The Proper Role of Government

[Imperial Power]

The Proper Role of Government
Understanding the difference between protecting rights and mob rule:
An essay illustrating the consequences of forgetting that a constitutional republic is not the same thing as a democracy. by David Rafner

Imagine you live in a small frontier town. You are the most successful merchant and own a beautiful ranch. On the outskirts of town lives a gang of thugs shacked up in some abandon barns. One day the gang rides up to the town hall. Citizens gather nearby and watch anxiously. In loud voices the gang calls to the city council members who then assemble out on the front steps.

The gang lays out their grievances and their proposed remedies. They are poor, ignorant and surly because they have been mistreated by the rest of the town folks. They were beaten as children; their parents were alcoholics or criminals; they had learning disabilities; they could not find jobs. ‘Social’ justice demands that their sad state of affairs be corrected and that their living standards be "equalized". They state that a nice start would be an improvement in their housing. They've found a ranch that they would like to live on – your ranch.

Their ultimatum is that they get your ranch or they'll vandalize the whole city. The council members turn to you in relief. “My goodness,” they say, “I thought we were in real trouble. It seems all they want is your ranch. We're sure in the name of the public good, you'll be all to happy give it up. After all, we are all responsible for their misfortunes and you would not have a ranch if people in the town had not bought things from you.” Many in the crowd murmur their approval.

Your response is. “No Way. I earned it by my own effort. It's mine and I'm not giving it up.”

A few jeers of “selfish bastard” arise from the crowd. You are unmoved.

With disbelief and indignation, the council members turn to each other and take a vote. “There now, they say, we're the duly elected representatives, and it's unanimous. We vote that you will give up your ranch. We're not taking everything you own. We see that you don't agree with us but surely you can understand how dangerous they are. Surely you see we need to appease them?”

Without hesitation you reply, “No I don't. Our town charter doesn't say anything about appeasement. It doesn't say anything about collective responsibility for someone else's misfortunes. It doesn't say you get to pick-out whose property to sacrifice. The council exists to make laws to protect my property. The sheriff exists to enforce those laws. Use whatever force is necessary to get rid of these stinking thugs. Deputize me and I will help.”

“Come now,” the chairman retorts, “there is no need to insult these fine gentlemen. We need to have toleration and respect for everyone. Of course we are here to make and enforce laws. That's the democratic way, right? But we have to keep the public good at heart. That's our real purpose, you know. You have so much and they have so little.”

Turning to the crowd the council chairman calls out for a quick poll. “Everyone in favor of taking the ranch say, aye.” A loud chorus of approval goes up. You see your friends the local banker, doctor, and grocer among the crowd. The chairman smiles ingratiatingly at you. “You see, everything here is perfectly democratic!”

Defiant you reply, “I DO NOT CONSENT. It doesn't matter what you vote. When I moved into this town I consented to be governed for my PROTECTION not to be looted. You are worse than these thugs. They hardly make a pretense about what they are doing. Your job is to defend me. Instead you're volunteering to use your office to enrich them with stolen property!”

In an angry tone the chairman snaps back, “These men's claims sound very reasonable and I just don't see why you're not more than happy to help. I always suspected you were a greedy S.O.B. You've been successful and now you think you should get off without giving back to our community. We'll we've taken a vote fair and square and that's all there is to it. You might not like our decision but you have to abide by the majority vote just the way the rest of us do. If you don't obey, then we will naturally arrest you and seize your ranch.”

“Furthermore, it seems to me you're being very irrational about this issue, after all there's really no difference from our decision to take your ranch and the high taxes we voted to put on the wealthy last year. You're by far the wealthiest person in town and you paid more than anyone else."

You think for a moment. You look out at the crowd, the gang, then at the chairman. You smile. “In that last regard sir, I would have to agree with you. You may have the ranch tomorrow.”

With an air of snide superiority, the chairman quips back, “There, see now, we've been able to take care of this matter with out using any force at all. It's so much better when people voluntarily comply in a democracy.”

The next day you sell your business and leave town. On your way out you notice the gang once again assembled threateningly in front of city hall. The council members are quietly negotiating with them. Standing silently next to the nervously smiling chairmen is the town doctor. You note all the color seems to have gone out of his face and he is staring vacantly into the distance. You ride on and don't look back

[libereco]

now thats a very (un)interesting story and all, but it doesn't relate to socialism in any way.

You don't honestly believe that the people who work hardest on this planet get the most money do you?

[vox]

What foolishness! It's no wonder that right-wing capitalist sympathizers take it to heart, for foolishness is their language.

What amazes me is that "freedom" loving right-wingers assume that democracy is akin to lawlessness, which I've not heard anyone propose. Indeed, please pick through the writings of Marx and find a supporting quote from an actual leftist. I know you capitalist sympathizers like a good morality tale, but let's step out of fantasyland and discuss reality.

Parables only work when they represent the truth, which should be obvious.

vox

[peaccenicked]

crusoe claims island for himself, tells Man friday he wont give into mob rule . man friday starves to death. Goverments should potect crusoe. Imperial. You do have the morality of a spoilt child.
Try living in the real world.
What's wrong with the WTO, IMF and World Bank?
Capitalist economists, media magnates, business people and politicians tell us that we are moving towards a “globalised” world economy in which capital and investment can move around freely and the Third World can compete in a “free” international market.



In reality, all that is being globalised is poverty and the power of the huge corporations based in the advanced capitalist countries and international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The vast majority of the owners, sales and production of the world's biggest corporations remain in the rich capitalist countries. According to the United Nations' World Investment Report 1993, in that year there were 37,000 transnational corporations, which had 170,000 subsidiaries abroad. Ninety per cent had their headquarters in the developed capitalist countries.

The vast majority of investment and trade is also confined to the First World. In 1992, 60% of international investment and 84% of world trade flowed between North America, western Europe and Japan.



World wealth
Inequality between the First and Third Worlds is growing, not decreasing: the average per capita income of the richest countries was 11 times that of the poorest countries in 1870, 38 times in 1965 and 58 times in 1985.

According to the UN Human Development Report 1997, the combined wealth of the 225 richest people in the world was more than $1.7 trillion, equal to the annual income of some 2.5 billion people (47% of the world's population).

Within the First World countries, government policies driven by businesses pursuit of more and more profits -- cutting welfare, health and education funding, and shifting the tax burden onto ordinary people -- are creating increasing inequality. In the Third World, direct colonial subjugation has given way to other methods of keeping the people poor and extracting increasing profits.

The debt owed by Third World countries to the IMF, World Bank and major First World banks totals more than US$2030 billion (not including debts incurred by eastern European countries), an increase from $567 billion in 1980 and $1400 billion in 1992. Servicing this debt cripples Third World economies.

The poor countries' debt keeps growing. In 1997, the rich countries lent $8 billion to the poorest countries, while the latter repaid $8.2 billion. In return for loans, the IMF and World Bank demand that “structural adjustment programs” be implemented. These involve large-scale privatisation of public assets and the cutting of government spending on public services.

Huge debts promote an emphasis in government policy on export industries rather than meeting local needs. The debt also encourages unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, producing hunger and environmental devastation.

Much is being made of a debt relief plan announced last year by the United States and the other six powerful G7 countries. However, the plan will leave most poor countries paying nearly as much as they do now, and all debt relief is conditional upon closely monitored structural adjustment.



IMF and World Bank
The IMF's mission is to ensure financial “stability” by extending loans to impoverished countries to stabilise their currencies and meet debt repayments. The sums lent flow back into the coffers of the Western banks, whose loans were threatened by the instability. The debtor countries, however, still have to repay the loans with interest and abide by whatever conditions the IMF imposes (which are much the same as structural adjustment plans).

For example, the IMF encouraged Asian countries to open their borders to speculative finance invested in currency, stocks and short-term securities. The 1997-98 economic crisis in east Asia resulted from a sudden and massive withdrawal of this investment.

Once the crisis hit, the IMF made things worse by requiring structural adjustment as a condition for loans. The result was a surge in bankruptcies, lay-offs and poverty.

The IMF bailouts in Asia, like others in Russia and Mexico, meant that the Western banks avoided major losses, while the mass of people paid dearly.

The World Bank is supposed to provide “social” investment for poor countries. However, notorious examples of World Bank projects include the construction of dams and major infrastructure in these countries which produce little benefit for the people, and displace and destroy numerous communities.

The World Bank is supposed to alleviate poverty, but its International Finance Corporation finances and advises private sector ventures and projects in the Third World, in partnership with private companies including Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum and Coca-Cola.



The WTO
The WTO replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1995 as the international body to police trade “liberalisation” -- the removal of barriers to the importation of goods and foreign investment, and the removal of provisions which protect domestic industries and jobs.

A mutual opening up of markets always hurts the weakest economies. The historical subjugation of Third World economies has left them struggling with lower productivity rates and outdated technology, problems they cannot overcome because of the domination of the First World.

The WTO now covers services, as well as an extended range of industries, such as textiles and clothing, and agriculture. It can rule that environmental regulations are a barrier to trade and its control over intellectual property is currently under discussion (that is, the extent to which it should allow private ownership of commercially valuable knowledge like software, agricultural innovations and even plants, animals and genetically modified organisms).

Countries not participating in the WTO are denied access to markets. Punitive economic sanctions can be imposed on those countries that do not comply with WTO agreements. Only the most powerful players -- like the US -- can ignore or bend the rules.



Enough!
The IMF, World Bank and WTO do not exist to help the Third World. They exist to impose those economic policies agreed on by the First World countries which control these institutions.

In the IMF and World Bank, the decisions are made on a vote-per-dollar basis. The WTO has a one-member, one-vote constitution, but key decisions are made in informal meetings among the key countries.

Resistance believes that these institutions should be abolished and all Third World debt must be cancelled. We would also support the formation of alternative international bodies.

At the G-77 heads of state and government meeting in Havana, Cuba, April 12-14, Cuban President Fidel Castro proposed a 1% tax on speculative financial transactions which would “permit the creation of a large indispensable fund, in excess of US$1 trillion every year, to promote real, sustainable and comprehensive development in the Third World”.

Such policies would help, however the might of large corporations and the governments of the advanced capitalist countries needs to be abolished too if real equality and justice are to prevail. Campaigns such as those outlined is this broadsheet are stepping-stones towards the goal of a new, democratic and socialist world run in the interests of people, not private profit.


All imperial advocates is more deregulation so capitalists can plunder more.

[vox]

No response for this, imperialist? One might draw the conclusion that you are a fool who knows not what he copies and pastes, and that's the best conclusion. Others may think you a terrible coward for starting threads and not answering them.

vox

[Jurhael]

He's just stupid. That article was nothing but straw man bullshit. And the rancher was a piece of shit. I bet those people were glad he left.

Read between the lines and you'll find that the role of the government is to be a dictatorship for those who aren't wealthy landowners.

(Edited by Jurhael at 6:52 pm on Feb. 2, 2002)

[Moskitto]

It would also be good if he actually used some original work rather than copying and pasting capitalism.org, I mean if he wants to tell us what capitalism.org says he could just post the link in one post and save a hell of a lot of webspace.