Back in the day, they called themselves Federalists, and longed for unified control of the entire nation "for the good of all". That's the real reason for the hatred of the Articles of Confederation. They were deemed "ineffective" because they were a system of distributed powers rather than of centralized control.
The problem with labels is they're never exactly right. The traditional academic definition of communism requires public ownership, which modern commies are always careful to avoid. The valid question of whether we actually own things we can't control only distracts us from the real issues, which are how much intrusion we'll tolerate. Civilization requires rules, or we're left with anarchy. So most people accept that something between anarchy and imprisonment is in our best interests. The arguments come from differences of opinion on where to split that difference.
There are always some ambitious people who want to impose their opinions on everyone else, and incompetent people willing to let them. Most of us don't want them controlling us, but still want the incompetents controlled.
What we really need is less incompetent people. Violent and property crimes make some want more rules and more control. Competent people just improve their own protection, and chafe when the rules for incompetents are applied to us.
The solution is to limit the power of bureaucrats to control us. The call to defund police is an example. If there were no cops, anywhere, I'll be fine. Others won't be. So my generosity and empathy says I'll tolerate some policing, but I'll try to keep it minimal. The main tool for controlling that balance in our mutant system of capitalist communism is the budgets. I work to get politicians elected who favor smaller government, at all levels, and to keep reminding them of their duty to restrain spending on the bureaucracy. Others want more protection, more government -- more socialism -- so they elect ambitious people who will increase those controls -- incremental socialism. Successful societies keep the balance toward less control. As government grows, we fail, step by step, day by day. It's our fault.
Back in the day, they called themselves Federalists, and longed for unified control of the entire nation "for the good of all". That's the real reason for the hatred of the Articles of Confederation. They were deemed "ineffective" because they were a system of distributed powers rather than of centralized control.
The problem with labels is they're never exactly right. The traditional academic definition of communism requires public ownership, which modern commies are always careful to avoid. The valid question of whether we actually own things we can't control only distracts us from the real issues, which are how much intrusion we'll tolerate. Civilization requires rules, or we're left with anarchy. So most people accept that something between anarchy and imprisonment is in our best interests. The arguments come from differences of opinion on where to split that difference.
There are always some ambitious people who want to impose their opinions on everyone else, and incompetent people willing to let them. Most of us don't want them controlling us, but still want the incompetents controlled.
What we really need is less incompetent people. Violent and property crimes make some want more rules and more control. Competent people just improve their own protection, and chafe when the rules for incompetents are applied to us.
The solution is to limit the power of bureaucrats to control us. The call to defund police is an example. If there were no cops, anywhere, I'll be fine. Others won't be. So my generosity and empathy says I'll tolerate some policing, but I'll try to keep it minimal. The main tool for controlling that balance in our mutant system of capitalist communism is the budgets. I work to get politicians elected who favor smaller government, at all levels, and to keep reminding them of their duty to restrain spending on the bureaucracy. Others want more protection, more government -- more socialism -- so they elect ambitious people who will increase those controls -- incremental socialism. Successful societies keep the balance toward less control. As government grows, we fail, step by step, day by day. It's our fault.
Spot on... the crushing of Individual Rights and Free Enterprise.