anomaly

First, let me say to Pacridge, don't be surprised by Gabo's surprisingly optimistic attitude towards capitalism. And Gabo, in the interest of time, I will only respond to those debates that are going somewhere (or are just interesting).
Hopeless optimism isn't the key, though. Sometimes we must be realists in order to advance. The USA has been pushing (sometimes forcing) capitalism upon countries who do not want it. I am pushing for something revolutionary and different, whereas you are seemingly pushing for more of the thing that is causing so much harm in this world, capitalism. Sometimes the gov't is at fault (consider Sudan's and ours in our 'handling' of Iraq) but other times it is the capitalist system which is at fault (as in the case of South Koreans wanting workers' rights ten yrs ago or the landless peasants in Brazil, of the child working in a sweatshop in China.




If this is the case, why do we not see it today? Jobs will always outnumber people in almost any society in almost any economic system. The problem is the quality of jobs (my ladder analogy). The only a way a company can be profitable through a large workforce is is if workers are paid very little. Another problem we see developing in modern capitalism is technology, which, in many cases, can replace the worker rather easily. This means that companies can get by with a smaller workforce. And there is no limited supply of workers in a third world factory, where factories of rich corporations dominate the job landscape. Many are unemployed, and when there is an opening, it is quickly filled. This leads to the high unemployment rates we ee in 3rd world countries. Another fantastic byproduct of globalization.





This sounds nice, but who's gonna force that upon China?




What law is this? Is this another law that you simply 'hope' will be adopted when the gov't completely recedes before capitalism is dead, thus giving total control of this 'free market' (which, as Pacridge points out, is never 'free' for long)?




Perhaps you should take a look around you, Gabo. Monoplies stare you in the face when you go to the grocery store, you witness them when buying a car, and you even saw them when you bought that computer on which you are typing. And if 'buying out' the little guy is so ineffective and 'bad' for the company, why is it happening all the time? Why is the number of companies decreasing in all areas of the market?




How simple! Tell this to the average middle or South American worker! Tell this to the North Korean! Tell this to the Chinese! Tell this to the average African worker! (etc., etc.) I'm sure these billions of people would love to get their hands on a job paying out $9/hr.




[QUOTE=Gabo}Capitalism is not a fight. It is peaceful exchanging among people that leaves both parties feeling better off, or they wouldn't do it.[/QUOTE]
When the gov't of Brazil gave land once belonging to farmers to big companies, was that a 'peaceful exchange'? It was certainly capitalistic, as the need for money and profit certainly determined the actions of both the companies and the gov't.




Obviously. But, my qestion is, can your beloved free market give complete freedom to 'the people'? So far, any attempt at a free market has given power to the large corporations, while ignoring the needs of a good majority of the world's citizens.




Very true. Democracy is seen by most contemporary communists and socialists as the ideal way of governing, and the ideal way of gaining power. See www.worldsocialistmovement.org for contemporary communist thought (don't let the name fool you, it is called socialist because of the terrible idea the avg American gets in their head when thinking of communism).




This is the irony of the 'free market'. It gives only the freedom to use the market, meaning that the highest bidder in this market (the one with the most money) inevitably wins. Today it is scary, as even democracy is up for sale (I'm referring to the financing of campaigns mostly by large corporations, which is why a multi party system can't arise). Most who live under the glare of the free market today are having their freedoms stripped from them (even in the USA with the new 'Patriot Act'...Gabo, I know you're a libertarian so you're probably against the Act, right?).





where is the 'mutual consent' today? Again, the choise you seem to say all workers have is this: work in whatever job (no matter how terrible conditions are) they are given, or starve and die. Some choice.




You refer to what I believe is the myth of equality: there is no such thing as complete and total equality ever. But then, how can we measure, since equality does not exist, which people are the 'best' and which are the 'worst'. Capitalists say it's by how much money they have. I say that this kind of judgment is often flawed and wrong, so I oppose using money as some kind of 'yardstick' for success. That is why I support communism i.e. human production for direct use instead of profit.

anomaly

Mine was too long again...here's the rest.
If this is true,then why are the winners of modern capitalism almost always Republicans? Republicans are certainly not socialists, and where the GOP does the Dems follow, as they too move toward the notion of 'free markets' and privatisation. You are, Gabo, economically a radical conservative. But otherwise, you are a radical leftist. Quite an odd combination. While I'm thinking about it, capitalism does not always invlve toal democracy (see capitalism.org on how democracy is sometimes 'wrong')




Capitalism is a competition (not only that, competition defines capitalism), and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen or heard of any competition that ended without a loser (except the boring ties in hockey and soccer but no one likes a tie, do they?) And I've definitely never heard of a competition where the end result was 'win, win'!!



So a free market society sometimes doesn't involve the almighty dollar? But then it isn't capitalism! That's why the Zapatistas are not capitalists: they use democracy instead of currency (there is no dollar).
BTW, have you ever read any works of Marx? More importantly, have you ever read any works of Ayn Rand (in my mind, the mother of modern capitalist thought)?

Gabo

THE USA IS NOT A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY.

Just look at it.

Taxes on everything.
Regulations on everything.
Restrictions on everything.

THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM.


Also, I do not agree with FORCING anything upon anyone. Doing so is the opposite of capitalism, which makes it even worse when people do this in the name of captialism.



The only time our nation was almost completely capitalist is near its beginning.

Ever since then we've been moving towards more taxation, more regulation, and more restriction.

And where has that brought us?

From 1st place to 12th.



We do not see it because the USA does not practice capitalism.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs are shipped overseas because of minimum wage.

And the number of jobs DOES NOT currently exceed the number of workers.

There are 1.4 million unemployed, yet only about 500,000 available job positions.



Technology does not eliminate jobs, it just changes what kind of jobs there are.

Someone must create the machines used by the new technology.
New jobs arise to repair, restore, and enhance the new machines.

Newer pursuits of happiness arise when people have more free time.
These new pursuits increase our quality of life.

EX: When farmers learned to make oxen pull the plow, they saved themselves time. They used this time for other activities, like learning how to create all sorts of new inventions.



As I've said before, I don't live in China and I'm not responsible for what happens there.

I have no say nor do I want to, because it's not my decision to make.

But if we can show our success of fair treatment to children and its benefits,
China may realize it is a good decision and adopt our policy.

EX: Out success at democracy led many nations to switch to it.



There is no law necessary for this.

The only law necessary for a free market is that nobody may violate anyone else's life, liberty, or property.

The government wouldn't be able to use FORCE against unions, but obviously the corporations wouldn't be able to either.



*looks around me*
*looks at definition of monopoly*

The true definition of a monopoly is one company controlling ALL of an industry.
The ability to do this only becomes available through the use of FORCE, something that is not permitted in a free society.

As we are now, there are many reasons for decline in # of companies.
-Big companies are providing good enough services that others can't compete
-People have less interest in a certain product or service
-People are pleased with the current variety in an industry

Yes, big companies do buy out plenty of small ones.
But they can't buy them all out. There's always another somewhere.
And if they buy that one out, there will be another.



Once again, I am not responsible for other countries.

I live in the US, and that is the place I am trying to fix.

And people CAN get jobs paying well in the US without education.



That exchange was the epitome of anti-capitalism.

A non-consentual exchange in which one party has no say in the matter.

The farmers obviously didn't decide to give up the land, and they obviously didn't think they were getting a good deal.

This kind of exchange can only happen with big government intervention.



Freedom is not power.

Freedom is choice.

A free market gives more choice to everyone than any other system.



You say complete freedom is necessary for a free society.....

But then you turn around and say a free market is a detriment to a free society...



Unlike in a free market, our democracy system works using FORCE.

People are FORCED to pay taxes to a government that doesn't keep their interests at heart. And everyone knows it isn't possible for a government to spend tax money on programs that everyone in the country agrees on.

Which is why government shouldn't be stealing and spending our money in the first place.

And yes, I am completely against the Patriot Act.
It takes away even more from our ever-diminishing freedoms.



As I've said before, when jobs outsupply workers, the workers decide.

And even if they don't, they still do agree to work in the bad conditions.
It is a choice made considering current circumstances as any choice is.



Obviously, most say the 'best' people are those with the 'best' property.
This is partly true, and plays a big role in happiness.

But intellectual and social property matter as well.
The exchange of words, ideas, and opinions are valuable too.


It is impossible to say one or the other makes a person 'the best'. Everyone desires both things in different amounts depending on preference.

No one has the right to take away either from anyone by FORCE, as they both are products of the individual's time, energy, and talents.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

Gabo

While Republicans claim to favor capitalism, more and more of them are favoring Big Government nowadays.

Just look at how much more of a police state the US has become ever since Bush came to power.

Look at the increase in federal budget spending since Bush came to power.


Nowadays, Republicans and Democrats feel deserving of praise and honor for simply limiting the budget to last year's plus "inflation".

They don't even think about keeping the budget the same as last year's, or reducing the budget at all.

I would not call that capitalist in any way.



Yes, I am the best of both worlds.

Freedom all around, instead of selective freedom.



While capitalism does involve competition to exchange goods and services, it is always win-win. The two individual parties participating in the exchange do so mutually, and both benefit in some way clear to themselves.

If I trade you one cow hide for seven coconuts, it is done mutually.
We both believe we are getting a good deal, and it improves both of our lives.

If you are offering seven coconuts, but someone else is offering eight, I will go to them instead. Both me and that person will have a mutual exchange that benefits both of us.

You won't participate in that particular exchange, but you can still exchange with others, or change your terms. And when you do exchange, it will benefit both you and the other person.

Like I said, win-win.



Capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with the dollar.

In fact, national currencies are just another government monopoly designed to keep the public misinformed, and cheat them as well.

A free market society would barter with actual goods, or vouchers for those goods.

The USD, which has absolutely no real value, is fiat money that ruins the economy. The monopolizers can manipulate the amount in circulation at will, allowing them to create devastating effects on the nation (Great Depression anyone?).

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

anomaly

I will attempt to only respond to debates that seem to be going somewhere.
Actually, under Bush, taxes and regulations have dropped. And this move of privatization has made Bush's 1st term the first term of a president since Hoover to see a net loss in jobs. Whether any other country (or any other people) like it, we live in a world of capitalism (the 3rd world has far fewer regulations than the US, yet workers there do not seem to be doing quite as well as workers here.) Since capitalism has never been used (just like communism), we will have to judge it by what the intellectuals said of it. This means Ayn Rand. And personally, I would not want to live in her world (or yours).




I still don't know how the original US citizens were '#1' in living conditions; the only freedom they had that we lack was the freedom to escape gov't. I suppose you find this as somehow better than today. It may be good to point out that since the New Deal (regulations and more regulations) unemployment, which was quite high from 1870-1920s (also the era where laissez-faire policies were implimented) has dropped to 6%.




I find it surprising (not really) that you blame the worker for globalization, when the object at fault is capitalism. Regulations in the US prevent it from 'functioning' i.e. making the rich richer, so they go and pursue cheap labor elsewhere. May I ask how abolishing minimum wage would make the number of available jobs increase (I'm willing to bet that salaries would be meager for these new jobs)?




How optimistic. Let's look at this issue with a pessimist view. The 'unskilled' factory worker used to spend his day manufacturing things. Now a machine can do that. This worker obviously loses his job, or accepts making far less money, as a new job of running a machine would require less skill.



China's situation is caused by unregulated capitalism. Giving people rights means that minimum wage would be increased, child labor laws would have to be made, and other regulations, which you despise. So are you willing to allow regulations exist in the name of the good of the Chinese people? Of course, China doesn't institute such policy because companies would leave China, in search of cheaper labor (sound familiar). So will China give people the rights they deserve at the expense of its economy?




Actually, under unrestrained capitalism, the gov't would own absolutely nothing, and thus have no power, while corporations would own everything, and control the means of production. And when corporations own everything, who's gonna punish the corporations?




This is the process of monopolization. There is no 'monopoly' yet. But at the rate we're going, the prospect of a monopoly existing sometime in the not too distant future seems pretty good. Also, it's odd how, in one aspect you blatantly reject the idea of the US being capitalistic, and yet when it comes to this area, you approve of everything happening because it is capitalistic. The extreme competition in the US is reason enough for it to be labeled 'capitalist'. We are a 'real' capitalist country, not an idealistic one, as you hope for.




But that is the whole problem. Most people in the US have a nice, cozy life. This, of course, comes at the expense of the livelihood of others in distant lands. And all of this is a result of what business people call capitalism or globalization. Socialists who see this and recognize that there is something very wrong here have finally said Ya Basta, enough is enough.




No, it can only happen when the corporations have more power than the nation. Brazil needed these corporations to help its economy, corporations needed that land to make a (bigger) profit. And perhaps you should read something on the subject of anti-capitalism (as it is a huge movement) before generalizing it and lying to anyone who read your writing. You should really be careful not to make yourself out to be so ignorant, because Gabo, you're really very smart, you just sometimes find it neccesary to make ignorant claims.




A free market involves the buying and selling of everything. Now, as much as you would like the people to have all the 'choice' in this buying and selling, it hasn't ever happened in a capitalist market. The buying and selling is controlled by people who can't be voted out of office every few years, it is controlled by corporations. A free market allows a corporation to take away some freedoms of the worker, it also gives almost everything a price, making almost everything able to be bought and sold. Sadly, this even includes truth nowadays, as every single media outlet is controlled by a corporation, and these media outlets then do not lie, they're much too smart for that, they simply distort the truth and make it hard to find. In the words of Arundhati Roy, "the free market has reduced free elections, free press, and an independent judiciary to commodities on sale to the highest bidder."

anomaly

Exactly. Well somewhat. It is true that the gov't doesn't have our interests at heart, but why is that? Could it be that this gov't has two parties which are supported mostly by huge corporations, you know, the ones who finance their campaigns. It seems obvious then that the party will work to appease the financers of their campaign, not the voters. And history shows that what is good for big business is almost always bad for the worker. But the answer does not lie in giving these already corrupt companies who value money more than human life even more power, it lies in something we on the left call revolution. And for this, you should look to the huge anti-capitalist movement, or you could ask me questions about it.




What a choice you give to them! Work or die! Isn't there something better than that? Can't we make things better? That's about as good as the choice missionaries give people: "Believe in and worship Christ or go to hell". But the choices don't matter, right? What matters is that we get to make the choice, giving us a sense, however distorted it may be, of 'freedom'.




Perhaps the 'best' people aren't neccesarily the richest. I agree with this. But then why do the 'not best' people continue to get the most money? And money is never a good indicator of a person's worht, nor of a person's time, energy or talents. While there are plenty of ways to become skilled (thru hard work), the fact that one is skilled is not always an indicator of wealth. So I ask, should we measure a person's worth by money? Or is there another way? Have we, in the last 2500 years, advanced at all?


Republicns like to rely on the market, they like to cut regulations and taxes, and many of them support repealling the New Deal (effectively destroying minimum wage). I'd call this very capitalist. I'm sure that if you sat down and talked with a Republican and stuck to economics, you could find plenty of common ground.




Freedom to let the corporations control us instead of the gov't. This, of course, could result in something much worse than we currently have, as we'd be subjected to intense competition amongst companies.




Pretend you're an illegal immigrant. I offer you a job at a slaughterhouse, and you, knowing that you have no mode of transportation nor any food or shelter, reluctantly accept the job. Obviously work conditions are terrible. Now is that what you mean by mutual consent? It benefits the employer greatly, but does it really benefit the worker? You are trapped under my rule, I sould fire you, and thus, sentence you to starvation if I wish. Again, is this the choice that you say exists? Is this consent?




The more I debate with you, the more I think you're a communist! I know of no other capitalist who wanted to abolish the dollar. Perhaps a 'free market' as you describe it would exist in some communist society. So your ideal economy is a barter system? Well, that is certainly not communist.
OK, two quick questions.
Have you ever read any Marx? You may agree with much of what he says.
Have you ever read any Ayn Rand? Interestingly, you may disagree with much of what she says.

Gabo

There is no such thing as having the interests of all the common people at heart.
This is because each and every person has different interests.

I might want to spend my extra cash on space exploration.
You might want to spend yours on feeding the homeless.
Johnny might not want to spend his at all, but rather save for his future.

The money belongs to the INDIVIDUAL.
These are choices for the INDIVIDUAL to make.
There's no reason any group should be allowed to take our money and tell us what we want to spend it on.
Nobody but us knows what we really want.



"Work or die" is only happens under EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.
Almost all of the time there is another, better choice available.

This as opposed to a regulated market, which goes something like:
"Do what we tell you or spend your life locked up".
And under a regulated market, this is ALWAYS the case.

A free market gives more choice than any other.
It is the only market in which everyone is granted equal rights.



Accumulating wealth is a goal many people share in life.
With the elimination of the ownership of wealth, many people become unsatisfied.



You are referring to the traditional Republicans.
There aren't many of those left.
Most of them are now Bush supporting socialists.



YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING.

Being part of a government is NOT VOLUNTARY, and what the government does is by FORCE.

A free market HAS NO FORCE AT ALL. People simply have a choice.
Sometimes the choice doesn't have many good options, but its still a choice.

The corporations only control us as long as we let them control us.

If we stand up to them and say "NO!", they have nothing left.



Lets see..... I have the choice to starving and dying on the street, or taking a low rung job to support myself.

It is completely up to me.

I can take the job if I think its worth it, or I can go search for other competitors, or I can attempt to find my own niche and offer my own service.

We obviously don't live in a world of one company, so I could check out others in the area for better conditions or pay. I would most likely find a business that needs new workers and is willing to offer a better deal than your business.

After working for that business for a year or two, I could save up for a bycicle to search around for better jobs, plus I will now have job experience on my resume.

I will soon be able to find a better job with better conditions, and now I'm one step higher up on the ladder!



Most people that claim to be capitalist are really not....

True capitalists despise anything that misrepresents or uses FORCE.
The US Dollar does both.
It has absolutely no value, is prone to inflation, and is FORCED upon the people.

Me and many other true capitalists are turning to a new private, 100% silver and gold backed currency.

It's called the Liberty Dollar, and it's REAL money. (www.libertydollar.org)


Also, communism isn't far away from a free society.

Essentially, it's a free society where somehow everyone is selfless and caring.
They all work together for the betterment of their community.
Unfortunately, this is unattainable.
Which is why I choose the next best thing, a free society.



I've never read either, though I plan to read both after I'm done with school.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

anomaly

Individualism at its highest. We live in a very individualistic society, and what do we see? War, high crime rates, relatively high poverty. That's why I feel anarcho-communism is probably the best choice (note: I'm not switching my beliefs here, just letting you know that this communism of which I speak is a form of anarchism). Are you seriously saying that the people should not control the economy (democratic economy)? Are you seriously saying that every single person is capable of making economically sound choices? Wake up and see the damage that privatization is doing around the world. Wake up from this dream of yours, wake up from this terrible deception which you call truth. In India, and South Africa, privatization has been sought, and has been implemented. Look at the state of two countries: poverty level over 40%. Is this your dream? Is this how it's supposed to look? Idealistic capitalism looks absolutely great on paper (to some), but when the market, along with its mighty corporations, start to extend beyond the reach of any power, including gov't, the reality is that those on the top of the economic ladder gain greatly, while those on the bottom loses equally so. Ayn Rand admits that capitalism is not perfect. Atleast she can admit that, despite her odd beliefs. But you live in a dream, other countries' economic situations do not matter to you, the privatization you so desperately seek causes hardship among these poor countries, and worst of all, as we continue to see democracy fade away and we see the left wing of (organised) politics head right economically, we have no choice. There is little we can do 'from the inside'. Capitalism, even the non-idealistic version that exists today, hurts the majority of people. This is a fact. Your massive speculation and your seemingly unigue stance on what capitalism really is cannot change this. I would, finally, like to see you accept what capitalism really is. It is not a people's utopia. It is the utopia of the 'skilled' and the mighty and the rich. Please, oh please, read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand sometime. That book is capitalism, it is the utopia of you capitalists.




Where is the law that says 'do what we tell you or be locked up'? Where are these mad claims of which you speak? In Sweden, it may be argued that the people have more freedom than in the USA, yet Sweden is socialist. A free market certainly doesn't give 'equal rights'. Does the sweatshop worker have equal rights to the businessman who owns that factory? Perhaps you should ask the worker about this. A free market (idealistically) gives equal chance, but never guaruntees equal rights. In South Africa today, privatization is the new way. Since Mandela, South Africa has been pressured to do that way by corporate powers. And today the black worker is worse off than he was during the era of racist apartheid. Equal rights! Don't make me laugh!




According to who? Besides, how does one attain wealth in you 'barter system'? The only way possible seems to be to cheat your business partner. Accumulating wealth is, by the way, an aspect of only the capitalist system. Do not assume that 'this is how it's always been'. In the days of subsistence farming, survival was the only key. Grow enough on which to live. Today, workers are made to produce a huge surplus, that means that we will have periods of overproduction, which means economic instability. The worker creates his own misery, all while, as Marx points out, he becomes alienated from his once proud work, as it is now only a tool with which to gain money.




This is complete and utter ignorance to all of US politics. You have it totally wrong. The left is deteriorating. The right has swamped the left, and now a 'third way' of CLinton and Blair has emerged from once truly leftist parties. Privatization is the way everyone is going. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. All of them. Taxes are some of the last remnants of FDR's liberal state. And now Bush is cutting them. This leads to an underfunding of education. But hey, when everything's up for sale nowadays, there is only one needed subject: business. Who needs math, science, english, philosophy, gov't. Your whole argument is complete nonsense. Just type in the word neo-liberalism into google.




When corporations have the money, and you certainly want to give it to them, they do control us, because in a capitalist society, wealth is power. And the rest of us low lifes are, yes, forced to work long hours to produce more and more in order to give the rich the profit they seek. In a market without boundaries (as our 'free market' seems to be today) workers are never in short supply. With corporations in charge, there is no force left to say 'no that's not right' or 'no, the worker deserves more money'. This leads to great profit for management, and whatever's left (usually not much) for the worker. The worker only is paid enough to keep him coming to work, and as can be seen throughout the 3rd world, that isn't much.




The illusion of choice. The very word brings people to your side, as choice is always good, no matter its content. You forget that under your perfect world, labor is at the mercy of the market. If the market is down, this means that all businesses lay off workers. This will probably last atleast a few weeks. Now you, the ever optimist, probably think that would just make life dynamic (which it does)! But to anyone else, one will see he suffering caused by subjecting workers to the business cycle with no regulations to shield themselves. Instead of ending world hunger and poverty, you want to give these things fuel. But, as long as it's for the good of the ones who really matter, it's OK, right? I know Ayn Ran thinks so.




So who's to say that they aren't right? You? But atleast you admit that capitalists need some symbol of status, some recognition of o called success. It is used as something with which to control others, in actuality (the worker, namely). Wait...aren't you against this? This I see as the largest contradiction in your odd form of thought.

anomaly

Communism is simply human production strictly for human use (the romantic add-ons you name are just those-add ons). Obviously, many in todays pro-capitalist world find it 'unattainable'. Most of the world has also never read Marx, who clearly states that socialism is a prerequisite for communism. That is why we on the left should push towards world socialism. Perhaps you need to once again see what communism would look like. There would be no gov't, and they wouldn't all work together. You'd have a loosely connected communist globe, or perhaps, less idealistically, an autonomous zone (the Zapatistas). This means that a localised group of people would work together. That's hardly utopian, in fact, it's being done today.

Gabo

So, in essense, everyone pledges 100% of their property for public use.

Like I said before, I believe communism ONLY works when done voluntarily.
(I don't remember if you agreed with me or not).

Assuming it only works when derived from voluntary actions, then a communist society could ONLY exist under a free society.

Under a free market, people would be more than able to come together under the name of promoting the general welfare and working for the betterment of a community.

This is not possible when you enforce rules and regulations on people.



I find working models of communism only attainable under mutual consent.

Therefore, the action must be derived from a free society.



Socialism is a complete and utter failure, as proven before.
It is not possible to successfully FORCE everyone into the "nice guy" role.

There will always be those that will not cooperate regardless of everything.


That is why successful communism must be reached by voluntary agreement.
Unlike Marx's view, this can only come from a free society, not a socialist one.



And those people work together under voluntary, mutual consent.
Which can only be achieved when one has a free society.


I completely understand the desire to live in a communist society.
But you cannot successfully FORCE communism on people.
Which is why the best way to achieve it is through free society.


I personally advocate the freest society possible.
One in which the ONLY role of the government is to protect our natural rights.


By having this type of government, people will be allowed to collaborate with other like-minded people to establish diverse communities with unique aspects.


People could join these communities by voluntary choice, or stay on their own.


Nothing would be preventing communism.
On the contrary, this is the best enviornment for communes to flourish.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist