I was listening to a Christian radio station and they made the following statements: 1. Build society around the state and you have communism. 2. Build society around the group and you trample the individual. 3. Build society around the individual and you have anarchy; trampling on the family. 4. The only just society should be based around the family. OK. So much wrong here. Where it can be argued that most communists/socialists need the state in order to impose their views on everyone, as well as are statists while the state exists, building society around the state is simply statism; with a move towards a command economy. Therefore, communism and what they are describing are not the same. Communism, as theorized by Marx, was the stage after the socialist workers state. It was a stage without the state but instead with collective ownership of everything. Nothing but a pipe dream, I know, but that is what it is (despite people altering its meaning today). In response to number 2, that is where socialism/communism comes into an overlap with the statism described in number 1. Both are focused on central planning and group think. They certainly do trample on individual rights and do not produce a just society. In response to number 3, .......what? That just makes no sense. That is where the Christians try to escape taking liberty to its logical conclusion: anarchy. They throw out false ideas that everything good and ordered goes away once the state goes away. They essentially have Stockholms syndrome. Since they have been a slave to the state for so long, they cannot see any way to live without it. In effect, they throw out falsehoods to put down any viewpoint that is against the state). Anarchy doesnt trample on the family or anyone. It is the epitome of protecting everyones right to live as they wish as long as they do not violate that of others. If they do, force can be used against them by the established law forces (or whatever is setup). The family is just as protected as the individual. So, their claim falls flat on its face. In response to number 4, I agree to a large extent. In general, family is very important to backing society (and it comes in many different forms). However, this does not require any central planning or force in order to bring about. It is a natural tendency for it to be the backbone of society, since it is the single best entity to raising the next generation. Therefore, their third claim cannot be supported. So what is the best way to setup society? That question is the problem. The question itself implicates a need for some form of central planning. At the end of the day, the best way for society to set itself up is to allow the free voluntary interactions of people to form it. Protection agencies (individual and collective) will likely come about due to need, as will all other things that are needed. Will corporations rule? No, and how would they exist? They depend on the state to recognize them under the law and to give them corporate welfare. Without the state, small businesses and cooperatives would likely become dominant, with some industries still using the top-down structure. No one can say for sure how everything would work out, but, as I have said, that doesnt mean that you settle with an immoral, inefficient, and violent society.
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:21:49 +0000