government v no government: regulations

To some, the idea of peaceful anarchism looks more like Lord of the flies or Mad Max. And also, to them, the size of government does not appear to have any negative influence on its corruptability or purchasability; in fact, the opposite is likely to be true: the bigger the government, the more areas (hence more people’s interests) it touches, and the more people it consists of.
The more areas government touches, the more likely it is that someone (‘s interests) gets touched by regulation and the more those people will be likely to want to influence regulation.
Then simply saying that nobody should have enough money to be able to afford to buy regulation (because of the existence of capitalism), is putting the horse behind the cart. Trying to patch up the holes in a system with wads of newspaoer, hoping those will keep it afloat.
The more people make up the government, the more people there are that can be corrupted, or influenced in any way (by means of corruption, or e.g. by lobbying).

So regardless of how big or small it is, any government can be bought/influenced.
Is that a reason to make do without capitalism, as some would like to conclude?
No, because (unlike government) capitalism is beneficial for the people, it produces wealth, which government by its very nature, is incapable of doing. Government can only impose limitations, kill people, destroy wealth & opportunity.
Also government ranks decidedly lower than the people it rules over, because a people can happily exist without a government (the existence of people at all, proves that – from an economic level of 0 (no trade, self-sufficiency) to today’s infinitely higher economic development – surely nobody would claim that government pre-existed?), in fact, the people would flourish (as suggested by the economic flourishing when in recent years, Belgium and Spain had no governments for some time), yet a government without people is a grammatical impossibility (proving that government did not pre-exist people)

“If there was no government than the most aggressive individuals can still use force against the week.”
When there is a government, the most aggressive individuals will gravitate to those positions. As undeniably proven by the existence of the Dutch government’s policies of imposing ticket quotas (“#bonnenquota”) on cops, in order to increase government income. And the cops not resigning en masse, out of protest against this corruption of their original reason to enter the profession (provide service to the people, to provide for safety, justice)
As also proven by fascism and crony capitalism. (which I consider varying strengths of manifestation of the same phenomenon).

So when some say that the problem is that when there’s a capitalist system it will always shape the government no matter how big or small it is, then the only logical solution would be to do without government.


Published by


I am an author & an anarcharchist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s