Often we hear how a government is needed because the people are greedy.  We hear of the evil capitalist and his crusade for himself.  We hear that we must assert control over others because this greedy capitalist will look to keep his job and wealth over the welfare of others.  So why not create a system where that “evil capitalist” has to pander to the people.  Why not create a system that the “evil capitalist” holds no power over the individual, but where all are equal and will choose who will gain that power and wealth?  Here I will discuss how the arguments of human nature are not only applicable to a free market but also to the state.  A government’s interest is to keep problems not solve them.

I say to you Anarchists that attack Capitalism that you have much to attack in our current systems. It is the concept of a free market that you are not comprehending.  It is not wealth at the expense of others, but ownership and power being returned to the people.

A free market concept that I preach is not the concept of powerful men and women asserting their will to profit without any restriction.  A free market will not allow such to happen.  A government will step in and decide that a company will continue to survive despite the common census of the people which has decided certain corporations should be smaller, hold less power, or even cease to exist.  This happens daily in the United States.  Monopolies are created and we are left under the tyranny of these corporations at the dictation of the state.  This has been in the spotlight in the last few years.  Look at the bailouts.  These are companies with massive power and wealth.  When the market demanded them to become smaller, broken up and sold off to smaller companies, or even wiped out of existence the government decided they are “too big to fail”.  Why?

Maybe some will choose to serve the abuser as we currently do with the state under a free market, but when offered alternatives I believe most will choose otherwise.  Think of a concept of voting with dollars.

The argument is always placed on the evil nature of humankind.  Then some leap to a resolution that is government. Who runs the government?  I guess the government must be ran by people with others interest at heart right? Wrong.  The government is made up of the same population that would run the companies that exist.  The greed and self interest are present in a government that are present anywhere else.  In fact with the democratic mockery the United States has the greed and self interest are present much more.  Here these individuals are encouraged to sell themselves and the actual results of policy and decisions are rarely a determining factor on deciding if they will go on to maintain control.  If the efforts and work of these people were based on the results in a free market they would not be able to make decisions to run a government in debt that exceeds ten trillion dollars.  None of it would exist.  Despite the excessive debt these people in charge are flying around in personal jets bringing in six and seven digit incomes.  All with the lack of results.  What does this do?  It works as a parasite on a market.  In a system that taxes the overall market in excess of thirty percent with a ten percent unemployment rate we see where the jobs went.  They were all sucked up by the greed of the state.

When the people see the injustice they can not turn from this state monopoly.  If people find that a private company is acting against our interest and harming others they will go to the company that is acting in the best interest of humanity.  In the case of a state this does not happen.  The state maintains the monopoly at the threat of death and violence.  The state then does what any other company would do.  It seeks to expand.  When a company expands it must turn a profit.  When a state expands it can just add it to the “national debt”.  This results in the overall health and welfare of an economy being impacted negatively.  Because the state is consuming without producing anything it becomes a parasite.  It begins to consume the production of the people.  This results in politicians being wealthy without crating wealth, but simply by forcing it from the workers and businesses.  A free market forces those within it to look where it can streamline and become more efficient.  This will never happen for the state, so improvement becomes a hindrance and a negative for a state.

Let us look at the poor.  Since the state took the funds for more jobs there will be a larger rate of poor and unemployed under a state.  If we returned 30% of the wealth back into the economy we would then only have 10% of the jobless out there to fill that leaving a deficit in workers in the united states.  There would be too many jobs for the workers to fill giving them the upper hand again.  Even with this there would be poor.  Not by choice, but by inability.  We will have less poor but those poor must be taken care of.  So, what is the resolution?  Let us look at the options and see why the state is the worst option.

I will not say the state enables the poor.  That is rubbish.  People want to work.   People want the basic self respect that the wealthy have.  People want to be higher on the social ladder.  To say they want to live in poverty is not something I believe. Yes there may be a small percentage that do abuse the system, but really the mass that abuses the system are those in power not those under the tyrants.  So when we say this why do so many then just rush to the only answer being government? Why is a state the answer to the problem?  We have seen the greed and abuse of the system is from the state, those in power.  We also see the state is like a company with nobody to answer to.

The state will promise to cure poverty.  We see this does not happen.  This can not happen.  When the state cures poverty it decides the way to do that is to take one dollar from every person who produces and to give twenty cents for every dollar to the poor.  Where does the rest go? I think you know.  So if the state fixes the problem, and cures poverty it stops getting wealthy.  The state needs a lower class to keep taking and keeping the wealth it gains.  It must keep the bureaucracies running.  The state does not walk out into the cold night to offer a kind hand and warmth to those that need such.  It can only see it’s benefit and serve this.

What is needed? With wealth restored and the parasite of the state removed we have less poverty.  We will then have less of an effort in fighting poverty.  How does this get resolved? I would like to first point out that the state has failed to resolve the issue of poverty, but everyone with the promise of doing so is taking home these six figure incomes.  Systems do not work.  People work.  This becomes an effort of all.  When the state is removed those that have spent so much lobbying and fighting against injustices will not loose their passion or resources.  Their resources will be more.  Those who care about resolving the problem will be the ones working with it.  Those who seek to profit from the problem will no longer hold their power.  This new shift of power will solve the problems instead of leaving them stagnant.  When the rich white patriarch maintains his control over society by force of the gun government will only seek it’s own just as many claim will happen within a free market.  Yes, some will seek their own, but those that do so at the expense of others will be discarded by a free market.  They will hold no power over you.  You will seek the alternatives that provide for your benefit.

Only when this self seeking dynamic of power over the powerless ends will we resolve the problem.  The megalomaniac will loose the power it holds.  It will loose it’s profit off of our suffering.

Is it time for us to end the power others wield over us.  Is it time for the system of force and power over another human to end.  Is it time for the people to have the power.  As long as we give the patriarchy our servitude it will maintain it’s power and oppression.