Consider in a world without automation, replacing a car wheel with a spare: lifting the car up by one hand, you use the fingers of the other had to loosen the nuts.
Now we have the dreaded automation: you jack up the car, operating the jack with both hands, then use both hands to loosen the nuts with a wrench, swap the wheels, reverse the above process and drive off again.
Garage mechanics even use hydraulic wrenches.
So, the hysteria about robots taking over every job is just that, paranoid hysteria. Likely politically motivated by demagogues.
Countries in the west have imposed their share of laws trying to stop communism. The most notorious government-measure was obviously, the whole cold war. On top of senator Joe McCatthy who claimed that the US had be en infiltrated by communists that had to be hubted down. Joe has been accused of being an attention whore with an addiction to alcohol.
Britain, however, introduced restricions on gun ownership (in 1920), in part to quelch Irish stirrings and in part as an anti-communist measure.
Read more about why gun laws don’t have much influence on homicide rates here: https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt
That’s just so typical government. Stopping communism is an OK goal, but laws don’t help – legal bans on alcohol created Al Capone and his ilk, who later diversified into gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc.
If they’d wished to keep communism from gaining too much traction (already hunting at the solution), they should have disincentivized people from finding their luck in another system.
I don’t mean disincentivize in the sense of: applying corporal punishment to every communist, but rather find out why it gets popularity and address the complaint behind it. Which is typically the economic situation of people, recall Marx wrote about exploitation a lot, muckraking bastard.
So, the government should learn to listen to the people, understand them instead of getting cross when governments don’t get their way. That is the only way to get their way: encourage people positively to do what you’d like.
That’s a lot of work; much easier to let the people just go their own way and withdraw government from as many aspects of their lifes as possible; applying minarchism.
I believe in liberty, but not enough to force it on people
I disagree with the stalemate Mencken recognized: if people wish to live in a dictatorial regime, where they have zero say in anything that happens, #libertarians can simply force freedom upon them; which is exactly what they want: have changes forced upon them.
Likewise, freedom (#libertarianism) e.g. in the form of anarchocapitalism, or even minarchism/libertarianism is far more desirable than socialism/communism, which requires absolute statist homogeneity.
Because in ancapistan it is possible to purchase a patch of land, put a fence round it (barbed wire or not), then build some houses there and let people live there, according to your rule. That rule may be: only public/communal property allowed. (Typically this applies to everyone else, because obviously: you’re needed to enforce the rule) in ancapistan that’s ok, because you bought the property, so you set the rules, and people that voluntarily choose to live there, agree to abide with those rules. In (socialist) states, it is impossible to have a capitalist commune in a (socialist/communist) state, because all land is publicly owned (ergo, by the state; not by any member of the public) and the state determines the rules on all its land.
One reason African dictators are subsidized by western economies, is because they buy Mercedes cars, supporting German jobs. So Germany has the entire European “union” indirectly subsidize German factories. Likewise, the Belgian FN gun factory (Fabrique Nationale) no doubt sells a share of guns to,fldictators, subsidized by the rest of the European so-called Union.
So not trickle down economics but trickle up (from the ductator’s victims to the European factory), similar to selling surplus food from European farms, bankrupting Afrivcan farners that cannot compete with the subsidized European food, dumped in that market. Instead of subsidizing the food, better to let the farms only produce what they can sell much less wasteful than subsidizing a milk puddle and butter mountain then either throw away the excess food, or dump it on unsuspecting foreign markets, bankrupting theocals, cauing them to need more aid.
Socialists (like the Dutch politician Emile Roemer and the American Bernie Sanders) enjoy stoking the bullshite fire about pharmamaffia driving up prices for medication. Particularly nasty, because government requires all medication undergoes extensive (and very costly) testing before being allowed onto the market.
“But that’s a good thing, because I want my medication to be safe.”
Fair enough, but don’t you dare complain about high prices. Because you asked for the high costs, but you want someone else to pay them. That is why socialists are anti-social and egotistical.
BTW, there are better ways to ensure safety of medication. Ways that do not keep medication off the market, because the incredibly high costs make medication for rare illnesses too much of a financial loss, because the junta-mandated expenses can not be recovered. It’s better to have full transparency, without the government’s ominous shadow obscuring matters. Then the reputation of pharmaceutical companies will see to it, that they continue to attempt to provide high-quality medication. There is no institution of magical authority that they can hide behind, or can rope into doing their bidding, to hide any wrongs from the people. This way the people, in a proper democracy (self-rule) can protect themselves/eachother.
For without such the malicious example given by government, society will become much more social.
Some people feel they’re very smart by saying it’s all about money, politicians only wish to maximize tax income and make their buddies in business extra rich. Those are the same people that tend to lean toward socialism, btw. Soialism puts more power in the hands of the junta, and so makes the citizens worse off; makes business more likely totry to directly influence the junta (using e.g. lobbyists) because that way businesses can get an edge over other businesses in their field.
But politics isn’t about money, apart from trying to make the people have as little of it, as possible. (Eg by taxation in the here and now; by taxation in the future – inflation)
Politicians care only for the power they have over others; democracy (demos = people, cratos = power; democracy = power over the people)
Example: Adolf Hitler
If Hitler only cared about the money, he would not have commenced an extermination program of the richest business people: after all, the Jews could have earned his regime much more in tax income when alive, but killing them gained him the only political currency that mattered: power. And cost lots of money; with all the camps and trains transporting the Jews, and invasions (partly justified as a means of exterminating the Jews in all of Europe) that cost heaps of money.
Military invasions may bring money to the lobbyists of (the German equivalent of) the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex, but cost the regime itself heaps of money, to gain them (geographical) power. Military invasions are always a financial loss over time. Look at the growth of US government debt under Obama: from a barely feasible $6,000,000,000,000 to a crippling $17 trillion, 8 years and 7 wars have brought the USA to its knees, financially. And what have they brought the country? Absolutely nothing.
The military is the penultimate government institution: it can only kill and destroy (financed by theft), it is utterly incapable of producing anything, apart from some impressive jet planes; but nothing that improves the state of humanity; it only lines the pockets of some very short sighted business people. That will go just as bankrupt as the citizens that are robbed to pay for their products.
Socialism is more natural than capitalism, because: the default state for life on earth is to be hungry, uncertain of whether a being will live to see the next day (die either from hunger, thirst, exposure or being eaten by another creature)
Which is why the instinct for ownership developed in nature (and eventually this got reinvented into modern capitalism). Since it takes (scarce) energy and effort to build a nest, catch a prey, spawn children, etc, it would hurt an animal’s chances of survival when it lets others use them without having put the effort into them that the first animal did, so the animal would have to chose between going hungry/dying and fighting to keep the prey/nest/child safe from other animals.
I know that certain silly folk point to e.g. the Plains Indians, that “did not believe in private property” and thinking that that proves socialism is more natural than capitalism. It clearly does not prove any such thing, merely that owning land was cumbersome / not enforcable for nomads that followed the herds of bizons.
Apart from that, the plains indians were clearly beyond a state of nature, having developed a human society.