Libertarians Are The Problem

[painted wolf]

See... if you don't want to be marginalized you have to get a better name!

Marketing 101.... I thought you guys were into the whole business thing.

wa:do

 

[TheKnight]

How on Earth did I miss this thread!?!

Social Anarchism is the way. (Or at least Libertarian Socialism...someone's gotta keep the power players in line).

I agree with you. Anarchism all the way. Those best suited to keep power players in line are the masses. Free people are the best counteraction to corrupt power players. Government is not the answer.

What makes you think the Invisible hand would be that efficient? Big Businesses have already proven that they're willing to commit practically every injustice possible when given the chance.

The "invisible hand" is a variable which represents the people. The people are best counterweights to Big Business.

The libertarian way to defeat small groups of powerful people is not to create other small groups of powerful people (IE government). History has shown us that doesn't work.

Rather, the best countermeasure to small groups of powerful people is the people. Corrupt businesses shouldn't be brought to justice by the government, rather they should go out of business because no one does business with them.

I find it ironic that those who seek justice against corrupt big business seem to blame everyone but the masses who keep those businesses going. Businesses do not succeed in vacuums. They need customers to fuel them. A corrupt business that has gotten big did not do so on its own. In fact, the only way for such a business to get big is for a corrupt society to tolerate it, to interact with it, to buy its products, and to keep it alive.

Sure, one could argue that government's job is to stop things like that from happening. But I don't think a small group of powerful people (ie elected officials) are going to side with the large group of weak people when siding with the corruption has such nice benefits.

Thanks to technology, we live in a time when direct democracy could be effective and powerful. The need for small distant groups of representatives is coming to an end.

Then, you are not a natural rights libertarian, who just want the government to protect property rights. Worth noting that the more government services you are in favour of keeping, and the more regulatory rules and enforcement you accept, the further away you move from libertarianism.

Libertarians don't advocate no government. They advocate having only as much government as is necessary (which in these times means less than what we have). That doesn't mean it is inconceivable that a day could come where libertarians thought more government was necessary.

A common misconception is that libertarians don't advocate any government programs. That simply isn't true. We simply believe in only having as many as are necessary.

Anarchists on the other hand, prefer that we have no government.

But since individuals have to be responsible to make the government and corporations responsible, I don't think Libertarianism can work effectively in our society, not when so many people are primarily concerned with what "I" get out of it.

What you're saying is that since people-at-large can't make government and corporations responsible the best response is to have a small group made of those same incapable people do the job instead? The logic doesn't flow.

In fact, the more irresponsible society gets the more you should advocate that the power rest with the irresponsible masses. Because if we believe that the people are not good enough to do the job, then logically speaking we should not hand the power of the job to a smaller group made up of the same people.

Unless, of course, you believe there is a qualified superior small group of people to choose from who can do the great and mighty job of regulation.

If Libertarianism cannot work, then civil society cannot work, and any facade that we live in a civil society is bound to perish with time.

Looks like private producers need to be coerced or they will in fact rip off entire industries worth of costly products.

Indeed. Private groups must be coerced by the threat of their businesses failing for engaging in corrupt and destructive practices. You cannot hate Walmart while continuing to shop there. To do so makes you a fool. For Walmart is only able to achieve its evil on the profits of its customers.

Replace 'walmart' with any corrupt company if it makes you feel better.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

 

[painted wolf]

In the age of "golden parachutes" the idea that the people who run mega corporations actually care if the business succeeds in the long run is quaint.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

]
I'm sorry, I misread. I thought you said Librarians. Never mind.

I read it as "Librarians" too....& it's my thread!

 

[TheKnight]

In the age of "golden parachutes" the idea that the people who run mega corporations actually care if the business succeeds in the long run is quaint.

wa:do

Such a parachute is only possible in the case of an already successful business. And if the business is already successful then the damage is already done.

 

[work in progress]

I agree with you. Anarchism all the way. Those best suited to keep power players in line are the masses. Free people are the best counteraction to corrupt power players. Government is not the answer.

Nonsense all the way! How are these "free people" supposed to fight back against corrupt power? The only legal means to reign in corporate power is through government regulation and taxation. Libertarians tell people to be afraid of government, but trust corporations which they have no leverage, unless they are major shareholders.

The "invisible hand" is a variable which represents the people. The people are best counterweights to Big Business.

The libertarian way to defeat small groups of powerful people is not to create other small groups of powerful people (IE government). History has shown us that doesn't work.

Rather, the best countermeasure to small groups of powerful people is the people. Corrupt businesses shouldn't be brought to justice by the government, rather they should go out of business because no one does business with them.

And this is why the invisible hand doesn't work as an effective regulating force in real life. Libertarian philosophy has brought deregulation and effectively ended enforcement of anti-trust laws and allowed corporate mergers to dominate markets and eliminate real competition. What real competition exists today among America's media entertainment conglomerates now that six corporations control 90% of U.S. media?

I find it ironic that those who seek justice against corrupt big business seem to blame everyone but the masses who keep those businesses going. Businesses do not succeed in vacuums. They need customers to fuel them. A corrupt business that has gotten big did not do so on its own. In fact, the only way for such a business to get big is for a corrupt society to tolerate it, to interact with it, to buy its products, and to keep it alive.

And how do we know which is and which is not a corrupt business in an era where the consumer is not guaranteed access to information? The companies engaging in fracking natural gas all across the Marcellus Shale and similar deposits, do not have to disclose what's in the mixture of fluids they're pumping into the wells; American consumers are forbidden to know whether the products they buy at the supermarket contain GMO sources....that's important to some people. Consumers are kept in a state of ignorance, and bombarded with a non-stop advertising assault, yet somehow act as an invisible hand to reign in corporations that have near monopoly control of major markets.

Sure, one could argue that government's job is to stop things like that from happening. But I don't think a small group of powerful people (ie elected officials) are going to side with the large group of weak people when siding with the corruption has such nice benefits.

Elected officials are not the powerful people! The power is in the puppetmasters who finance the campaigns of elected officials and promise back-door rewards in the private sector when they are out of office....or in many cases today, in between political campaigns.

Libertarians don't advocate no government. They advocate having only as much government as is necessary (which in these times means less than what we have). That doesn't mean it is inconceivable that a day could come where libertarians thought more government was necessary.

A common misconception is that libertarians don't advocate any government programs. That simply isn't true. We simply believe in only having as many as are necessary.

Anarchists on the other hand, prefer that we have no government.

Well, I don't have much regard for either libertarian or anarchists, whatever they claim to believe in, because they are philosophies motivated by self-interests, which somehow believe that everyone else acting likewise will work, and not degrade into some sort of dictatorship when the most powerful in the society decide to seize more wealth and power.

I don't buy this "limited government" thinking in the first place because a capitalist system cannot work without leading to inequality. But more importantly, we are reaching a time when government acting in the common interest will have to be put into practice because of worsening environmental crises facing the world. An example of how "limited government" fails would be the looming crisis that affects all Americans living in the interior, and dependent on the Oglala Aquifer for irrigation. The Oglala knows no state boundaries, and because of the lack of a national program to regulate water, the aquifer is being pumped down at such a precipitous rate it will be effectively pumped dry in 20 or30 years. What is the libertarian Ron Paul solution for ensuring that everyone living in that region has an adequate water supply?

 

[TheKnight]

--Utter nonsense--

I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that you were interested in a discussion based on knowledge and logic. I don't engage in discussions that reek of unfounded assumptions and a lack of logic and understanding of simple things like basic economics, the current state of things, and how we got there.

I understand. You wish to discuss things like puppetmasters and the like. I will not engage in such a discussion with you.

 

[painted wolf]

Such a parachute is only possible in the case of an already successful business. And if the business is already successful then the damage is already done.

So the only way to be successful is to damage others?

wa:do

 

[TheKnight]

So the only way to be successful is to damage others?

wa:do

The damage is that such a business became successful to begin with.

 

[Revoltingest]

The damage is that such a business became successful to begin with.

What on Earth does this mean?

 

[TheKnight]

What on Earth does this mean?

My point is that if a "corrupt" business can become so successful as to be immune to the "invisible hand" then the damage, people not taking responsibility for what they do, has already been done. What drives the "invisible hand" is individuals being responsible aware. If their ability to do that is already limited then the damage is already done.

 

[painted wolf]

The damage is that such a business became successful to begin with.

Could you elaborate?

I don't think I'm understanding your point.... are you saying that business needs to be harmful to be successful?

wa:do

*edit... ah, I see you did so above.

 

[painted wolf]

My point is that if a "corrupt" business can become so successful as to be immune to the "invisible hand" then the damage, people not taking responsibility for what they do, has already been done. What drives the "invisible hand" is individuals being responsible aware. If their ability to do that is already limited then the damage is already done.

So, you think the "invisible hand" is limited in it's ability to regulate business then?

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

My point is that if a "corrupt" business can become so successful as to be immune to the "invisible hand" then the damage, people not taking responsibility for what they do, has already been done. What drives the "invisible hand" is individuals being responsible aware. If their ability to do that is already limited then the damage is already done.

I just don't follow this. It sounds like you're saying that corruption allows success to the extent that gov't can't control it. Is this it?

 

[TheKnight]

So, you think the "invisible hand" is limited in it's ability to regulate business then?

wa:do

No. I think the people always have the ability to regulate business. It depends on how badly they want to stop it.

Like I said before, the person who thinks Walmart is corrupt yet continues to shop there only serves to fuel Walmart. I cannot tell you how many Walmart shoppers hate Walmart's "corrupt" practices.

Sure, stopping them would be difficult, but the first step is definitely not to shop there.

I just don't follow this. It sounds like you're saying that corruption allows success to the extent that gov't can't control it. Is this it?

The government can control it just like benadryl can control the symptoms of allergies or the common cold. However government regulation is not a useful long-term solution because the problem that creates businesses is ignorant and unaware profit-yielders who continue to fuel the growth of such business by supporting them with their money.

I simply advocate attacking the problem, not the symptoms.

 

[Revoltingest]

The government can control it just like benadryl can control the symptoms of allergies or the common cold. However government regulation is not a useful long-term solution because the problem that creates businesses is ignorant and unaware profit-yielders who continue to fuel the growth of such business by supporting them with their money.
I simply advocate attacking the problem, not the symptoms.

OK. What's the problem?

 

[TheKnight]

OK. What's the problem?

People who don't keep other people or themselves accountable.

 

[Revoltingest]

People who don't keep other people or themselves accountable.

Yep. Tis a problem.
Any economic system should encourage accountability.

 

[painted wolf]

No. I think the people always have the ability to regulate business. It depends on how badly they want to stop it.

Like I said before, the person who thinks Walmart is corrupt yet continues to shop there only serves to fuel Walmart. I cannot tell you how many Walmart shoppers hate Walmart's "corrupt" practices.

Sure, stopping them would be difficult, but the first step is definitely not to shop there.

If only everyone had that luxury.
This is one of those things that sounds better in print than in practice.

The government can control it just like benadryl can control the symptoms of allergies or the common cold. However government regulation is not a useful long-term solution because the problem that creates businesses is ignorant and unaware profit-yielders who continue to fuel the growth of such business by supporting them with their money.

I simply advocate attacking the problem, not the symptoms.

The problem is human nature... how do you propose changing it?

wa:do