There aren’t many hooded minarchists demonstrating these days. The United States was founded in an environment that didn’t require much government supervision; there was a sparsely populated land and people helped themselves. It was so minarchist naturally that Southerners could continue the tradition of slavery the British founded in North America. Federalism ended that trouble for those enslaved later at some cost.
I am taking a course in post-Soviet Russian governance and that has given me the occasion to compare and contrast the foundation of the United States and its evolution of government with that of Russia in 1990. So far the main difference is just that the Russians had to form a new democratic government with an existing yet obsolete industrial economic infrastructure and more than a 100 million citizens that required some government social coordination to survive as most modern nations with large populations do, while the United States alternatively, in 1776, had a population estimated at about 2.5 million. The founders were able to compose a philosophically inspired Declaration and Constitution of ideal sorts without any immediate hard technical requirements for external reasons that required the creation of large social institutions and government bureaucracies immediately (so far as I know). Creating a military was a natural response for the founders to external challenges posed by the British army. Even so the founders were wary of a large standing army and preferred an armed militia for long range defense.
Russia passed through a minarchist moment perhaps during the 1993 coup attempt and conflict between Yeltsin’s forces and the supreme Soviet communist remnants in the White House (seat of Russian congressional-style government) when the former Soviet government was decisively, conclusively broken and buried (although 20% of elected officials in the Duma remain communist party members). Yeltsin tried to privatize allowing oligarchs to take much of the former state properties of value, yet nationally the economy collapsed in 1998. Yeltsin eventually appointed Vlad Putin to lead the government and he was elected for-himself as President later. Yeltsin had enabled the President to have super-powers to in effect redesign the structure of government quite a bit as well as to conduct foreign policy. For Russia was redesigning itself and that process continues today-many Americans don’t understand that.
I tend to regard organizations as more or less equal. Any large organization can govern itself and sometimes they govern others outside the organization. It seems to me that organizations diminish individual power. It also seems that governments should reduce to a minimal size for operating efficiency, just as an automobile engine doesn’t need to put on a lot of extra parts and weight to work optimally.
Organizations should be limited in size in order to be more governable by the government that needs to be large enough to govern the largest organizations and all of them as well as individuals. The larger the non-governmental organization is the greater are the challenges that it can present to the organization that officially is the government.
The problem of concentrated wealth today in the United States is a problem of large organizations partly owned by individuals invested in many of them. When too much capital is concentrated in the few the many have little chance of advancing social policy or private enterprises without first submitting to the will of the non-governmental organizational powers that hold most capital.
Achieving a minarchist state that is efficient in the United States would require a reform of capitalism in order to break up the concentration of wealth and size of private corporations. Government might then be reduced in size too, and networks of social services coordinated by the government might be innovated to enable private sources to supply private needs of citizens better than usually occurs in many societies where the natural revenues of the land have been historically expropriated by human overuse and people are left to fend for themselves within a totalized urban environment as derelicts and cast-off waste elements of capitalism.
To innovate government and capital theory upgrades Congress would need to pass some laws that prompt the changes. For instance, patent exclusivity could be reduced to three years and inventors would receive 10% royalties after that from anyone with the capital that produces the product and sells it. Government would not own business,yet governments would pass laws that screened businesses start-ups and prioritize those for advancement that are ecospherically most efficient and synergetic.
No corporations could have more than 20,000 employees. The upper tax rate would be 90%. The government revenues would enable better screening and discretion of start ups, ecosphere recovery and continuing free education.
Numerous other changes would need to be made that would allow an ecospheric economic management synergy with ecospheric recovery and sustainable though gradual economic qualitative progress that guards the well-being of all citizens simultaneously. Government size reduction can be compensated for with increased government networked intelligence as a discrete rather than monolithic governing structure.
In a totalized social-territorial national paradigm all citizens need work or basic necessities from some source. Private enterprise can provide those needs or government may, yet a government-private sector cooperative structure that assures that all citizens are assured of meeting basic needs and lifelong education would be possible and a good way to coordinate with ecosphere repair and maintenance. The failures to screen businesses for ecospheric synergy or neutrality and to keep citizens from being broke at the bottom with national job insecurity are problems implicit within the economic and government structures that could be corrected reforming government and corporate structure.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-being-homeless-illegal-ohio-court-rulings-raise-the-question/ar-BBLWc2v
The United States accomplished over two centuries solutions to challenges Russia has been presented with since 1990 for governance and government mass private organizational business relationships. The Russian creation of new developments is more challenging than the fast-track evolution required of Russia, yet the structure of the United States is paradigmatically obsolete in several respects. It is as if old structures of business never were replaced or upgraded; merely expanded. Government-capital relationships has mostly just grown larger with new institutions added over the centuries instead of being philosophically evaluated for relevance to the very different social and environmental challenges of the present day than those of 1776.
I am taking a course in post-Soviet Russian governance and that has given me the occasion to compare and contrast the foundation of the United States and its evolution of government with that of Russia in 1990. So far the main difference is just that the Russians had to form a new democratic government with an existing yet obsolete industrial economic infrastructure and more than a 100 million citizens that required some government social coordination to survive as most modern nations with large populations do, while the United States alternatively, in 1776, had a population estimated at about 2.5 million. The founders were able to compose a philosophically inspired Declaration and Constitution of ideal sorts without any immediate hard technical requirements for external reasons that required the creation of large social institutions and government bureaucracies immediately (so far as I know). Creating a military was a natural response for the founders to external challenges posed by the British army. Even so the founders were wary of a large standing army and preferred an armed militia for long range defense.
Russia passed through a minarchist moment perhaps during the 1993 coup attempt and conflict between Yeltsin’s forces and the supreme Soviet communist remnants in the White House (seat of Russian congressional-style government) when the former Soviet government was decisively, conclusively broken and buried (although 20% of elected officials in the Duma remain communist party members). Yeltsin tried to privatize allowing oligarchs to take much of the former state properties of value, yet nationally the economy collapsed in 1998. Yeltsin eventually appointed Vlad Putin to lead the government and he was elected for-himself as President later. Yeltsin had enabled the President to have super-powers to in effect redesign the structure of government quite a bit as well as to conduct foreign policy. For Russia was redesigning itself and that process continues today-many Americans don’t understand that.
I tend to regard organizations as more or less equal. Any large organization can govern itself and sometimes they govern others outside the organization. It seems to me that organizations diminish individual power. It also seems that governments should reduce to a minimal size for operating efficiency, just as an automobile engine doesn’t need to put on a lot of extra parts and weight to work optimally.
Organizations should be limited in size in order to be more governable by the government that needs to be large enough to govern the largest organizations and all of them as well as individuals. The larger the non-governmental organization is the greater are the challenges that it can present to the organization that officially is the government.
The problem of concentrated wealth today in the United States is a problem of large organizations partly owned by individuals invested in many of them. When too much capital is concentrated in the few the many have little chance of advancing social policy or private enterprises without first submitting to the will of the non-governmental organizational powers that hold most capital.
Achieving a minarchist state that is efficient in the United States would require a reform of capitalism in order to break up the concentration of wealth and size of private corporations. Government might then be reduced in size too, and networks of social services coordinated by the government might be innovated to enable private sources to supply private needs of citizens better than usually occurs in many societies where the natural revenues of the land have been historically expropriated by human overuse and people are left to fend for themselves within a totalized urban environment as derelicts and cast-off waste elements of capitalism.
To innovate government and capital theory upgrades Congress would need to pass some laws that prompt the changes. For instance, patent exclusivity could be reduced to three years and inventors would receive 10% royalties after that from anyone with the capital that produces the product and sells it. Government would not own business,yet governments would pass laws that screened businesses start-ups and prioritize those for advancement that are ecospherically most efficient and synergetic.
No corporations could have more than 20,000 employees. The upper tax rate would be 90%. The government revenues would enable better screening and discretion of start ups, ecosphere recovery and continuing free education.
Numerous other changes would need to be made that would allow an ecospheric economic management synergy with ecospheric recovery and sustainable though gradual economic qualitative progress that guards the well-being of all citizens simultaneously. Government size reduction can be compensated for with increased government networked intelligence as a discrete rather than monolithic governing structure.
In a totalized social-territorial national paradigm all citizens need work or basic necessities from some source. Private enterprise can provide those needs or government may, yet a government-private sector cooperative structure that assures that all citizens are assured of meeting basic needs and lifelong education would be possible and a good way to coordinate with ecosphere repair and maintenance. The failures to screen businesses for ecospheric synergy or neutrality and to keep citizens from being broke at the bottom with national job insecurity are problems implicit within the economic and government structures that could be corrected reforming government and corporate structure.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-being-homeless-illegal-ohio-court-rulings-raise-the-question/ar-BBLWc2v
The United States accomplished over two centuries solutions to challenges Russia has been presented with since 1990 for governance and government mass private organizational business relationships. The Russian creation of new developments is more challenging than the fast-track evolution required of Russia, yet the structure of the United States is paradigmatically obsolete in several respects. It is as if old structures of business never were replaced or upgraded; merely expanded. Government-capital relationships has mostly just grown larger with new institutions added over the centuries instead of being philosophically evaluated for relevance to the very different social and environmental challenges of the present day than those of 1776.
No comments:
Post a Comment