Kakha Bendukidze

1. Bij de benoeming van Kakha in juni schreef de Moscow Times dat hij venootschapsbelasting wenst af te schaffen en enkel natuurlijke personen wenst te belasten.
   Reden die hij daarvoor aanvoert is dat enkel natuurlijke personen stemrecht hebben.
   Dit is het oude “No taxation, without representation”.
   Via de stembus kunnen de belastingbetalers dan de belastingen afschaffen.
   Maar werd hier niet onlangs betoogd dat stemmen immoreel, of althans nutteloos, is?

   http://www.themoscowtimes.c…
   UITREKSEL
   Bendukidze was tightlipped about concrete remedies, but said that Georgia is in for wholesale tax reforms. He said the tax burden would be shifted from companies to individuals, which would make citizens more responsible for political decisions taken in the country.
   "Those who pay taxes are the ones who vote," he said.

2. GOUDEN KANSEN

   Samenwerking met buitenlandse geestverwanten is mogelijk de meest effectieve manier om een voorbeeld te stellen t.b.v. politieke en economische hervormingen in Nederland.
   Een kat in het bakje van de Frederik Bastiatstichting ?

3. Het gevaar bestaat inderdaad dat privatiseringen uiteindelijk de ‘oligarchen’ ten goede komen.

   Ik zou mr. Bendukidze dan ook aanbevelen om het volgende artikel van Murray Rothbard te lezen:
   “How and How Not to Desocialize”
   http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard143.html

4. De staat ‘privatiseren’ is niet wat klassiek-liberalen of minarchisten willen, want dan krijg je anarchisme of anarcho-kapitalisme en dat is in niemands belang. Wel dat de staat wordt teruggedrongen tot haar essentie, d.w.z. veiligheid en bescherming bieden aan de burgerij.

   Dit is wat Nelson Hultberg van Americans for a Free Republic zegt hierover:

   Lest I be misunderstood here, this is not an appeal for economic anarchy. Government has a definite role to play in society. Its duties are to punish criminals who violate the laws of the land, and this means businessmen like Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski and Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling. But it means that the government should stay out of the area of attempting to control the commerce and the money of a nation. Men work far more productively and honestly when their decisions are left unencumbered to be judged by the rigors of the marketplace and not by the corruptible souls of regulatory bureaucrats. Their efforts are far more magnanimous when their wealth is not stolen from them through currency debasement.

   en hier:

   Anarcho-Capitalism. This is the political system advocated by the followers of Murray N. Rothbard (For a New Liberty) and Bruce L. Benson (The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State). It declares the Constitution to be invalid, and all organized state functions to be immoral. According to these theorists, all functions of the state should be abolished — not only the tyrannical functions such as redistribution of income and social engineering, but also the protective functions such as the military, police and courts of law. They insist that everything should be privatized and provided by the marketplace. Thus, anarcho-capitalists do not really want to eliminate the “protective” government functions; they just want to change them from state provided to privately provided institutions.
   This writer sees in such a political philosophy the same impossible utopianism that devoured the far left socialists of the early 20th century. At that time, the collectivist theme was: “As soon as the Utopia is realized, the State will wither away.” Today, anarcho-capitalists sing the opposite tune: “As soon as the State withers away, the Utopia will be realized.” Both proclamations fail to grasp the true nature of human beings and the necessary essentials for a society of law. Both are attempts to convert an evil into a workable ideal through the evasion of reality.
   They purposely term themselves “anarcho-capitalists” so as to distinguish themselves from total anarchy. The basic premise of the Rothbardians is that if left alone in the absence of a mandatory state apparatus, men would form their own necessary armies and police forces privately via the profit motive, and by so doing, would avoid the chaotic Hobbesian war of all against all that pure anarchy would be.
   Rothbardians will dispute it, but in an anarcho-capitalist society, all mega-corporations would have their own armies and police forces. So also would the AFL-CIO, the Mafia, the NAACP, the Catholic Church, and Donald Trump. Any person, group, business, labor union, or religious sect could and would form their own private defense agencies to protect their interests and their constituents, all according to their concept of what is right.
   I think it is fair to say that less government is certainly needed in the modern world, but the anarchist libertarians go far beyond the pale. In trying to link capitalism to a privatized military, police, and court system, they diminish the credibility of free enterprise in the eyes of all rational intellects. Unthinkingly they lend strength to the collectivist claim that capitalism is the “rule of the jungle.” This is no way to launch a freedom movement to challenge the tyranny of modern statism.

   Antal Fekete noemde Rothbard een cultist, vanwege zijn anarchistische denkbeelden, terwijl Ludwig von Mises en Friedrich von Hayek de staat een sociaal instituut noemden. Zelfs Frank Chodorov, het voorbeeld van Murray Rothbard vond de staat een gegeven in de opbouw van een gemeenschap.

   In feite is de overheid dus een noodzakelijk kwaad om het eigendomsrecht te beschermen via rechtspraak gebaseerd op natuurlijke vrijheden en kadasterregistratie.

   Daarom bestaan er ook geen (anarcho-kapitalistische of anarchistische samenlevingen, wel minarchistische of klassiek-liberale. Dit omdat de eerste nooit levensvatbaar is geweest en de tweede wel.

Comments are closed.