John Oliver reminds us why Joe Arpaio is so awful


I agree with their ideology in theory, but I believe in practice it would have to rely too much on coercion — a common problem with socialism and communism. I really like the idea of communities and companies as mini-democratic experiments competing to find the best government, but I reject the idea that workers should have sole ownership of the company. I mean, consumers are also affected by corporate policy (just look at DRM and software licensing). So an ideal capitalist system, where any stake-holder can “own” the company by buying stock, it’s a generalization of the anarchist idea.

Obviously the current regulatory system and corporate culture is heavily skewed towards benefiting executives at giant companies, specially in the US. Also, the system is played by rich people by placing their friend in the board, limiting the natural oversight over executives. I would favor something similar to what they have in Germany, with the board balancing workers and owners.

Something nice about capitalism is that if you want to start your own socialist corporation you can. There are a bunch of worker-own companies all over the world, I know Publix is, and I think Huawei (but probably only on paper).

The basic problem here is that libertarians in the US are too concern about property rights, so in practice the label only means you favor lower taxes. I find it very strange how some people consider themselves libertarians and still want the government to close the borders, deport immigrants, prohibit abortions, stop marriages, put people in prison for doing drugs, etc.

Something good that came out of the alt-right is that it gave those people a clear ideological space away from libertarianism ---- something that they never truly embraced. Now they can join together in wanting a strong welfare state with low taxes for “true” citizens, and a strong police to protect them from others, a nationalist-socialist party if you will.


If you go back far enough of course you get to the idea that one of the best ways to protect people is to protect property.

You do have to go back to the English Civil War for that though…because of that the theory rather relies on strict control of executive power by the legislature which accurately reflects the will of the people. Backed up of course by the object lesson of what happens if the executive oversteps the mark.

Without those, you end up where we are now. Supremacy of property rights (except where overridden by the rich-er).


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.