We Are Almost there ...
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Thank you Registered!
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 06/16/2002 12:02:26 PM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
since there will be no remaining source of external free-market capitalism to stop the endgame chaos, what will the global dictatorship look like?
Remember that while Marx hated capitalists, his war was with the bourgeoisie. The capitalists control the wealth, but the middle class represents the cultural intertia that maintains the status quo. They must be utterly destroyed if Marx's brand of economic evolution is to take place.
Which explains neo-socialists like Ted Kennedy. Their position at the top of the economic food chain is kept secure by throwing the wolves the bleeding bodies of working-class men and women.
Well, I don't know that it'll be a "dictatorship" with one individual anointed as the global "emporor".
It is more likely that there would be somekind of ruling, global Politburo, or pehaps even 3, 4 or 5 global politburos that work in co-operation with each other to maintain power. Perhaps even more since at some level, the term "politburo" will be indistinguishable from "board of directors". Similarly, global fascism will take on a resemblence to some kind of 21st Century feudalism.
It's not a very attractive forecast, but the trend is there.
IJ, It also explains government subsidizing the movement of livable wage jobs offshore, and the "turn your back" policies on immigration, and the education policies so warmly embraced by both{?} parties over the last few years. The transition is NOT happenstance. The middle class has too much power to be "ruled". But, that is being changed FAST!! Peace and love, George.
WG, It IS in motion. Like the author, I am wondering where the planners are expecting the "outside" help to come from when chaos reigns. Maybe Mars? Peace and love, George.
Once an economic factor has been rendered into a democratized commons, claims against uses producing transformation products can then be effected through the courts. These claims can be brought by anyone and focus exclusively upon controlling negatively valued transformation products without consideration of the total integrated impact of the contested use. (Since when did anybody sue in order to pay for a positive externality?)SourceAs concentrations of transformation products in process outputs approach zero, minute reductions in pollutants can greatly increase the cost of treatment. As the cost of compliance consumes a higher fraction of the sale price of the economic good, the return on the original use approaches zero. Once the return on assets goes negative, investment in improving technology to reduce production of negative externalities becomes negatively valued as well. Few would develop new control technology because few could pay for it. If there is no return on the use of the asset, that use of the property will be abandoned, as it has become a zero-priced good. Negative investment return destroys the market value of the use.
Both claimant and agent are thus motivated to focus upon those transformation products that are most difficult to control, because it is those properties that are most likely to convert the use of the asset to that which they prefer. The fight between landowners, regulators, and activists then degenerates into increasingly trivial arguments regarding specifications, measurements, and enforcement that have increasingly large financial consequences for the owner. Remedial measures thus structurally diverge from an objective assessment of the total impact upon environmental health because that was never the claimants’ primary objective.
Rarely does either acquiring interest consider the possible unintended consequences of their actions, among other reasons because they have little experience in actual operations and no accountability for the consequences. The legal process is thus alienated from its purpose to establish justice, just as the regulatory process is directed away from ecological health. There is little civic accountability for maintaining a successful balance among competing interests, indeed, very likely the contrary is true. Problems are sources of civic claims by which to control the entire economy, a motivational structure antithetical to the very purpose of regulation.
As claims proliferate, the legislatures and courts are overwhelmed with cases that are technical and difficult to prove. They rely upon opinions from supposedly disinterested experts regarding the impacts of transformation products. Neither legislators or courts have the power to enforce a judgement; that power lies exclusively with the executive branch of government. The demand for expediency seduces legislatures and the courts to default upon their Constitutional responsibility, to the only civic agency with relevant expertise and police power. Control of use and, thus ownership of that use, is effectively transferred to the executive branch of government.
When taking land out of production profits the financial sponsors of a claim, it is cheaper to control the target use than to compensate the owner or buy the property. All it takes to manipulate a resource market by democratic means is to buy out the competition by manipulating majority perceptions about the risk of ecological harm associated with that target use. The few who can profit by taking competing resources out of production then have reason to sponsor the investment in political or legal action. They focus the first case against a weak target or obvious problem (which is why most such takings appear as local actions).
Established precedent then extends the applicability of cited legislation and lowers the cost successive claims. Property owners gradually lose their ability to finance the cost of compliance or legal resistance. Absent a profitable use, the market value of the target use approaches zero. After repeated exercise of external controls, purchase of the residual asset value concludes any remaining claim by an owner.
When a rival owner produces a competing or substitute good, the financial advantages of such tacit property acquisitions can be enormous. For example, if a developer funded public concerns about the negatively valued transformation products of farming to render the use of farmland non-economic and ripe for development, the land becomes less expensive to purchase.
This politically-sponsored dissolution of the Separation of Powers Principle, combines all three branches of government into one, that can derive power and funding by manufacturing claims on the use of property. The more externalities are regulated, the more power accrues to the agency to control the use of the producing asset to turn its use to corrupt purpose. When agency control is sufficient to alienate the interest of the agent from the democratic majority, the asset has then degenerated into a socialized commons.
The claims by which a commons is socialized are ironically often the same precedents as were used to extend the original democratic claim; i.e., by extending claims against the transformation products of the democratic use of the resource. With the legal precedents in place that were used to take control of the factors of production on individual property, the civic agent now has the legal tools to take control of ALL related private property. Control of the use of land is now in the hands of an agency that is alienated from accountability to the public claim for healthy ecosystem function. The agency instead serves the limited interests of the politically dominant, who use the power of government to gain de facto control of ALL factors of production.
History teaches that this is not a good thing.
Well, actually they are presently on their Fifth Republic.
During this time they have also had two (possibly three, depending on how you count) monarchies, two Empires, a Directorate, a Consulate, and whatever you want to call the Vichy regime.
That's a lot more than five governments!
IMO, we have been through and are in this phase right now. Frederic Bastiat, in 1850, stated one of the tenets of socialism is to force consumers to buy goods in order to keep the 'economy' going. The IRS is part of this scheme. So are the legislators who write the laws.
To an extend, the same can be said about the republicans and demokrats. They make much hay about so called differences, but when it comes down to it, they both maintain the same socialist agenda.
Stay Safe !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.