The Balanced Center
In my opinion, all political thought can be grouped into one of four groups: Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and Anarchy. In the description below I define the inherent weaknesses of each in an effort to point out the need to stay in perfect balance between them all to avoid the ever-present danger of Despotism.
I’ve taken 6 characteristics found in any political system and redefined each as it would be applied in each of the four groups. These 6 point are:
1. General condition
2. Ownership of property
3. Distribution of property
4. Enforcement
5. Leadership
6. Elections or representation
Note: The definitions below describe Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and Anarchy in their purest or “ideal” state. Also, my definition of Despotism is: The absolute rule, by fear and violence of Kings, Dictators, or Oligarcies over all of society.
Now, moving from Left to Right:
Communism:
1. Would work if all people were righteous – if they are not, they will slip into Despotism
If all people were righteous, there would be no need for a government. A true “Communist Government” cannot exist, it is a self-contradiction.
2. No private property – government owns all
There is no reason or motivation to produce unless you are righteous AND everyone else is righteous.
3. All property is distributed evenly
There is no accountability or reward for effort. Everyone gets the same regardless of talent or work ethic.
4. Must rely on force
Persons cannot “opt-out” of the system. Only one exception will defeat the whole structure.
5. One person or select group of officials are in charge
Some entity (either a person or group) must have power to enforce common ownerships and settle disputes. This granted power over literally everything puts that entity “above” others and thus nullifies true Communism.
6. No free elections
Freely elected officials must conform to the shifting will of the electors and not to the principles of Communism. Consultation with an unrighteous (naturally greedy) general electorate will only serve to undermine common ownerships.
Socialism:
1. Will eventually slip into Communism
With no limit to what the government CAN control, any time there is a seeming disparity or injustice in any segment of society (health care, education, food, family relations, etc.), the government will be asked to “correct” it. Over time “injustices” will be found in ALL facets of society.
2. Some private property – government owns or controls most
Motivation in acquiring property is limited since there are no secure safeguards against government seizure for the “public good.”
3. Property distribution is controlled
Personal ability and work ethic become less important as the majority, rather than the individual decides what is “proper” for any single person to have.
4. Needs critical amount of compliance
A majority of the electorate must be “on the bandwagon” for a socialist government to function to an even limited degree. There must always be an oppressed minority (or occasionally a majority) who do not need or want particular Socialist services but they must comply for socialism to work. If they do not, or cannot comply, corruption spreads and more reactionary controls start to grow.
5. Elected officials have virtually limitless power
Without specific limits as to the proper role of government, officials can change “the rule of law” to fit the needs or wants of their electorate or, in many cases, to whatever they personally feel is best.
6. Free elections
Voters can influence policy and have some say in public affairs.
Capitalism:
1. Will eventually slip into Anarchy
With very strict limits on the powers of government, unforeseen developments in society requiring some oversight will “pile up” and eventually lead to unjust concentrations of power beneath the protective umbrella of the government. Government will become increasingly irrelevant and anarchy will eventually ensue.
2. Private property is absolutely sacred – no government controls
Private property will impede needed public development or limit the protection of the larger community. One person or group will have disproportionate power due to the specific or amount of property they own.
3. Property distribution is based solely on ability
Disadvantaged persons or victims of circumstances outside their control, who through no fault of their own are unable to provide for their basic needs have no guaranteed public-based safeguards. They must rely completely on private affiliations, which may not exist, for relief. There is no need for government if it cannot provide a certain amount of protection.
4. Needs critical amount of compliance
A majority of the electorate must be “bought off” by those with the most property by manipulation or greed in order to maintain and grow their increasingly disproportionate power.
5. Elected officials have very limited power
With their hands tied to narrow law, officials cannot respond to emergencies effectively.
6. Free elections
Voters can influence policy and have some say in public affairs.
Anarchy:
1. Would work if all people were righteous – if they are not, they will slip into Despotism
If all people were righteous, there would be no need for a government. True “Anarchy” cannot exist, it will fall either into Despotism or a pure non-governmental Communism.
2. No private property – no true ownership
There is no motivation to produce beyond basic survival since everything is volatile and insecure.
3. Private property is limited to what is personally defendable
You cannot hold on to your gains except by personal brute force. Trusted alliances must be formed to defend property, but there is no outside entity (rule of law) to insure they remain trustworthy.
4. No law to comply with
In the absence of law everyone becomes a “law unto themselves” and ANYTHING is acceptable since no one is able to question or correct injustices on a consistent basis.
5. There are no elected officials
“Officials” will naturally develop, but they will most likely acquire their position by brute force or violence and will not be elected. Their reigns will be short, much like the alpha male in a wild dog pack.
6. No need or purpose for free elections
Power goes solely to the strongest. The will of the people is not consulted.
As you can see, none of these political states is ideal. In the absence of a righteous people, there will always be instances of injustice. The best that can be achieved in a fallen, all-too-human society is a perfect balance between these four philosophies. This state of political balance would be described as follows:
1. All laws must be made with awareness of the need for PERFECT balance. In some cases a “socialist” approach might be needed, such as a standing national defense system; but, it must be balanced with a “capitalist” counterweight such as the freedom of every citizen to bear arms.
2. Private property must be protected, but it must also not infringe on the ability of others to acquire property or purposely reduce the quality of life of others.
3. Distribution of property must be based on merit, but with strict controls set in place to insure that such property, once acquired, is not used to reduce the freedoms or unduly control the lives of others. The owner of a business cannot be allowed to dictate the lives, freedoms or abilities of those in his employ through economic or physical coercion.
4. The rule of law must be respected, but any individual or minority must be able to have an avenue of influence to ensure against oppression. Nearly absolute freedom of speech (but not necessarily action) must be held sacred and inviolate.
5. Elected officials must be given adequate freedom of rule within well specified spheres of authority. All leaders must have checks to their authority set in place to keep them within their proper bounds and to ensure honesty.
6. Free elections are an absolute necessity; but, in consideration of the human failings found in any society, a buffer should be in place to guard against the often reactionary whims of the general populace. This is best accomplished in a republic structure where all have a vote in choosing representatives, but those representative have adequate leeway in studying and addressing issues properly.
