| A computer really isn't a means for production, because its results are in information, not physical commodities. In effect, if Y2K did destroy all modern electronic devices, civilization would still survive.
To oversimplify a bit, having a farmer who owns 1000 acres of arable land is an inherent threat to the wellbeing of everyone who is not that farmer - without government regulation, he is a baron: In control of the lives of everyone who needs to eat. This is true of the Real Estate industry, Utilities and Transportation, and even the Auto and Oil industries depending on where in America you live, thanks to our love of explosive suburban growth.
Hell, just check the Ford Industry's history with Los Angeles' trolley system for proof of why property rights are dangerous to the community overall. You forget that those claiming that capitalism benefits all are usually those who own capital. Let's go back to that farmer. He now owns all the arable land in his county. People need to eat. He feels he is presenting them with a service by selling food to them which they otherwise could not have gotten; what's more, he's presenting them with yet another service because he employs some of them to work that very land - thus paying them a stipend.
Meanwhile, they're in a worse off position than before, because they're now subservient to him politically - not to mention that their benefits have lessened by the exact amount that he skims off for himself, be it money or food. Is he justified in rendering services? That's like taking credit for the air.
This is not to say that leaders are an inherently wrong thing. Just unaccountability.
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |