I have been hard at work dealing with one of the biggest paradoxes that comprises who I am as a person.

I detest socialism, and see it as being impractical on a large scale (such as ANY sizable government), and yet, I equally detest the money at all costs mentality of many capitalists today. It is equally impractical, and has led to a state of economic feudalism rather than capitalism. This system hurts far more than it helps, as it is reliant upon an oppressed majority for the comfort of a minority.

Capitalism as a pure theory is not malicious. Within its confines, everyone should have equal opportunity to build and create their own fortune and pass it on to their descendants. Build a better mousetrap, market it, and there you go. The problem is, the American "capitalist" system has been infused with a dangerous amount of legislation that prohibits a truly capitalist society from emerging. Antitrust laws, while benificent in their genesis, have been emasculated by the fact that the major corporations have found their way around them (example: is anyone reading this in an area NOT serviced by SBC?). Thus, the antitrust laws have been engineered as a weapon against the little guy rather than a corporation.

Here's an example: I have a friend who makes trailers. He is trying to get his manufacturer's license and is fighting an uphill battle against the innumerable inane environmental laws. Yet, when and if he is set up for manufacturer, I, as a friend, cannot BUY a trailer from him. The reason? I am not a dealer, and he can only sell to dealers. Now, this is because of antitrust laws, mind you, but it has only served to create yet another middleman, driving up the end cost for the consumer (me). This is the antithesis of a free enterprise system.

A true free enterprise system creates an interesting scenario for the modern socialist. Instead of relying on the state, a group of like minded socialists would be well advised to form a socialist community. Allow the city government to work as a coop, and use the city's resources to set up enterprises for the common good of the community. This has actually been done before, and the successes and failures of such communities can and should be studied in implementing modern, workable solutions (Dyess, Arkansas, was such an experiment in the 1930's). By utilizing an egalitarian cooperative structure in their enterprises, socialist minded individuals can reduce overhead by eliminating costly executive salaries. The result is a cheaper product and a larger potential margin. The free enterprise system will also allow the socialist community to sell their products for the best possible price, whereas a socialist federal government would put price controls in place that would seriously limit the earnings potential of the cooperative business.

To move towards the future, we must be inclined to learn from the successes and failures of the past. We need look no further than the socialist governments set in place to see a socialist government as an impractical solution if we are to achieve a better quality of life. And yet, we need look no further than the working conditions of the late 19th and early 20th century to see that a pure, unchecked capitalist system can be equally damaging to an improved quality of life. The answers, as I see them, are learning from the successes and failures of each, creating a smaller federal government, and giving communities more autonomy in determining what economic policies will best serve the needs of their populous.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish