I do not think that capitalism itself is inherently the problem here. I think what destroys communities is the need for people to move every time they get a new job. I think that much of the moving is a corporate thing. People who are self-employed or who work for small business tend to stay put. Entrepreneurs also tend to stay put. The businesses may come and go, but the people remain in the same location.

I think much of corporate America exists not as a result of unregulated free markets, but due to regulation that protects big corporations from competitive start ups. Even Chomsky has admitted this, yet still believes that protecting corporate America is a good thing.

I believe those that want to encourage and protect stable communities should work to eliminate the regulation that favors large corporations and penalizes small business. I believe a true free market system will necessarily consists mostly of small to medium sized companies because the larger an organization is, the more bureaucratic and less competitive it is. An economy based on small to medium sized businesses will be more stable and more conducive to community because people will not have to move as often. They can start new businesses at home.

I also think “conservatives” should promote biotech and especially the DIY biotech movement. Most biotech companies I know tend to be small (10 employees or less) and, thus, more conducive to small-town community environment. The DIY biotech movement will do to medicine what the PC/Internet did to information. It will move biomedical innovation from the giant pharmaceuticals to smaller organizations.

When people talk about decentralization, crunchy con, and the like, perhaps they could use some assistance from the decentralization of technology. I'm talking an Army of Davids:

http://armyofdavids.com/

Posted by: kurt9 on March 20, 2009 2:08 PM

Nobody serious claims that capitalism is intrinsically conservative. It is more conservative than the typical coercive progressive/socialist program, but only because it is willing to let people choose tradition, where that is economically viable (or irrelevant). Nineteenth century capitalists were "liberals" - opposed to the old order of aristocracy, established churches, and the like. Capitalists are of course opposed to the confiscation and redistribution of wealth, which put them in alliance with the old landholders.

As for the "Israel Lobby" - Freeman fell on his own deeds: his long history of shilling for Arab money, his apologetics for the butchers of Tianmen. Any number of opposing Senators and Representatives have said they heard nothing from the dreaded Israel Lobby, much less marching orders. Freeman has long been part of the very-well-funded "Arab Lobby"; his insistence that opposition to him must be a plot reeks of "projection".

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on March 22, 2009 9:30 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?