[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
No it isn’t. Like it or not, it’s the end result of capitalism. If you don’t regulate to break up monopolies, you end up with companies that are indistinguishable from states.
Socialism would involve placing power in the hands of a soviet, or worker’s group, which would decide on the ‘issues’ raised.
Yes, I am.[/quote]
I never said the oil companies should have the power to force anybody to do anything. An oil company would only be able to use that which they purchase at its value without the government forcing people to give up their land.
In the absence of a state and the presence of private property, people would likely have to organize themselves much like our current government system. They would most likely have to pay for a defense to protect against aggression. The major difference would be that inclusion would be voluntary.
Say we have a group of 10 people who each own 100 acres of land. They decide to group together and form a common defense for their lands. They decide to give each other free access to each other’s land. The neighbors of this new cooperative may begin to fear that the cooperative will then become aggressive, so they also form a cooperative. One of the members of the original cooperative begins to disagree with the way the cooperative is managed, so he pulls his land from the cooperative. He then fears aggression from the two neighboring cooperatives, so he organizes a third cooperative of 30 people who each own 100 acres. Eventually the cooperatives all grow so large that each spends too much time in fear of what the others will do to it that its “citizens” can’t get anything else done. The cooperatives all decide to come together and form a massive common defense. The difference between this massive, U.S.A.-sized cooperative and our current government is that each person would still be free to pull his 100 acre plot out of the cooperative. He would no longer have any right to any land other than that he owns, but he would still own 100% of his land. He would still trade with the cooperative, because who else would he trade with? He could still PAY for use of the cooperative’s land. I’m tired of typing, so I’ll leave it at this: Private property rights are the key ingredient in freedom which is missing from our country.
so·cial·ism
noun \Ë?sÅ?-shÉ?-Ë?li-zÉ?m\
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
