It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Austrian economics is quite clear.
The introduction of coercion or violence into economic systems always leads to worse economic outcomes for everyone.
For example, social security is predicated on the use of coercion. It is now bankrupt and a complete ponzi scheme that can only be sustained by the next generation's income. In the State's effort to help poor people, it has made everyone poorer.
The war on drugs is predicated on coercion. The US now has more prisoners per capita than the Soviet Union did at the height of the gulag labor camp system. The war on drugs has deprived America of millions of man hours of productive labor that could have been used to produce goods and services that benefit humanity.
Because everything the State does is predicated on coercion, we can say with total confidence that nothing the State does brings humanity more benefit than if people had been left alone to their own devices.
Everyone wants security, roads, schools, medical care, housing, food, clothing, electronics, etc.. etc.. etc.. so we know that people will naturally work to produce those things without any coercion at all! For example, the State does not need to take over the restaurant industry in order for us to have restaurants. So if the State is not necessary to have a range of restaurants that everyone can afford, then why is it necessary for the State to take over schooling? Further, even if you believe poor people would not be able to afford an education without the State (which is patently ridiculous, as history has shown us), why not just redistribute money? Why should the State completely take over the curriculum and the management of schools?
This same argument can be made for every aspect of our society. The State is not necessary to have law. The State is not necessary to have peace. The State is not necessary to have schools. The State is not necessary to have medical care. The State is VIOLENCE. The State is COERCION. The State always causes more economic harm than it does good. The State will always be controlled by those with the most money. The State will always be used by the money powers to grant bailouts, government contracts, regulations that destroy competition, and every other manner of crony capitalism.
The only way to have a prosperous and productive society is to create a society that is fundamentally predicated on the rule of law. - If it is wrong for you to steal, it is wrong for the State to steal.
Economist Robert Murphy explains how a voluntarily funded government would work:
The State doesn't know how to stay out of our own business! haha. Go try to sell some hot dogs on a street corner and see how long it takes the State to shut you down and rob you blind.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
I would argue that communism is when the means of production is controlled through a violent monopoly.
Who exactly is "the public" under a communist system and how does it differ from allowing individual citizens to own their own businesses?
Isn't an individual business owner a member of the public?
If an individual business owner sucks at running his business under a capitalist system, what happens to his money and his business?
If a violent monopoly of State authoritarians runs a crumby business, what happens to their money and the business?