I have many well-meaning friends who are collectivists. They believe there is a place, a time and a circumstance where government should do good by helping those who cannot. They often state that just because this approach has been botched badly in the past by government, it doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. There is some good to collectivism, they insist: Civilization started by the riversides with groups of people banding together so that some could hunt and gather, some could plant and harvest, and the well could attend to the sick, the wise could teach, and the strong could help protect the weak in their "family." We have gone far astray from those original intentions, but the intentions were good and not inherently flawed, so they would say. If we can only get the right people into power, we will have "good government" and all of this will work again.





inalienable rights simply because one is born, which is what the founders intended for us. Of course, we should always remember the founder's hypocrisy regarding slavery and the rights of minorities. Here is where I believe we threw the baby out with the bath water in the last 100+ years. Why not respect those rights for every individual rather than creating the divisive mess we have now? I would much prefer a reformed constitutional democratic republic over a "democracy" any day: I would agree with them that collectivism can work and can be very desirable. However, it works best and is most sustainable when it is done on a voluntary basis, not by institutionalized force or coercion. The historic collective cooperation they often refer to was largely voluntary. On the other hand, in a system of institutionalized coercive collectivism, people become divided into groups, from where they usually come to believe their rights originate. This is much different from having individualsimply because one is born, which is what the founders intended for us. Of course, we should always remember the founder's hypocrisy regarding slavery and the rights of minorities. Here is where I believe we threw the baby out with the bath water in the last 100+ years. Why not respect those rights for every individual rather than creating the divisive mess we have now? I would much prefer a reformed constitutional democratic republic over a "democracy" any day: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm





Our society has become polarized like never before. Numerous pressure groups consistently growl at each other's throats while attempting to seize the reins of government, so they can wrestle control of its spike club of power to beat the others over the head. Look at America in 2009... I don't mean to exaggerate.





20th Century , coercive collectivist governments flying the flags of communism and fascism killed approximately 200 million of their own innocent, unarmed citizens - often for the simple crime of being a member of the wrong religion, the wrong ethnic group or having political beliefs that the state did not approve of. At this point in my life, when judging U.S. presidents, I look at the death toll for which each is responsible... The lower the better, with of course zero being best. Hopefully our new president will fare much better than the previous, although this clip troubles me: During the, coercive collectivist governments flying the flags of communism and fascism killed approximately 200 million of their own innocent, unarmed citizens - often for the simple crime of being a member of the wrong religion, the wrong ethnic group or having political beliefs that the state did not approve of. At this point in my life, when judging U.S. presidents, I look at the death toll for which each is responsible... The lower the better, with of course zero being best. Hopefully our new president will fare much better than the previous, although this clip troubles me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHmecy94z-M





I'm all for voluntary groups coming together to solve problems and I've been a member of many such groups in my lifetime. However, if someone wishes to cease from participating for whatever reason, they should be allowed to do so without threats of retaliation or violence. This is why churches, mutual aid societies and private charities used to be so much more effective and efficient at helping the poor than government is today. If such a group became corrupt or wasteful, its members/donors could leave, thereby de-funding the organization. New organizations would form to take their place. This process tends to keep private organizations more honest and accountable than coercive "public" ones. With public institutions, you are required to pay them for their services no matter what, and when they fail in their mission, they often demand even more money from the taxpayer to "fix" the problem they created in the first place.





So we really have no choice. Try to withdraw from the federal government system and see what happens - Your picture will be on the evening news and in the newspapers; Your home will be called a "compound" and you will be painted as a separatist lunatic as they prepare to storm your property with high-tech weapons ablazin'. The so-called "public" institutions have us by the cojones regardless of whether the D's or the R's are in power. http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux30.html





The entire system has spiraled out of control due a severe lack of vigilance and accountability; A violent gang has been given a monopoly on violence; They have mountainous stack of deadly weapons with the perceived authority to use them with impunity on anyone they please, anywhere in the world. To make matters worse, they can print as much funny money as they wish to accomplish their objectives. This never ends well for the citizens - hence, the perils of big government. How did it get so big and out of control in the first place? A growing number of people believe it is because we stopped following our own constitution, incrementally over many decades. Without maintaining a strong, basic rule of law, any society is doomed to destruction.





When I use the term "rule of law", I don't mean to endorse all of the foolish, unjust and frivolous federal/state/local laws on the books. There are two basic laws, under which we were originally founded, which can maintain a highly civil society:

1. Do all that you agreed to do.

2. Do not encroach upon other persons or their property (this includes pollution).





Our monetary system is a large part of our problems. Economist John Maynard Keynes once said that "by a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." ( The Economic Consequences of the Peace 1919) As we see, this is all coming to pass. The financial crisis we are beginning to experience is exposing our centrally-planned, top-heavy government like no time before. Both political parties have been at the feeding trough for decades, using fiat funny money (non asset-backed) to reward their friends ( Wall Street , Medical Military Industrial Complex, et al) and punish their enemies... Not to mention the bombing of innocent brown people around the world into oblivion. I don't feel good about funding that, but with guns pointed at my head, so to speak, I have no choice and either do any of you.





Many people feel that government is what creates the order in society. I would disagree and contend that the millions, if not billions of voluntary, often spontaneous interactions between people on a daily basis is what creates the actual order in society. It is the real glue that holds us all together. Some call it spontaneous order:





Due to the likely economic collapse on the way, many of us will be called upon in our communities to help the poor, the widows, the orphans and the elderly in need. The silver lining could be that many of us will rediscover the value of voluntary cooperation. When the governments go broke, there will only be us remaining to take care of each other. We do best when we're not being coerced. As David McAlvany said recently, "if you look at the value of society, if you look at the value of what we do in community, it is not the corpus that defines us, it is individual autonomy; It is individual dignity that matched with someone else's individual autonomy and individual dignity, makes for a great society; A great society is not because the society defines greatness, but a society is defined by the greatness of its individuals." What would the Beatles have been without John Lennon ? Without Paul McCartney ? At the same time, neither were as good outside the Beatles in their subsequent solo careers. Ultimately, for most of society to survive in the coming years, confidence in government must be replaced with self-confidence. Vibrant, prosperous, harmonious societies are built from the bottom up, not from the top down.





Economically, I believe that it is unrealistic to believe that we can all be equal. We all have unique talents and abilities which should be pursued with as much vigor as we please. The marketplace may value these talents differently, depending on quality, coupled with supply & demand. However, I am hoping to see the day when all of us are equal before the law, regardless of financial standing. That coupled with an honest monetary system would do wonders for our communities, as there would be no more counterfeit money in circulation, created out of thin air by elitist bureaucrats. The gap between the richest and poorest citizens would be greatly reduced. There wouldn't be any more stupid money in existance to throw at wasteful projects. There would be far less debt creation and far more wealth creation, which leads to prosperity for all. There are presently too many politically-connected paper pushers making too much synthetic wealth from our counterfeit fiat monetary system. In my humble opinion, limited government, an honest rule of law for everyone and sound money will turn us around like nothing we've ever seen before. This is how the U.S. became successful in the first place. Just imagine how it could be with equality before the law for everyone. Historians would refer to it as a renaissance.





Laissez-faire capitalism is a politico-economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and in which the powers of the state are limited to the protection of the individual’s rights against the initiation of physical force. This protection applies to the initiation of physical force by other private individuals, by foreign governments, and, most importantly, by the individual’s own government." See: The other area where I believe many of us have thrown the baby out with the bath water is with free enterprise, otherwise known as laissez-faire capitalism: "capitalism is a politico-economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and in which the powers of the state are limited to the protection of the individual’s rights against the initiation of physical force. This protection applies to the initiation of physical force by other private individuals, by foreign governments, and, most importantly, by the individual’s own government." See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reisman/reisman45.html and http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=232





While elections can be manipulated by the media and/or rigged outright by insiders, the most powerful and just form of democracy known to man is exercised from one's own checkbook, with one's hard-earned resources. I'm all for enterprising people creating jobs and wealth, as long as they seek to create win-win situations while refraining from encroaching upon others or their property. Of course, we should be vocal in promoting fair and honest competition within the marketplace. People who don't like the way a business operates are free to refrain from patronizing them. Further, an ethical business doesn't use government to protect them from competition, shield them from liability for faulty products, or to mandate the use of their products by force. This is not capitalism, it is mercantilism/facisim, which is the common practice in America today. Particularly notable are the healthcare industry (vaccines, drugs, insurance), the energy industry (big oil, big ethanol) and public education, just to name a few.





Wal-Mart , although nobody is forcing us to shop there. As a corporation, they are still much smaller in revenue than the federal government, who forces their citizens to pay for services regardless of whether they want them or not. I would also direct you to this article, which clarified my view of Wal-Mart as a company: Regarding corporations, I share your distaste for, although nobody is forcing us to shop there. As a corporation, they are still much smaller in revenue than the federal government, who forces their citizens to pay for services regardless of whether they want them or not. I would also direct you to this article, which clarified my view of Wal-Mart as a company: http://www.nypost.com/seven/02072009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/fly_on_the_wal_154007.htm?page=0





We should also remember that corporations are government-sanctioned fictional entities, formed so their owners can avoid taxes and liability. If government was so concerned with the evils of corporations, it could revoke their corporate charters, putting them out of business overnight. They don't do so because they're in bed together. Again, it's called mercantilism, often referred to as fascism since the 1930's. In many ways, I prefer the days where an individual-run or a family-run business was the norm. There was always a place where the buck stopped. The big government/big bank/big corporate dominance of today has discouraged and/or destroyed too many productive small businesses for my tastes. My issue with the big boys has not been any competitive advantage over smaller businesses, but a willingness to use piles of easy counterfeit credit to finance operations, giving them unnatural staying power in the marketplace. As the big finance, funny money system collapses, it should provide ample openings for nimble small businesses to once again thrive. We merely need to return to a system that handsomely rewards entrepreneurial risk-taking with an absence of bureaucratic hassles.





History has repeatedly shown that when too much power falls into too few hands, bad things happen to the people. Granted, there are many, many good people who work for government, at every level. The problem is that whenever power concentrates into a territorial monopolist of money, law and violence like government, it eventually becomes an organism of its own, growing increasingly hungry for all the resources and flesh it can get its beastly claws on. When it begins to run out of booty to confiscate from its own people, it usually turns outward, to violent foreign conquests in order to keep its game going. We shouldn't forget the ancient Chinese proverb that says "a fish always rots from the head". Hopefully there is still time for us to revive the fish known as the USA. Maybe we can push it back into the water.





I wish our new president well and I hope that he allows the correct solutions to emerge for our current malaise. So far, I am not encouraged but I do have hope.