|
.
|
INTRODUCTION
This short paper is to inform the student or novice on the
different kinds of governments (one of them, Anarchy, is the
absence of government) that now exist in the world. It should
not be construed as a great work, steeped in theories of how
things should be, but rather a basic list of generalities. These
generalities are inevitable, as government is too complex and
too many combinations of these basic forms to fit this brief format.
Some license has been taken in order to simplify and make
these forms of government more understood. I also admit to
strong prejudice against at least one form (Communism, nor am I
a fan of Anarchy). With this in mind, let us begin.
PREFACE
Throughout the history of mankind we have formed governments
in order to accomplish goals which we as individuals could not
achieve. These goals, or in a deeper sense securities, include
protection of property, rights, security from foreign invasion
(especially from other tribes, nations, or peoples we feared),
and life. We therefore begin this paper with an examination of
Anarchy, or the absense of government.
ANARCHY
Anarchy is the absence of government. Where in history do we
find Anarchy? Not one great civilization, or nation, has arisen
which used Anarchy as its form of government. When nations or
civilizatons break down they become vulnerable to invasion or
simply fade from history. There are brief moments of Anarchy, this
vacuum is soon filled with tribal wars or rioting and looting until
some form of government takes its place. This often is the tribal or
clan or neighboring governments. Tribes and clans have their form
of government which can vary, mostly some form of fascist government.
Nature abhors a vacuum and so does mankind's social aspects.
Anarchy possibly could work, if mankind achieves a much higher
rationality than it possesses now. This system of no system can
only work if people have an extremely high esteem for their neighbors.
Otherwise, conflicts of property and emotions doom it to failure.
LIBERTARIANISM
Libertarianism has the potential of buiding nations and
civilizations. In fact, take out the slavery from the U. S.
Constitution and you have a fairly Libertarian government
started in 1789, although the Declaration of Independence
was more true to form of Libertarianism. This system can
vary somewhat, and Libertarians today certainly don't agree
on every issue, abortion for one. Some of them say that it
is none of the governments business, others say that it is
a legitimate function of even a small government to protect
life.
Libertarianism also seeps into other forms of governance.
Using abortion again, many Liberals agree with them on this,
although it conflicts with their ideals of bigger government.
Most prosperous nations today have some Libertarian ideals
at work within them. Chile is an example; as it has sought
to make its government smaller with less taxes, less regulation,
and privatization of government functions, it has prospered.
CONSERVATISM
Conservatives allow the government a greater power than most
Libertarians would. They also seem to be more nationalistic
with more concern about Defense and international treaties.
Conservatives also argue about abortion, but most seem to be
against allowing them except in cases of "rape and incest, or
when the mother's life is in danger". Many Conservatives embrace
Libertarian ideas on economics such as "supply side" economics,
some do not. In fact, this is a fairly modern view for Conservatives,
as up until Reagan, most enbraced high taxes in order to balance
the budget---the idea was that one should "conserve" the economy.
Most Conservatives want the government to grow at no more than
the rate of inflation, some view it as much too big now, so government
spending should actually decrease until it reaches an acceptable size.
Conservatives believe that private charities and private businesses
could perform many if not most of the functions of government, at
a more reasonable and voluntary cost.
MODERATION
The United States today is soaked in Moderation, or least
the modern form of it (we are actually quite Liberal, but definitions
change over time). Nearly all candidates for national office are
Moderates in some form. The extreme Liberal or extreme Conservative
rarely win elections, more's the pity. Barry Goldwater is an example,
he was protrayed as an extremist Conservative, so Moderates voted in
large numbers for a Liberal (LBJ) who greatly expanded the Federal
government. Goldwater's mild Conservative calls for less government
were somehow painted as "extremist", and it stuck. If a candidate
can successfully paint his opponent as an "extremist" Liberal or
Conservative, they are guaranteed to win this largest chunk of
American voters--the Moderates.
What have the Moderates accomplished for America? A slow erosion
of our property rights, more government, more taxes, all in an
effort to keep those "extremists" out of power. Moderates should
check both their premises and their facts more closely when voting.
LIBERALISM
Liberals use to be easy to spot, they would call themselves
progressives, and many actually admitted to being Liberals. It is hard
to find a politician today who will call himself a Liberal. And
why should they? They have achieved many of their goals---what
is left will be harder, as such things as universal health care
are hard to hide in the small print of Congressional Bills. The
slow slide into Liberalism has slowed, but it has been stopped
only in a few areas (such as returning welfare to the States).
As an example of one Liberal goal: handgun control. To most
Liberals this is near and dear to their hearts. The fact that
the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms is
just a minor inconvenience to them. They will keep plugging away;
through the courts, through the news media, and through campaign
contributions until handguns are virtually outlawed. Will this
then satisfy them? It is doubtful, long guns would have to be
phased out, sooner or later.
SOCIALISM
Socialism is so close to Liberalism that one would have to take
a microscope to tell them apart. There are some differences, I
suppose, as many Liberals are more private capital inclined than Socialists.
The biggest difference is that Socialists have achieved their goals,
and feel safe enough to call themselves what they really are. Of
course, the extremist Socialist bleeds over into the next category,
something a self-respecting Liberal would shutter to call themself.
FASCISM
Surprised? You shouldn't be. NAZI was short for National Socialist
Party. What can you say about this group? The government was big,
extremely big, controling virtually everything. Sure, they had private
enterprise, if you were what the government wanted you to be, and you
did exactly what you were allowed to do. Government was a huge part of
the GNP, with an extremely high percent of the people working for the
government. Spys are everywhere. How did this system differ from the
next group? Very little, indeed.
COMMUNISM
This is it folks, the highest form of government ever divised by
mankind, and therefore, it took the lowest form of mankind to maintain
it. The government is a huge entity, controlling virtually everything.
No private enterprise is allowed (except in very small controlled
environments, the USSR, for instance, allowed farmers to have one
acre plots for growing food they could sell on the market--although a
high percent of all of that nation's food was raised on these plots,
the Politboro cut it in half to keep the farmers dependent upon the
government). Government is the GNP, virtually everyone works for the
government. Spys are everywhere.
TOTALITARIANISM
Totalitarianism has never been achieved by any government in the
history of mankind. While some Fascist and Communist governments have
tried to achieve it, it is impossible for the government to control
100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time. Most Dictators
would prefer this form of government, but they usually can only
achieve Communist or Fascist forms.
CONCLUSION
I will be criticized for not mentioning Capitalism as a form of
government. It is not, nor will it ever be a form of government.
All enterprise, controlled by the state or in private hands, is
Capitalistic. Whether the government controls the capital or
individuals, or whether that capital is monetary or human, all
economics have to begin with capital. Marx clearly knew this, his
idea was for the government to own all the capital, instead of
individuals. He wished to empower the individual, by taking all
of the power from the individual, fuzzy logic, indeed.
This paved the way to where the end justifies the means,
in both Fascism and Communism.
Also, I will get criticism for not mentioning Democracy, Republics,
Constitutional Democracy, etc., these are the tools of the trade,
not the ultimate form a government takes. What difference does it
make if people vote themselves into Communism, or if they don't,
as long as they get there?
|
