inspired by the ideas shared here or are just looking for a place to call home that respects balance and free will, then i recommend making a profile there and joyning in!
wishing you well.
I love the analysis of political structures as systems. An interesting framework for comparing the efficiency of various political and economic models for producing human well-being.
I enjoyed your post and included it in today’s #philosophy-review
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@aaanderson/the-philosophy-review-12-4-2016
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
great, thanks - i'll take a look
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"since capitalism is an approach that lends itself to empire building and the conglomeration of power structures..."
<--only is as much as human behavior lends itself to empire building. "Capitalism" just means people have the right to own property, which includes themselves and their own output. You can be as uninterested in empire building or wealth accumulation in a capitalist world as you could be in one where other people control you and strip you of the right to own your own output; that's up to you. I prefer having choice and am offended when others tell me what i should value and how much of my life i get to keep.
Whatever it's called, peaceful people ought to have every right to be left alone, associate with whomever, say whatever, do whatever, and keep whatever they earn. In terms of "isms" that's probably much closer to "capitalism" than any other, but it's really just called freedom.
It'd be more helpful if people stopped talking in terms of "isms" and spoke plainly. It's people have freedom, or we think some pattern of controls optimizes some objective function which they may or may not share, but we'll force it on them anyway. I prefer not to think of human society in engineering terms, since we're not machines or cattle and we're all different.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
thanks for commenting here. human behaviour is, to me, potentially close to being infinite and in no way inherently is aligned towards empire building. intent to build empires requires some kind of motivation to do so and generally, a balanced individual has no such motivation. however, in a society where those who have the most money can (and do) live like kings with servants, while those with no money live with nothing - there is massive motivation to 'stay on top' and massive fear of losing everything. that is the point here. capitalism facilitates huge disparity and keeps that imbalance as a status quo. this is what i am pointing to here (as have countless others).
capitalism is not as simple as you have made out and i am wondering if you actually read what i wrote at all.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE! Many who have studied the impact of what might be best termed NeoCorporatist Omniscience understand the impact of the raping of the planet. We've promulgated the myth of materialism globally on quest to pimp what remains the natural resources of the planet and its potable water supplies to the highest, (actually very low) price while distroying environment in favor of personal agenda. Some, have engaged themselves in minimalist living despite wealth and chosen to vie in favor of having least impact on the planet and its atmosphere. They recognize biodiversity essential the survival blessings bestowed. Always give 2/3 > you take from mother earth This has nothing to do with $ but rather with morality and ethics. That is unless you're, "that" person. LOLs, ura-soul rules!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
well said! it take an awareness of what is NEEDED for balance to prevail and then to live accordingly before we can get fully clear of the lenses of the dominator paradigm and really find out what is important via direct experience. <3
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
<3 ✌.|•͡˘‿•͡˘|.✌ ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Pragmatism/Common Sense Is Not Necessarily Included With Degrees In Business, Marketing Management & The Like. NoMore2PartySystem! There is no "balance" in duopoly. A pendulum must swing. The prohibition of it doing so assures the status quo. One Party is in fact the other. We must allow for correction. Down Ballot Voting must be made law and all should be required to vote with choice affirmation confirmation made at each chosen candidate's headquarters/site. Simply no reason or reasoning in any of this perversion of truth for the money grubbers we've taught the world to be... It wreaks of desperation and fear of mortality.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Such hierarchies are part of humanity and form under any political framework. Societies where some have the power to strip others of property and compel them to do, or not to do, things just means the power hierarchy is in the political class and not those who have accumulated wealth by serving customers.
And yes, human behavior and innovative spirit is infinite.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
all hierarchy is, by definition, imbalanced. so when you say that hierarchy is effectively inevitable, you are saying that balance is impossible. that is untrue.
" Societies where some have the power to strip others of property and compel them to do, or not to do, things just means the power hierarchy is in the political class and not those who have accumulated wealth by serving customers."
-> i am not advocating for the power to give and take 'things' from people. if anything i am advocating for enlightenment of the form that recognises the spiritual truth of life on earth, such that we no longer accept that 'those whose ancestors once raped and pillaged the rest of the world enough to claim and own most of it' are able to continue artificially in the power position. if those who 'have it all', don't agree to co-create in a balanced way - then they will eventually meet a reflection of their denial of reality. i would rather that THEY meet their reflection than see a continuation of the disparity we see now, where a large percentage of humans suffer constantly and do not have what they need to live, often due to no fault of their own.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is an interesting discussion and definitely makes you think :)
"all hierarchy is, by definition, imbalanced. so when you say that hierarchy is effectively inevitable, you are saying that balance is impossible."
#1 there's no such definition of hierarchy. Plenty of hierarchies can be balanced.
#2 Even the concept of "balanced" is odd in human relations; a process can be balanced over some range, but have boundary conditions after which it breaks. Nonetheless, human relations, desires, and environmental inputs constantly change, so i wouldn't declare some equilibrium to be an objective to maintain for the sake of it.
Great you're not advocating for power to violently change human relations! We should always advocate for peace and freedom.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i am glad you are injoying the flow!
"there's no such definition of hierarchy. Plenty of hierarchies can be balanced."
-> well, we are all free to create our own definitions in every moment - so unless you are mind reading every human, you are not in a position to know the sum total of all definitions currently being used. however, if we stick to 'the usual' dictionary definitions, we have something like this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hierarchy
all of the definitions (removing the esoteric definition relating to angels) refer to status, authority, rank, economic level and so on - in one way or another. if everyone is considered and treated equally/fairly (without being hindered artificially) then there is no need or purpose in defining a hierarchy. hierarchy inherently performs as a means of control in one sense or another, where the 'higher ups' exercise control of some form over the 'lower downs'. if you can name what is a balanced hierarchy, in your mind - then i am fairly sure i can find a way to show that it isn't actually balanced.
" Even the concept of "balanced" is odd in human relations; a process can be balanced over some range, but have boundary conditions after which it breaks. Nonetheless, human relations, desires, and environmental inputs constantly change, so i wouldn't declare some equilibrium to be an objective to maintain for the sake of it."
yes, we constantly change. none the less, when some aspect of human interactions exceeds a personal limit and / or some aspect of the human is overpowered/denied, then that is imbalance. as an example - two people may be in a forest with some food bearing trees around and they both have enough. if one then decides to hoard all the food and not let the other have any, then there is imbalance (which started in the heart of the one deciding to hoard). this will result in feelings that are off balance, a tension and potentially a conflict. the balance points always need to be found for us to thrive and even survive and that you question the necessity of this on a planet that is almost so out of balance that none of us may survive is only a testament to how far away many humans are in their thinking from heading towards peace and contentment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think my arguments with your analysis have to begin with some careful distinctions and definituons. "Capitalism" is a word used to conflate distinctly different and conflicting ideas. The market is a process, not a system. It is a description of the effect of voluntary human action on production and exchange.
Property is the consequence of human action, because indivituals are responsible for their actions and own those consequences. Whether a property claim is legitimate or not is based on whether it is the result of homesteading and voluntary exchange or the use of coercive force.
Value is a subjective individual preference rather than an intrinsic property in goods and services. No imposed system can override this, and all interventionist policies invariably create chaos by ignoring this fact.
Whenever a central planner decides to set prices, mandate exchanges. Restrict trade, or otherwise inyervene in the organic process of the economy, chaos results. Humans aren't something to be engineered. Neither society nor the economy are things that can be effectively planned and adjusted. To believe otherwise is the height of conceit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
thanks for responding here. the more i have received responses to this text, the more i have learned that most people have no accurate understanding of what a system engineer is or does. if you refer back to the definition given of a system (from wikipedia), you will see that it really has no inherent 'negative' or problematic aspect to it. the idea of a system is simply one that allows us to define the way that numerous parts/things/entities interact to form a whole. to engineer a system is simply to interact with, create or change a system in a way that is informed and as well thought out (designed) as possible. if such changes are best performed by throwing away all pre-conceived ideas then that's fine with me. the aim is to produce the best possible result, not to try to win a prize for 'best engineer'. in the way that i view things, every person who interacts with a capitalist society is to some extent a system engineer as they interact with and maybe effect/change parts of the whole. the difference here though, is that i have specifically specialised in the theory of systems and the creation of systems, which most haven't and therefore i have had experiences and gained understandings that most haven't. i haven't really touched on this in much depth here as to make my points doesn't really require me to.
"The market is a process, not a system. "
systems contain entities and processes. 'the market' contains individuals, banks, manufacturer's, retailers and others who are all classed as entities that have the own processes for interacting in the system.
"Whether a property claim is legitimate or not is based on whether it is the result of homesteading and voluntary exchange or the use of coercive force."
within the capitalist paradigm, that may be accurate - in an ideal world.. however, in our current world, most of the property claims that exist (as a percentage of the total), exist due to coercive force that was either used in the past or recently. e.g. the remnants of the british empire, being an obvious example and the land 'ownership' of the alleged british royal family.
from my perspective, a balanced approach to land ownership is to completely end it and to liberate the land for all. if it is agreed that particular land is needed for a particular task then ideally the nature of the task needs to be considered and known by all, with agreement potentially being reached by all to allow the use of the land - yet it must never be denied that earth is a sentient being... this is an understanding that is well known by many tribes on earth who have always found capitalist ideas to be akin to madness. the madness can be understood to be such when we learn that for them (and for me), humans on earth can metaphorically be considered to be similar to the bugs on a dog that are just catching a ride on the larger being temporarily. to claim that a human 'owns' part of the larger being is no more sane than to say that the flea 'owns' the part of the dog it is currently sucking on.
just allowing the possibility of this perspective to exist as one 'lens' through which to perceive through, can make a huge difference to how we understand ourselves and life in general.
"Whenever a central planner decides to set prices, mandate exchanges. Restrict trade, or otherwise inyervene in the organic process of the economy, chaos results. Humans aren't something to be engineered. Neither society nor the economy are things that can be effectively planned and adjusted. To believe otherwise is the height of conceit."
what i am saying in my piece is that everything you have just described is exactly how capitalism already is - except that the 'central planners' are simply the conglomerations of power that have the most wealth (such as bankers, large corporations and the associated revolving door of governments). that is a large part of what i am saying. i am not advocating for central planning and control, i am advocating that we realise that the current system is actually everything that it's proponents often claim to be 'bad' for us.. they just deny or don't notice that the current system does exactly what they say it doesn't.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You seem to be arguing that the corporate state is somehow an inevitable result of, or internal feature of, the market process and property rights when it is in complete opposition instead.
Society, the economy, and culture don't exist. There is no system. Only individuals exist. Only individuals reason, choose, and act. The process of voluntary interactions and exchanges between individuals creates the illusion of a system that isn't there. It's not a thing that can be engineered, and it's barely understood by anyone. The evidence of the consequences of attempting to plan and shape it surround us with wars, terrorism, and police states though.
Governments are gangs of thieves writ large. Taxation is theft. Imperialism is theft. Wars and genocides are mass murder. Political plunder rather than economic production are the goals of the people who call themselves "government." But governments don't exist, either. There are only individuals who choose coercion rather than cooperation. This is a principle in direct opposition to the market, not a correlary or attendant necessity of it. There is a history of illegitimate possession of property through such processes, but that is resolved through an understanding of property rights and homesteading as principles extending rationally from the understanding of the individual, not as a thing that is imposed arbitrarily.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit