Forum Post: Debunking Libertarian Myths pt. 3
Posted 12 years ago on July 10, 2012, 2:43 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Myth #5:
”In an unregulated capitalist society, people are free to quit their jobs and create their own business”
Well, the thing is that in order to start a business in a capitalist society, you very often need capital – preferably a lot of capital – in order for it to have a realistic chance of being successful. So that means that, yes, if you’re rich and wealthy it is relatively easy to create “your own business” in a capitalist economy. On the other hand, if you’re poor or an “average Joe” however, the chances of succeeding are not very high.
Many are also in a situation in which they have a mortgage for example, or small children that depend on the current income, so just quitting and trying to create a new business means taking a very serious risk - a risk that many naturally would find pretty undesirable. There’s of course the option of working to create this business while at the same time keeping the current job, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that at least in a little longer term perspective, that would be such a hard task, take up so much time and effort, and would create such a strain that it would, to most individuals, not work for very long.
Again it all comes down to the wealth concentration. One’s access to resources is vital in terms of the actual choices and freedoms you have in this type of economy. The more wealth and recourses you have, the more power, choices and freedom you have, including in regards to creating your own business.
Myth #6:
”An unregulated capitalist system is the most moral society and is best suited human nature”
This one is also often heard from the evilest of the evil, the supporters of one of the most vicious philosophies of all times: the randists, a.k.a. the so-called “Objectivists” (ironically being as far from objective as one could get)
Well, whoever they are, whether they’re libertarians or randists or whatever, they’re way off.
Last December I wrote an article called ”Human Nature and Libertarian Socialism” arguing that human nature is best suited, not the ideas of libertarians and randists such as greed and egocentrism, but the opposite: egalitarianism, solidarity and mutual aid. I could of course have copy-pasted the article into this ows-forum post, but I choose instead to link to the actual article. That way you’ll also be introduced to an interesting debate between Chomsky and Foucault. Here’s the link:
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html
So, in other words, a capitalist tyranny (which is what this “laissez-faire” society would be) is in no way suited our moral nature. On the contrary. Tyrannical systems, whether it’s a Stalinist state tyranny or capitalist private tyranny, systems in which people aren’t in control of their own lives and work, and have to live in and among huge hierarchies in which some few individuals have the overwhelming power, is not consistent with human nature or morality, it's about as far away from it as you can get.
This so-called “libertarian” ideology is not the road to freedom, it’s the road to total tyranny. A private tyranny in which a small non-elected minority of wealthy individuals and huge corporations have the overwhelming power and control in society.
The “libertarian” movement has unfortunately grown somewhat, especially in the US (cf. Ron Paul etc) Libertarians have (like many others) good reason to be frustrated and opposed to the status quo, but they’re channeling their frustration to the wrong “address”. It’s exactly by implementing more and more of these libertarian ideas of deregulation and privatization that have caused a lot of the mess we’re in (cf. financial speculation, outsourcing etc.) These people need to be, not ridiculed or laughed at, but enlightened about what’s really happening, and confronted with, and introduced to better ideas; ideas of a more soldaric, democratic and sustainable society.
What we should work for is a free libertarian socialist society; a sustainable society where solidarity and egalitarianism are the main features, and where democracy is built from below thru democratic institutions, communities and so on – real participatory democracy in which people control their own lives and workplace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c
More people must be presented these ideas, and that most certainly includes the people who have bought into this very destructive “libertarian” movement.
Thanks for taking the time to read my stuff :)
Solidarity. Andy.
Great topic. A radar system I like in my truck is out of business because a larger competitor bought them and shut them down. The big fish eat the little fish until they are too big to eat each other then instead of competing they cooperate. No more competition.
The Paulies just want the social side. They don't see that the fiscal side is a nightmare.
Libertarianism is a call for private tyranny. Pure and simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI
Very damned well put!
Myth #5 ”In an unregulated capitalist society people are free to quit their jobs and create their own business"
As a relatively poor person with less than a thousand dollars, I started my own business part time while working full time for a regular business. I gradually cut my hours there as my part time business grew, and eventually quit the regular job when I could no longer do both.
In my family the majority have had their own businesses, so the idea of starting a business was not an obstacle. In fact, it just seemed normal.
Take a giant company Like Hewlitt Packard. Started by two guys in their garage. Same with Apple computer.
Capitalism is mainly built on small companies, not large. 95% of American businesses have fewer than 100 employees. Roughly half of all workers are employed by businesses with 100 employees or less.
http://csurei.wordpress.com/tag/small-business/
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2009/09/20090915180916ebyessedo0.0479809.html#axzz20G98d1cq
Still viewing your video.
"In my family the majority have had their own businesses," That is a huge advantage many do not have. GratZ
Sure, but you're one of the few exeptions. Notice that I did not say that it is impossible for a working class guy to "make it".
"Capitalism" in real life is built on a lot of different things. It is for example built on the state playing a substantial role, with subsidies, regulations,huge bailouts etc, in order for the system to go on. In today's "capitalism" the top 1 % richest individuals in the U.S own almost 50% of investment capital.
Personally I think capitalism must be abolished, no matter which numbers and statistics you come up with. Capitalism, whether it's state-c or lassiez faire-c) weakens democracy. The only moral thing to do is to establish a society with democracy built from below, so that people can participate and be in control of their own lives and work.
I would prefer more Democracy from below, but to what level I'm not sure.
Blaming capitalism for the economic injustices caused by a small minority of it's member is unfair. What would that same small unjust minority in an anarchic system accomplish? Would that system be able to tame that beast?
We may be on different sides of the fence, but we are really not that far apart. I hope that somewhere the experiment with Anarchy will continue and prove one way or the other if it is viable.
Are you from Norway or are living there? A few of us were curious about what it was like to live under a system of government that took about 50% of income versus the U.S which takes about 28%. I heard that there are no really poor people, and no mega rich as in the U.S.
The thread is located here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-will-happen-if-andor-when-the-1-leave/#comment-779925
Capitalism doesn't exist. I'm blaming the real existing economic state-capitalist stystem which over the years have become more and more deregulated and coontrolled by an ever increasingly wealthy and powerful financial elite. It is the system that allows this "small minority" to act how they do and did. These guys would not in any way been allowed to gamble with peoples pensions and selling each other rotten loans etc, in the society I want.
"We may be on different sides of the fence, but we are really not that far apart"
I favor a free, egalitarian, solidaric, sustainable society in which people have a democratic say in the things they're a part of and which affect their lives (including workplace democracy of course). If you agree, then that's good :)
Yes, I live in Norway. Workers with an avarage paycheck pays about 30% income tax, the thing is, we have a more progressive tax system than in the US, so the wealthy pay more.
I wrote an article a couple of months ago about the wealfare system in Norway. It will probably answer a lot of your questions:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/welfare-and-workers-rights-in-norway/
So you are saying something similar to what "Demming", the father of quality control in manufacturing, said about reducing errors. If a product assembler makes errors, the assembler is not to blame, the system that allows the errors to occur is. The system must be modified to reduce errors, not the assembler.
So the logical question is how will the system of Anarchy prevent the errors that Capitalism allows?
Thanks for the glimpse of life in Norway in your other post.
I think you know that comparing a worker's situation at an assembly plant to the the increasing power and wealth given to the financial elite is a little weird. These are two completley different settings, and persons involved, it does not make any sense. So, please keep to what I'm actually saying, and don't bring in"Demming" .
"So the logical question is how will the system of Anarchy prevent the errors that Capitalism allows?"
Because it's no longer capitalist. Capitalism doesn't exist. Resourses are in the hands of the participants - the worforce, the institutions, the communities. No non-elected rich elites would exist in a libertarian socialist society.
Does someone need to explain to you how money works?
People are in control of my work life because they are the ones trading the resources to me in exchange for labor. Why do I need resources? To get people to do things for me. The people who work at the bread factory that feeds me. If I force them or anyone else to work for free, then I am in control of their lives. If I live apart from all people, growing all of my own food, and being completely self-sufficient, and requiring nothing of anyone else, then truly no one would be in control of my life. Until then, then yes, you must stop thinking of only the individual and remind yourself that society needs to be repaid for the things they give you.
I like the idea of democracy, so I want workplace democracy as well.
Okay, that's simple, and it doesn't even involve stealing from anyone else: Start a company, and then turn it over to the employees. There are plenty of existing companies run this way, including one near where I live, but of course the pay is not as good. Why? Because 10,000 people do not make decisions as efficiently as half a dozen of them do.
Did you not read the article you have chosen to comment on..?
Also, please read the other two parts.
libertarian fact:
if you dare
google
"ayn rand hickman"
I like libertarianism - like W.C.Fields liked children
. .:)
Haha. Yeah, I've heard about that. Her ideas were really sick. Peikoff, her heir, has really lived up to this sickning tradition. Here he is advocating bombing and killing of civilians etc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw
When O'reilly comes out as the sane one, then that must mean that the opponent is really batshit.
People interested in reading more about myth 6 might be interested in this website by a former libertarian. Worth a look if you want to venture beyond the usual left and right talking points of 'power to the people' vs 'get the government off my back', etc.
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/
Thanks for the link. bookmarked:)
no problemo. btw, I enjoy your mythbusting posts a lot.
Thanks for saying that.
"Libertarianism" is not something we should spend much time on; most people understand that this would be an intolerable society in real life, but it's important to address these issues as well from time to time - especially with the growth of this "libertarian" movement in mind. These people arn't evil or crazy, well most of them arn't anyway, they are mostly just mislead, and we should try to convince them of our ideas of democracy and solidarity.
Yeah, I get the appeal that draws them in - the philosophy is based on personal liberty and freedom after all. It sounds wonderful on the face, but it miserably fails to address any social and community concerns. All "I' and no "we". No team spirit. Boo !
Sure.
I don't know if you are a libertarian socialist / anarchist or not, but what's so brilliant about this in my view is that it combines the "I" and the "we" in the sense that individuals should be free to contribute with, and do the things they like, while at the same time basing society on solidarity, cooperation and democracy on the areas where we act togheter with others.
This one explains it very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c
Sorry, I can't be an idea, I can only be a human being and let you know if I like an idea about something or not. and yes, I like the ideas of solidarity, cooperation, and democracy that libertarian socialism represents.
It's not about "being" an idea, it's about being a human being that agrees with and works to implement the ideas of solidarity, cooperation etc; which you are :) Good to hear.
Perhaps you should tell John 23 it is not about being an idea. His identity is so merged with an idea, it seems he can no longer reason like a normal person.
I just think it's amazing that John23 denies the fact that more resourses/money means more power and control. It's like arguing with someone from the creationist museum.
LOL. Nicely put.
I can't wait for myth number 7, "The earth is round" LOL
I really hope you'll decide to embrace the ideas of Libertarian Socialism someday in the future. We need you to join the fight for a free, just and democratic society: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
Oh, you don't agree that these are myths? And still you couldn't come up with a single counter argument?
We do not live under a capitalist society....or free market..and we haven't in over 100 years.
Oh, and btw, in an unregulated capitalist society, the marked is not free at all (cf myth #1).
See i don't see it like that....to me it is free and i don't agree with the premise that power winds up in the hands of the wealthy in a libertarian society. For what power do the wealthy have over you? How do they control you? They can't, only by the use of government can they force something upon you. They can't steal your money, your land, your family, your belongings, your retirement etc......in what way do the amazingly rich destroy your life in this type of society?
Our entire social order makes this sort of exploitation possible. Yes, government becomes the strongman, and if we trace the accumulation of wealth back to its source, sure, we may find a state, all too happy to collude with private interests to satiate its own greed and power lust, who enabled this wealth accumulation, but the point of contention is, libertarians only attack the state apparatus, it leaves the consequences of this unholy alliance unmolested.
In other words, if we discover that a successful thief and police have been colluding (for the mutual enrichment of both), we don't just change the structure of our police department and punish the crooked cop(s), we also punish the thief.
No doubt i agree with you that both parties should be punished. But what i don't understand is to say that you have to change the structure of the private industry (thief)....when it wasn't really this structure that allowed the corruption to occur. By changing the structure of government, you take the tools away from private industry for future attacks.
If we like the idea of democracy we should dismantle private industry and capaitalism - regulated or non-regulated - and create a society in which people have a democratic say in the things they're a part of and which affect them.
I don't view private business as some deluded flock of lambs who were victimized by big bad wolf government, I think both are (approximately) -- equally culpable (from a moral perspective), but secondly, yes, absurd amounts of wealth creation is itself a problem. Wealth, by definition, means a relative advantage, and under any system, those with relative advantage will be able to manipulate the system for their own gain (btw, this could happen just as easily in a communist or socialist system).
The real underlying problem is the concept of power relationships, which is why anarchism focuses its attack on authoritarianism (and understand, no other philosophical system attacks authoritarianism in a meaningful way, not capitalism, not socialism, not anything besides anarchism).
Once we begin to question the assumption that power relationships are a necessity, a whole new world of thinking opens up for us. Anarchism is that lovely idea that was never really given a fair shot, and for obvious reasons. Those who have power, dispense it in their favor. The socialist says, we just need new people to hold that power, the capitalist says, we just need better people to hold that power, the anarchist says, we don't need power, except over ourselves.
Yeah i agree with you...i don't think business is more noble than government by any means.
I also agree with you in saying "we just need better people to hold that power"....as no matter how saintly a person is that you elect...the future always holds the possibility for another Nixon....Hitler...Madolf...whatever. Given a long enough timeline...it's a certainty that such an individual will again be put into that position of power. You have to create a system that rids the system of these power positions...we just disagree on how to do that.
And the system that makes both government/state tyranny as well as private tyranny impossible is Libertarian Socialism - a free, decentralized, egalitarian, just society with democracy built from below; a system in which people get to participate in the things they're a part of and are affected by.
It's funny, when Chomsky talks about the factory girls of Eastern Mass, it's very similar to Emma Goldmans' first experiences in the US, as a Russian immigrant (working in factories in her late teens/early 20's). She discusses her experiences, and worker exploitation [in this context] more generally speaking (during that era in the US, typically, immigrant factory workers).
An observation, is it any wonder that the victims of this form of exploitation are typically immigrants, and these days, foreign workers (who live under totalitarian regimes) ... groups with the least power (the most disenfranchised)?
Good point.
For what power do the wealthy have over you? How do they control you?
It is called bargaining power. wealth and money = power and influence. Is this simple concept so hard to grasp. I find it hard to believe you are really that naive.
If I am poor and have no money to eat and no state to rely on for help, the first offer for employment that comes along, I will have to accept, because beggar's can not be choosers. I would have to take whatever I am lucky to get because my basic needs must be met, while the wealthy person has the luxury provided by his wealth to hold out and get his way.
In a more democratic society with democratic workplaces, where ownership was not solely in the hands of private individuals, this sort of exploitation of another's lack of bargaining power would be obsolete.
In a libertarian society wealth and money does not equal power and influence like it does in our society...because government would not be manipulated by large corporations.
"f I am poor and have no money to eat and no state to rely on for help, the first offer for employment that comes along, I will have to accept, because beggar's can not be choosers. I would have to take whatever I am lucky to get because my basic needs must be met, while the wealthy person has the luxury provided by his wealth to hold out and get his way."
You have the opportunity to form unions and demand better things from work in a libertarian society....you just can't be forced into one.
You talk about force a lot, but seem to not understand how choices are made. Circumstances are a force. A libertarian society creates poor circumstances for laborers and great circumstances for owners.
No one is forced at gunpoint to join a union, they are forced through circumstances. Under our current system of privately owned enterprises, unions are the best way to negotiate better wages. Someone figured out there is a need in the market to negotiate for better wages and created a system to collect dues for the service. But they don't force anyone at gunpoint to join a union. That person could seek employment elsewhere, move to another state, or start their own business. They have other options. But their personal circumstances (lack of money to travel, lack of education to start own business, etc.) may make taking the union job and paying the union fees the best option under the circumstances. But the union did not force him to accept the circumstances and sign on the dotted line.
No one is forced at gunpoint to join an employer for minimum wage (who in their right mind wants to work for minimum wage?), they are forced by lack of better options and personal circumstances.
Your libertarian society does not create the best circumstances for community and social values to thrive. It stacks the deck in favor of the interests of individual business owners, where the circumstances favor him having all the bargaining power to negotiate the best deal to benefit his personal interests.
Unions are a use of force in a libertarian society (unions where you're forced to pay dues). People are free in a libertarian society to put their money where they really want to. When the market demands something (as you implied unions were demanded by the market) you usually don't have to force someone to buy something...why would you have to have forced dues if the market was really demanding that they wanted that service??? When you force the purchase of something...that usually implies there isn't a demand.
I think the libertarian society does create the best circumstances for community and social values to thrive. People want to help each other...and the only way a business owner gets rich is if he's providing something you want in a free society...unlike this one where your forced to purchase certain things and funnel money to areas you might wish you didn't have to (like a union...but in a free society you're aloud to band together to form a union..just not forcefully).
The labor market, or should I say the exploited labor market, demands better wages and working conditions - do you deny history - this has been occurring for a long time - what planet do you live on where the labor market has ever been satisfied with slave wages. Unions (union leaders) provide a service to meet that demand. Should they provide this negotiation service for free.
and the only way a business owner gets rich is if he's providing something you want in a free society...
That is a half-truth. It is true that a business needs to provide something people want in order to make profits, but that only determines whether the business is profitable or not.
The real reason the owner gets rich is because he has exclusive control over the distribution of the profits. And that is the reason we have a long history of striking, forming unions, and demanding more of the profits. And that is why there is a demand for unions to stand up to greedy owners.
I think people who really want to help each other will choose a philosophy, based on democracy, like libertarian socialism, and people who really want to exploit others for their personal gain will choose libertarianism.
I don't deny that unions perform a function in a society. I"m not talking about free labor unions. Where the employee is given the choice to join or not. That is ok in the lib society. I'm talking about forced dues for unions if you enter the profession. "Unions (union leaders) provide a service to meet that demand." They are not meeting a demand if they are being forced to pay dues. You don't have to use force if there is a demand. Why would you force people to pay when everyone is in agreeance that they're getting screwed at work? Obviously there isn't the demand. That doesn't mean i'm against unions, people have the right to get together and do as they please....they're free..if that's a union so be it. What if you joined a company and i told you i was going to force you to pay part of your salary to fund fracking in your state....you probably wouldn't be very happy about that right? If you weren't forced to pay....you probably wouldn't...because the demand isn't there. In a lib society we don't pick and choose what areas you're free in.....you're just free. And i'm not saying that there wouldn't be demand for unions....i'm just saying you wouldn't be able to force it in the market.
The problem with a lot of your thinking in my opinon is that you're assuming things under a lib society would be much like they are today. It's a total package....you don't take bits and pieces of it. People would be wealthier, you wouldn' thave boom/bust cycles in the economy, employment would be maximized, people would be completely free in their lives to do as they so choose...except to commit fraud or steal from someone by force. Property rights are also protected. Is there a function for government in that society? Absolutely.
"I think people who really want to help each other will choose a philosophy, based on democracy, like libertarian socialism, and people who really want to exploit others for their personal gain will choose libertarianism."
That statement is absolutely 100% wrong. I pick libertarian-ism because i believe it to be the most humane type of society...the society that would provide the most for the greatest amount of the population. I used to think like you do....seriously, you should dig into our side a little bit and just explore a few books...maybe by the end you'll feel the same way...but maybe like me, you wouldn't.
Why would anyone accept minimum wage for their labor when everyone agrees that they're getting screwed at work?
This is where you completely miss the boat, force occurs in every decision we make (not just when dealing with unions). It could be the circumstances of coming across a bear while hiking in the woods. Seeing the bear might force someone to consider their personal safety and take a longer route to skirt around the bear.
Why would anyone ever accept a less favorable outcome unless circumstances force them to. You are saying that it is not right to exploit workers and charge them dues to join a union. I don't disagree with that.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your lopsided viewpoint that only acknowledges exploitation when it is convenient for your interests and outright ignores exploitation when it is not.
Any time someone takes advantage of another person with less power - it is, by definition, an exploitation of a weakness.
You fight against those who want more equality. Why? Do you believe you should be able to accrue as much power for yourself as you like? Why do you argue the need for so much power if not to use it for leverage to take advantage of those with less power.
John23, I have dug into your side. The problem I encounter is a one dimensional viewpoint which only values liberty. Nothing wrong with liberty, but what about equality, John23? Where does equality figure into your thinking?
I believe you are the one who needs to dig into the other side of the equation. Freedom requires liberty and equality.
Great inequality creates the optimal circumstances to commit great exploitation. & great exploitation is what your libertarianism dream world would result in.
You have now admitted that in a "libertarian" society the successful businesses will become more wealthy. Are you denying that the wealthy corporations because of this will have more influence and power over the marked and the communities in which they operate than the smaller competitors..?
They may be wealthier (which you also have the opportunity to become)..but they won't have any more power. Since government can't be bought they have no way to force things upon the people in a libertarian society.
So what you're saying is that in a "libertarian" society a nation-wide MacDonald's-like, huge corporation would have just as much influence and power in the economyand society as a local mom&pop hamburger restuarant in your neighborhood? This makes no sense, dude, and you know it.
They would have more wealth to put into areas of the economy that there is demand for it in. Perhaps they donate to research better farming practices to increase yields or whatever. But no, they would have no more control over a consumers life than a mom or pop restaurant would. GIve me examples of why you think they would? In what ways would they?
If it turned out they could...if it turned out they were doing evil things and taking over the world...perhaps placing their secret professors in institutions and teaching people nonsense....people would take their business elsewhere...nobody's holding a gun to your head telling you you must buy mcdonalds. Demand would produce a new restaurant chain that didn't do these things.
A good example now is bottled water...it was recently learned that bottled water was tap water (for some companies). Almost overnight...what did all the companies do? They started posting certified testing for contaminants for their different waters...providing locations for where the waters are collected...how they purify their water in detailed processes etc....consumer demand shifted water companies business model to provide them with safer water and more information on their products. You could say the same thing about organic produce....government stands in teh way of GMO labeling (they've even done studies and had the balls to say "we can't release the findings due to irreparable harm in would produce to Monsanto")...so what is the private sector doing? Taking it into their own hands...offering companies non GMO labeling from private companies instead of the government. What if government was never involved in this process of labeling GMO foods...what if they were never relied on? I think all foods would be GMO labeled via private certification by now.
They have more power over the economy because they have more resorses to use to affect the economy:They have more influence on what's being produced, how things are being produced, what's being prioritized in forms of investments, etc etc. I can't believe I have to explain something as obvious as that.
And again, what it boils down to, is really the question of democracy. Should we work to create a society where people have a democratic say in the things that they're a part of? If yes, then that means an end to capitalism - regulated or non-regulated.
"They have more power over the economy because they have more resorses to use to affect the economy:They have more influence on what's being produced, how things are being produced, what's being prioritized in forms of investments etc etc. I can't believe I have to explain something as obvious as that."
What's being produced, how things are being produced....are things that are voted on everyday by you...because you buy it! I can't believe i have to explain something as obvious as that.
People have a democratic say in a libertarian society every single day...they pay for goods...you vote every time you buy something. That's the beauty of it.
Again it comes down to where the wealth sits. The "free marked" isn't a democracy in any way. Some have more cash than others, hence more infuence and power in this "voting". Saying the marked is democratic is like saying that giving men 100 votes each and women 1 vote each is democratic. Cash is unequally distributed.
If i'm rich...i'm not going to go to mcdonalds and buy 500,000 burgers just because i like mcdonalds. I'm going to buy 1 or 2 like everyone else. I'm not sure i understand how someone who is rich gets to vote more than you? Maybe they buy a really fancy car....that doesn't hurt you.
(the thread ran out of replies answer here instead)
"Everything about your paragraph here is tailored to make who happy?"
You're totally missing the point. It's not about who's happy, it's about the fact that wealth=power
"If you don't like it...you don't buy it and they go out of business"
You're not paying attention. This doesn't change the fact that the rich and the financial elite can buy more stuff, can invest more, can control production more, can control the corporations more, can buy up more competitors, etc etc, hence they have more power and control.
"How is this hurting you directly though?"
When the wealth is highly concentrated, it hurts the ones who are not part of the elites, that could have enjoyed a better life if the wealth was more equally distributed.
Wealth does not equal power in a libertarian society....it does in the government/free market hybrid though.
you said:
"you're not paying attention. This doesn't change the fact that the rich and the financial elite can buy more stuff, can invest more, can control production more, can control the corporations more, can buy up more competitors, etc etc, hence they have more power and control."
I am paying attention...i'm reading everything you're writing...you're not paying attention to me. The only way the rich get rich is if they provide something for you (the consumer) that you want. YOu vote to make them rich! They can invest more stuff yes...but they invest it in areas you want because you're the one who's going to buy it! "can control the corps more"....so could you! Start your own company and find something that people want and need...provide a good product...they will vote for you by giving you money...then you can invest in research to support the libertarian socialist cause.
He doesn't have any more of a vote on things than you do. If he buys a fancy car, how does that hurt you?
Really? I just answered that question. I explained how it hurts me, it is an unequal distribution of voting power. This is plain English.
If he starts a business that will take over the world...it will only get there by direct votes from you..the consumer.
Purchasing power does not equal voting power. Stop abusing common sense.
It absolutely does are you kidding me...."purchasing power does not equal voting power"....people could vote to put monsanto out of business tomorrow by not buying anything they're involved with.
You said: He doesn't have any more of a vote on things than you do. If he buys a fancy car, how does that hurt you? Really? I just answered that question. I explained how it hurts me, it is an unequal distribution of voting power. This is plain English."
My answer - You also have the opportunity to buy a fancy car. Save your money...work your way up in a company or start your own. Microsoft was started in a garage.
How does that hurt you though? The guy that doesn't have a lot of money? Him buying a fancy car doesn't hoard all the fancy cars.
It hurts me because you want cash to replace my voting power. It hurts me because my voting power should be equal to his voting power, duh.
Are we not all created equal? Do you believe he should have 10,000 votes to my 2 votes.
He doesn't have any more of a vote on things than you do. If he buys a fancy car, how does that hurt you?
If he starts a business that will take over the world...it will only get there by direct votes from you..the consumer.
(Continuation of debate further down; there were no more replies available)
[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (2051) 14 hours ago
But let me as you something. Do you agree that people should have a right to democratic say in the things they're a part of and affect them? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
[-] 1 points by john23 (57) 9 hours ago
Yes, i do....and i do believe a libertarian society produces this. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Okay, this could be very interesting. Let me then follow up with another question.
Ok, so you agree that people should have a right to democratic say in the things they're a part of and affect them; but then this must include right to democratic say at the workplace also, right..?
Through the market i do agree with your above question....if they are obtaining democracy through purchases. A pure democracy scares me...example:
you're talking about a mob rule type of society.....it takes 51% of the people to get something passed. What if you don't like what those 51% have gotten in their heads? What if it's to take your land to drill oil or frack because the country is desperately running out it in the future? What if 51% of the people like the idea of nuking china because of propaganda via government or some other body promoting false ideas?
Thomas Jefferson: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incapatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
I think you do have a say at your workplace in a libertarian society. No one is telling you you can't form groups/unions/ whatever to demand better working conditions...you just can't force other people to do it.
But let me as you something. Do you agree that people should have a right to democratic say in the things they're a part of and affect them?
Yes, i do....and i do believe a libertarian society produces this.
It absolutely does are you kidding me...."purchasing power does not equal voting power"....people could vote to put monsanto out of business tomorrow by not buying anything they're involved with.
And yet this terrible monolith Monsanto is still in business, so I guess your voting system sucks and I will accept this fact as proof of your failed concept.
You said: He doesn't have any more of a vote on things than you do. If he buys a fancy car, how does that hurt you? Really? I just answered that question. I explained how it hurts me, it is an unequal distribution of voting power. This is plain English."
My answer - You also have the opportunity to buy a fancy car. Save your money...work your way up in a company or start your own. Microsoft was started in a garage.
That is true, it could happen, or it might not, but what does that really have to do with my voting power anyway. Not a damn thing.
"And yet this terrible monolith Monsanto is still in business, so I guess your voting system sucks and I will accept this fact as proof of your failed concept."
You prove my point...government stands in the way of this! Check out this recent article:
http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/Politics/gmo_labeling_bill_0508120818.html
Government has also done studies on GMO foods and they said "we can't release the findings because it could irreparably harm monsanto". These are the government/corporate hybrids that i'm talking about...that don't occur in libertarian societies. The haliburtons and monsantos don't exist.
"what does that have to do with my voting power anyway"......it doesn't hurt you at all...that was my point. He buys a fancy car...so what...he didn't steal it from you.
Great, you just explained the inequality in the dollar voting system, one guy can afford to vote for a really fancy car, and another can only afford to vote for hamburger or two, probably off the value menu. I would say the first guy has a whole lot more voting power, errr... I mean purchasing power.
How does that hurt you though? The guy that doesn't have a lot of money? Him buying a fancy car doesn't hoard all the fancy cars.
This isn't about how many hamburgers a rich guy chooses to buy at MD. The rich and the financial elite can buy more stuff, can invest more, can control production more, can control the corporations more, can buy up more competitors, etc etc.
If you're talking about "voting" with cash than the rich will of course have more votes than a poor guy (and please don't ask me to explain that one)
"The rich and the financial elite can buy more stuff, can invest more, can control production more, can control the corporations more, can buy up more competitors, etc etc."
Everything about your paragraph here is tailored to make who happy? The consumer...if they (the rich) invest a lot into projects...and have no consumers (you) to purchase what they create....that money is wasted. Hence you're voting on their investments and their production. If you don't like it...you don't buy it and they go out of business.
"They can buy more stuff." How is this hurting you directly though?
"The only way the rich get rich is if they provide something for you (the consumer) that you want."
The point here isn't how they got rich, the point is that having wealth means having more power in the economy Jeez..
"You vote to make them rich!"
You're not paying attention. The ones with more cash have more "votes", hence more power
In the type of Anarchism you propose will everyone share equally in the profits?
In the type of anarchism I propose - Libertarian Socialism / Anarcho-Syndicalism - things are run democratically from below by the participants and the ones affected. That means that it is the workplaces, and the communities in which they exist in that decide democratically how production, remuneration, distribution etc is organized.
Read/watch more here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
Stop telling me i'm not paying attention...i'm reading all of your posts..you must not be reading mine. A rich person isn't going to buy more things to screw you over in a libertarian society....what sense does that make? Is he going to vote more by buying 20,000 couches? 20,000 cars? That doesn't make any sense....he acts rationally like the rest of the population when they buy something....a good product at the best price available. What stuff is he going to buy to screw you over??? What is he going to vote for with his money that is unjust and hurts you?
"If i wasn't taxed up the a$$ right now to fund trillion dollar overseas expenditures i'd have some extra money to provide for you jaded."
Or alternatively: If we had an anarcho-syndicalist, real participatory democracy, where the wealth wasn't concentrated on non-elected powerful owners and war-seeking politicians, but in istead in the hands of the communities and the participants, you'd get the help you needed.
A little better, don't you think?
People fail to see the charitable giving that people are capable of...especially the giving that could take place if people didn't assume government would take care of them all the time. I think if they got out of the way there would be a charitable explosion.
I'm could use some charity right now John 23, how about a generous gift of $1,000 to help me catch up on bills. I got whacked real hard by the economic tsunami of 07. Just you and me and no government in the way.
If i wasn't taxed up the a$$ right now to fund trillion dollar overseas expenditures i'd have some extra money to provide for you jaded.
A big gun, a thug, and a corrupt politician. ...all the better to screw you with.
When I answer your question, and you respond by asking the same question again and again, it seems at least that your not paying attention.
"A rich person isn't going to buy more things to screw you over in a libertarian society"
This has nothing to do with whther he wants to "screw me over" or not. This has to do with the fact that he can
-buy more commodities
-invest more
-control production more
-control corporations more
-buy up more competition etc
A rich man has more cash and can "vote" more as you say, hence he has more power in the economic sphere than the poor guy.
"Is he going to vote more by buying 20,000 couches? 20,000 cars?"
No, buying 20 000 cars (for peronal use at least) is pretty irrational. However he can buy 3 or 4 very nice cars, a nice house at the beach, a nice house in Aspen, a nice big cabin cruiser, build a huge luxury swimming pool in his garden etc etc, non of which a por guy can do. You see now what I mean? I mean no disrespect, but I think it's a little weird having to explain something so obvious to a grown up.
-invest more -control production more -control corporations more -buy up more competition etc
What i'm trying to say to you is that you ultimately control this list above that you mentioned. He's not going to produce stuff you don't want in a libertarian society...he's producing stuff you're voting for (you're going to buy it)...and if you're not going to buy it he's pretty stupid for producing it. He also invests in the areas you want...the area that there is a demand for...otherwise he's losing his money. Investors are much more stingy with their money that the government is...or a group of people that don't a vested interest in the outcome...investments are more precisely allocated to your exact needs by private investors. He will only be able to buy up competition if he's making a superior product at a better price...and this helps you..the consumer...don't you like the technological advancements in cell phones with subsequent dropping in price? Don't you like more fuel efficient cars? Don't you like that you can buy a computer today that is a thousands times faster for the same price of a computer from 10- years ago? Buying competition is not a bad thing in a libertarian society.
you said: "No, buying 20 000 cars (for peronal use at least) is pretty irrational. However he can buy 3 or 4 very nice cars, a nice house at the beach, a nice house in Aspen, a nice big cabin cruiser, build a huge luxury swimming pool in his garden etc etc, non of which a por guy can do. "
How does any of this directly hurt the poor person?
I think what you're getting at is there will be poor people in a libertarian society. Show me an example in history of a society that doesn't have poor people? Poor people exist in all societies..but the question is where do they exist the least? How can we minimize the amount of poor people? Libertarians believe it is their society. People then say "who will take care of the poor...the helpless..the people with cancer and no health insurance etc." I think there is a failure to see the true potential of charity from people if government weren't in the way. People want to help each other...the mother who lost her child from cancer starts a private organization to raise money for cancer research....cancer research that is actually concerned with finding a cure and not a profit..who makes amazingly good use of all the money that is donated instead of wasting it all on overhead and bureaucratic expenses....check out the video if you haven't already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qG_ZWs04es
Imagine if government wasn't in the way of this discovery? Imagine how many lives could have been saved because of this treatment...this is what a libertarian society gets out of the way. Much the same way GMO labeling would be everywhere if government had stepped out of the way. I think you fail to see the compassion of people. You also fail to see the total package of the society...healthcare costs would be drastically lower...unemployment drastically lower...production would be higher...true wealth would be created..instead of wealth based on credit.
People fail to see the charitable giving that people are capable of...especially the giving that could take place if people didn't assume government would take care of them all the time. Look at how much US citizens donated to the tsumani a few years ago. Private charity organizations are very efficient and make incredible use of the money stretching its value down to every penny. Why? Because if they don't people are going to give that money to some other private charity...and usually people who start private charities have a vested interest in what they're doing (the mother who lost a child etc etc). Right now americans give over 300 billion a year in charity..and that's with the government in the way. I think if they got out of the way there would be a charitable explosion...and in the areas that are really useful.
Well, after reading your link, I'm still not impressed. From a debtors perspective i have no problem with inflation. Shit, inflation gives me leverage with the person who I am am indebted to. If inflation is three percent a year and I owe a thousand dollars, I could save seven hundred dollars and use it to negotiate the termination of my loan.
Also, To use Greenspan as a notable, is to lose you all your credibility with me. That bony, little libertarian is, as much as anyone, responsible for are current calamity. Instead of giving his "irrational exuberance speech," he should have been drying up the money supply. Or to put it another way, he should have been doing his job, regulating the market, instead of trying to talk people out of being people. If Greenspan was a parent and the bankers were his children, he would have had dysfunctional children who believed their father was all talk no bite.
Here is a little fact of life, From gang bangers in the grottoes to political parties in the Hamptons, everywhere people are unionizing. Shit, even Libertarians are forming cliques. The interest rate argument had nothing to do with economics it had to do with making an argument about what happens when so called individualists get the opportunity to collude and no regulators are there to stop them. Giving me Mises info just obscures the debate. The autonomous individual is a figment of your imagination and your economic wise men are just self interested GROUPS practicing divide and conquer.
"Well, after reading your link, I'm still not impressed. From a debtors perspective i have no problem with inflation. Shit, inflation gives me leverage with the person who I am am indebted to. If inflation is three percent a year and I owe a thousand dollars, I could save seven hundred dollars and use it to negotiate the termination of my loan."
You're looking at inflation in a static way...its dynamic...the prices of your goods are being increased before your paycheck is...you're getting screwed. Here's a good 2 minute video of why the low man on the totem poll gets screwed...its simplified..but ideas of it are correct:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx16a72j__8&feature=player_embedded
Inflation doesn't help you...look at the price of your goods vs the money supply (inflation):
http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html
The interest rate argument has everything to do with economics...it's the time price of money and affects everything.
Greenspan was used because he basically became a practicing Keynesian while at the Fed....his policies directly contributed to the disaster. That quote was written in a paper years before he become Fed chairman.
I have to disagree. So if the banks are not setting interest rates, and the government is not setting interest rates, then who should be setting interest rates? I prefer an institution that should have the best interests of the whole nation setting the rates, not an institution whose only purpose is to make a buck. In a libertarian society collusion in the market place will be the only means of survival. That is why the Libertarian party makes sense, even though it is an oxymoron. If you starve the beast, industries will collude in order to survive.
No, the Austrians are articulating a philosophy of divide and conquer. those who articulate it unionize, while telling every one else how wrong unionization is. Libertarianism strikes at the heart of what made these Fifty states the envy of the world, their ability to unionize. There is strength in numbers and Libertarianism erodes the strength that cooperation engenders. And to your comment, I believe most of those bankers who manipulated LIBOR fancy themselves good little Capitalistic Libertarians. I've read all your posts on this topic and believe what you are trying to articulate is a pipedream, kinda like socialism. While autonomous individuals try to make it in your Utopian fantasy, those who combine their resources and talents in unionization will mop the floor with all those rugged individualists, at least that is what history tells me.
The Libor scandal is a demonstration of what happens when the police are not on the beat or are on the take.
"So if the banks are not setting the interest rates, and the government is not setting the interest rate, then who should be setting the interest rates."
http://hmscoop.com/#InterestRates
Explanation is under "Interest Rates - The Little Inflationary Secret"
The LIBOR scandal was fraud....fraud is something that government is involved in in a libertarian society.
"those who combine their resources and talents in unionization will mop the floor with all those rugged individualists, at least that is what history tells me."
-you're talking about a mob rule type of society.....it takes 51% of the people to get something passed. What if you don't like what those 51% have gotten in their heads? What if it's to take your land to drill oil or frack because the country is desperately running out it in the future? What if 51% of the people like the idea of nuking china because of propaganda via government or some other body promoting false ideas?
What history shows that you'd mop the floor with my Utopian fantasy?
I know you are...i have nothing against that and neither does a libertarian society in that you can actively protest through strikes (just not forceful unions...you can't force an individual to give his or her money to a cause they don't agree with).
Force is a two way street. This is also common sense.
In a democratic workplace, we can vote on how to distribute the profits and force people to abide by the consensus. If someone does not like this arrangement, they would be free to work someplace else. But it is fair arrangement, because everyone gets to participate and vote on this.
In an undemocratic workplace, the owner can force all of his employees to accept the wages he is willing to pay or tell them to get out. This is tyranny of one individual to rule over everything his employees earn (and do for that matter).
You have the ability to challenge this...nothing is stopping you and your co-workers from demanding better conditions. Go on strike. You just can't force people to participate if they don't want.
Finally, you are grasping common sense. We are demanding better conditions in the workplace. This is why a bunch of us are getting together and advocating for worker-owned cooperatives where it is run democratically and everyone shares in the profits from the venture. This is why we are demanding a better system than libertarianism.
I know you are...i have nothing against that and neither does a libertarian society in that you can actively protest through strikes (just not forceful unions...you can't force an individual to give his or her money to a cause they don't agree with).
I don't agree with a democracy style government....most of the founding fathers didn't because they were witness to the incidiousness of them...Thomas Jefferson:
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incapatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Do you have any common sense? People are commodities in the free market system. My labor (a service I supply) is nothing more than a raw material to be bought, purchased at the cheapest price that can be obtained, so the owner can maximize his profits. This is how I get screwed and hurt by this libertarian arrangement.
You have the ability to challenge this...nothing is stopping you and your co-workers from demanding better conditions. Go on strike. You just can't force people to participate if they don't want.
In a Libertarian society the LIBOR scandal is not a scandal but just a Libertarian way of doing business. I believe the collusion that transpired with determining interest rates is a sneak peak at what a libertarian society would look like.
That's about as far from a libertarian society as you can get...what is the one thing austrians have been screaming about for the last 100 years? The artificial manipulation of interest rates.
You really believe voting every time you buy something is practical. I don't have time to sit down and weigh and research the impact of my dollar on society every single time I shop for a product. That is absurd !!!!! It is the most asinine, inefficient voting system I've ever heard of. Dr. Doolittle could come up with a better plan than that. & that is the horror of it.
If you can't even figure out what you personally want everyday...why would i trust you to vote on someone that could represent me?
You know what companies you're pissed at..are you kidding me. Perhaps OWS would have a private business that would form to study the things that you think a company should stand buy and give it the "OWS seal of approval". I'm not being an ass by saying that...i'm serious. Just like private companies are giving the GMO free stamp on foods.
Your logic is senseless. Knowing what I want to purchase has nothing to do with researching the activities of others. I look at price and quality and purchase a product if I like it.
You are the one adding all this other nonsense to the process. Now I have to be a consumer watchdog. I have to interview every company, talk with their employees, ask them to let me into their plant to monitor their activities, learn the technical nuances of their trade, and basically provide these companies with oversight before I can buy a damn silly product, and all I wanted was a damn toaster to make some toast.
How ridiculous can you get John 23. This line of reasoning defies all common sense and practical thinking. I have no more time for you today John 23. I can't argue with a fool.
Your only looking at this through one side of the spectrum. Government tyranny is to liberty what private tyranny is to equality. Getting rid of or limiting government tyranny does nothing to abolish or limit private tyranny. Government is not the root of the problem; tyranny is the root of the problem.
What do you consider private tyranny (i'm not being an a$$..i really want to know)?
What do you consider government tyranny?
Anything that involves the creation of the corporate/governmental hybrid that rules everything today.
So ruling everything is your definition. Privately owned enterprises rule over everything their employees do.
Isn't that what the unions are for?
You're constantly changing the subject to avoid answering the (obviously) tough questions. If "ruling everything" is your def of government tyranny, then is not the model in a privatly held corporation - ruled entierly from the top - a private tyranny?
Isn't that what cooperatives are for?
What?
Think about this a little more critically please. Why should I be dependent on forming a union to demand better things. I can do that all by myself, the problem is I don't have the bargaining power of wealth and money. I should not need to collect a bunch of other people to help me end someone taking advantage of my circumstances. I should not be being taken advantage of this way in the first place.
"to me it is free"
I honestly don't see much freedom when undemocratic hierarchical institutions have an overwhelming power in the economy. That's tyranny.
"i don't agree with the premise that power winds up in the hands of the wealthy in a libertarian society."
Really..? Then why was this such a big problem in the early stages of the Ind.Revolution when regulations were low. Big companies grew enormous. Along with enormous exploitation etc, this caused the rise of the marxist /socialist ideas and the workers' movement.
You really dont think that the more successful end efficient corporations will grow substantially bigger than their competiors, allowing them to by into, or buy up more other businesses and competiors?etc. I don't mean no disrespect but if you're serious, than you're being extremely naive.
"For what power do the wealthy have over you?"
I've already written about that. Read Part 1.
"in what way do the amazingly rich destroy your life in this type of society?"
You need to read all 3 parts.
"Big corps grew enormous"...during the industrial revolution you say. But how did they grow enormous? By providing a good product at a great price...which I say benefits you, the consumer. Don't you want to be able to purchase goods at a great price? You could then argue that the workers conditions were terrible because of it. In a libertarian society there are no rules against coordinated efforts by workers to increase the quality of their environment at work. There are rules against forced participation (forcing one into a union).....but unions could exist under a libertarian society..but only if the will of the people determines they should, as we are all free to do as we choose. Here's a pretty good video that refutes many of the monopolistic claims made during the industrial revolution..it's a good intro to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q1fSNzYNhg
Notice how you now suddenly changed the topic. Whether they provided "good services" etc is not what we were discussing. The point was (which you now seemingly admitted to) is that the successful corporations and businessmen will gain more wealth - accumulation of wealth and power
We are not free to do what we choose in a "libertarian" society (cf my 3 Debunking Libertarian Myths articles.
Again: Whether it's state-c or laissez faire-c, we must do away with these kind of ideas, and create a society in which people have a democratic say in the things that affect them: Libertarian Socialism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
Gain more wealth...but how does that hurt you? Don't you have the opportunity to also gain more wealth? And if the situation really displeases the people, they are able to strike or create unions to demand more wages, less work hours etc. They just can't be forced into it.
Your argument that people are not free in a libertarian society assumes monopolistic takeovers of industry....i don't agree with the premise. The only way a monopolistic takeover of an industry would happen is if a good product is being provided to the people at a good price....the people are voting for this monopoly via the money they use to buy their products. In a libertarian society government formed monopolies (such as monsanto) wouldn't exist...for government has no power.
I'll watch the link...i see chompsky in it who i like.
"Gain more wealth...but how does that hurt you?"
It hurts the ones not gaining wealth because resourses which could - and should - be used to create a good society for all to live in, instead gets concentrated on private tyrannies. But that wasn't the issue.
"And if the situation really displeases the people, they are able to strike or create unions to demand more wages, less work hours etc."
..and create movements that will push for more regulations of private tyrannies and hopefully eventually, in long term perspective, create a society without undemocratic hierarchic structures.
"Your argument that people are not free in a libertarian society assumes monopolistic takeovers of industry."
It's a little more to it than that. If you'd bother to read myth #1 you'd know.
You like Chomsky? And you advocate "libertarianism"?? Boy are you in for a surprise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI&feature=plcp
I hope you'll continue to listen to him, though. Maybe you'll change your mind some time and embrace the ideas of LS, as he and I have.
Just because i like Chomsky doesn't mean i agree with everything he says. I think he's honest and wants to help people...and i agree with many of his ideas on the military industrial complex and enjoy listening to him speak.
".and create movements that will push for more regulations of private tyrannies and hopefully eventually, in long term perspective, create a society without undemocratic hierarchic structures."
If that's where it leads to then so be it....it was chosen by the people and there was a demand for it.
"Private tyrannies".....from your post above. There are many examples of private charity that could also be mentioned. What people forget to talk about are the millions...or billions that private charity produces each year...that unfortunately gets funneled into areas of research backed by government. I think if government wasn't in the way we'd see an explosion in this area. The example of someone yelling "rape" in a crowded neighborhood and noone does anything vs. someone yelling rape and you're the only person around...you're more likely to do something about it. If government wasn't relied on so heavily the private sector would take the reigns and in my opinion outperform the public one in every aspect in these areas . You look at cancer treatment...that's a really good example...seriously watch this video on it..there has been a cancer treatment that outperforms industries in every trial done...and it's been around since the 1970's...how many innocent people have had to die because of the corrupt government standing in the way? This isn't conspiracy theory stuff...this has been well documented in court...watch the movie, it's really good...the only thing standing in the way is government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1buiXWr_QTQ&list=PLE63E9519A47A2177&index=8&feature=plpp_video
I've read all of your libertarian post series...myth #1...I don't agree with this...you assume that given a libertarian society there will be "Not only do the rich and powerful (in an undemocratic way) control the economy as a whole in huge networks of transactions, investments and stock exchange, they also rule the institutions in this kind of society in a totalitarian way."
In a libertarian society the only way that a corporation will become monopolistic (control money) is if the consumer votes for it everyday...by buying the goods that the company is selling... Monsanto's don't exist in a libertarian society...these are government born monopolies...not private industry monopolies.
"Just because i like Chomsky doesn't mean i agree with everything he says. I think he's honest and wants to help people...and i agree with many of his ideas on the military industrial complex and enjoy listening to him speak."
Fine. Good to hear that you enjoy listening to NC.
"If that's where it leads to then so be it....it was chosen by the people and there was a demand for it."
Huh? Is that your argument? What is your point?
By private tyranny I mean undemocratic hierarchy, where people - not in any way elected by the people - have the overwhelming power over the economy and institutions in society; whether they give away lots to charity doesn't change the undemocratic hierarchic model
And how many have had die because they can't afford medical bills. You're talking about government "standing in the way", but the government can at least be run democratically, unlike private enterprise. What I think it boils down to, John, is really the question of democracy. Should we work to create a society where people have a democratic say in the things that they're a part of? If yse, then that means an end to capititalism - regulated or non-regulated.
You're constantly ignoring that wealth and power will in a Libertarian society would be unequally distributed, meaning that control over the economy - what's being produced, how things are being produced, what's being prioritized in forms of investments etc etc - is overwhelmingly in the hands of the wealthiest.
"You're constantly ignoring that wealth and power will in a Libertarian society would be unequally distributed, meaning that control over the economy - what's being produced, how things are being produced, what's being prioritized in forms of investments etc etc - is overwhelmingly in the hands of the wealthiest."
The control in the economy on what is being produced and how its produced is controlled by the consumer. It is democratic in that you vote for the very companies you're purchasing from. You have a say every single day of your life. Things are produced precisely for your individual needs...if the population deems they don't need it...then obviously business won't produce it as they will lose money producing something they don't need.
What power will corps have in a libertarians society besides the power to produce goods that benefit you? You're not answering my question.
------"If that's where it leads to then so be it....it was chosen by the people and there was a demand for it." Huh? Is that your argument? What is your point?------
That was my response to your "".and create movements that will push for more regulations of private tyrannies and hopefully eventually, in long term perspective, create a society without undemocratic hierarchic structures.""
I answered your claims here in a nother comment a couple of minutes ago.
You pointed to you post that just says wealth and power become controlled by a few...but you don't say how this occurs in a libertarian society.
I have pointed this out in many of my responses to you. If you haven't fighred out the answer by now, then I don't think I can help you..
You haven't answered it directly...they are very vague responses like what i said above..."they will become wealthy and take over everything". How do they take over stuff? I don't understand.
"How do they take over stuff? I don't understand."
I've explained this many times. The successful and more efficient corporations and investors will become richer than their competitors. These owners and successfull businessmen and investors can then buy more stuff - "vote" more as you say; they can invest more, control production more, control the corporations more; they can buy up more competitors, etc etc etc, wich leads into a circle of wealth accumulation creating financial elites gaining more na d more power and influence in the economy.
Clear enough?
The control in the economy on what is being produced and how its produced is controlled by the consumer. It is democratic in that you vote for the very companies you're purchasing from. You have a say every single day of your life. Things are produced precisely for your individual needs...if the population deems they don't need it...then obviously business won't produce it as they will lose money producing something they don't need.
They invest in areas you want...because you're buying it.
"Through the market i do agree with your above question....if they are obtaining democracy through purchases."
The marked isn't a democracy in any way shape or form.
You agreed that people should have a right to democratic say in the things they're a part of and affect them.
Do you still agree that people should have a right to democratic say in the things they're a part of and affect them?
Your example has nothing to do with the "from the bottom-up" libertarian socialist democracy that I want.
"I think you do have a say at your workplace in a libertarian society. No one is telling you you can't form groups/unions/ whatever to demand better working conditions...you just can't force other people to do it."
I asked about democratic say, and the "free marked" is not democratic. So don't agree anymore with the earlier question?
No, it's you who don't understand.
Didn't you get that what I was doing in these three posts was dubunking libertarian myths - the arguments presented by the people advocating a capitalist society.
No, we don't have capitalism. We have a state-capitalist society with the state playing a substantial role, for example when the financial elite gamble and speculate the economy into a huge crisis, and immediately run to the nanny state so they can get multibilliondollar bailouts, so that they can continue giving themselves huge bonuses, buying private jets - and of course starting the next chapter in their favorite Ayn Rand novel like nothing ever happened..
I get the idea of your posts and understand your logic of wanting to help people...i just don't agree with them. If you rate countries based on how free their economies are (free being more libertarian), you will see that the more free a society, the better off the people in that society are (they make more money, better GDP, less unemployment etc.). Libertarians believe what they believe because in their minds it is the humanitarian way to create a society...not the barbaric way.
You've talked in your posts about how through government we've gained so much in society...we've advanced to where we are now because of the investments we've made in the past. But who's to say that we couldn't have been further along than what we are right now had government not been in the way?? For a well spent hour or so check out this video which shows an example of what i'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8&list=PLE63E9519A47A2177&index=9&feature=plpp_video
and another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uah8LBUbfc&list=PLE63E9519A47A2177&index=30&feature=plpp_video
These are the types of situations that occur when the power (over healthcare or agriculture) is controlled by one body....a centralize power. These are not isolated incidents...this has occured throughout history where you have a centralized group that bases its foundation on something...it will squash anything to challenge its place. In my opinion government is the obstacle to unleashing the full potential of human beings...and it is the reason we are in the economic mess we are in now (my opinion)
You talked about the corps getting bailed out...but it is the libertarians/Austrians who predicted the crisis. They watch where the government handouts (in the form of credit) are funneled to in the economy and sit back and watch the bubbles form...and then watch them pop.
Many people are better off because of lots of different things, and many of them are very well of without much libertarian politics (The Scandinavian countries f.ex). Capitalism is tyranny, private tyranny - it must principally be fought.
What they think is not that relevant. What their ideas will lead to is private tyranny.
And who's to say that we couldn't have been further along than what we are right now had the state-capitalist model not been in the way?.. I don't find this kind of arguing very interesting.
I'm a libertarian socialsit, I'm not fond of any typ of centralization, but governments can at least be run democratic, unlike private enterprise.
Many people left leaning and right leaning, have predicted the differetn financial crisis of the capitalist/state-capitalist system. Marx wrote about and predicted these crisis back in the 1800s..
Yeah, but i don't think you can cherry pick countries....you have to look at things statistically. Like your Norway....while they have been able to keep afloat with government programs...they're also in a very good situation because of oil revenues. You want to look at the data and say "if i started a country...what system statistically provides the best for its people"....you want the best shot with historical evidence over a large population of data.
See i don't think governments can really be run democratically with the way the system is set up....its a choice of two corporate monsters right now...its the money that rules, not the people.
You don't provide any answers as to how capitalism leads to private tyranny. In a libertarian society how do the wealthy have power over you? How do they control you? They can't, only by the use of government can they force something upon you. They can't steal your money, your land, your family, your belongings, your retirement etc......in what way do the amazingly rich destroy your life in this type of society?
How did marx predict the current crisis in the 1800s? The deregulation and monopoly takeover theory?
of course our oil revenues helps, but remember that we established the welfare society with huge government/public intervention in this socalled "free marked" and with lots of publically run companies and services - very successfully might I add - long before we found oil. Scandinavian countries have very similar models, and only one country has substantial oil revenues.
"See i don't think governments can really be run democratically with the way the system is set up"
I'm not too fond of the representative democratic model western countries have developed either, I want much more direct, participatory democracy (cf Libertarian socialism)
But, I thought you were more in favor of this "free marked", and not democracy. The democracy would just intervene in this, right (you know the whole "2 wolves and a cheep deiciding on what to have for dinner")?
"In a libertarian society how do the wealthy have power over you? How do they control you?"
I've written about this before. Read all three parts, and read this series http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-democratic-deficit/
"How did marx predict the current crisis in the 1800s?"
Thru his very in depth analysis he showed the effects and consequenses of the capitalist system. I believe you can find most of it in Das Kapital :)
I don't disagree with your democratic-deficit post above, I actually agree with part of the problem you argue, that politicians don't represent the people...and it is the state/private collusion that attacks the people. The politicians don't represent us, but they represent the wealthy corps that line their pocketbooks. I don't agree with the notion (entirely) that there is just a push for deregulation and a leaning towards capitalist markets by these major corps. Many lobbyists go to Washington for exactly the opposite...they fight to keep and expand regulations...in many instances to keep competition out of the market and secure their monopolistic type structure on the economy...this causes small companies that want to compete with these corporate giants no wiggle room to enter the market...as the expenses to compete due to the regulations pushed by the large corps keeps them from doing this. Here is a very good example, and it shows how it hurts the consumer....deals with GMO's and big agribusiness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uah8LBUbfc&list=PLE63E9519A47A2177&index=30&feature=plpp_video
This isn't a isolated incident either. There are many similar examples. Are there examples of corps doing this to reduce regs for their benefit at the expense of the consumer? I'm sure there are.....but it's not a black/white situation...it's a little more complicated.
Another good example these days is the pharmaceutical industry...where it costs roughly 800 million to get a drug approved by the FDA. What type of corp has the money to do this type of thing? Big pharma...it squashes competing drugs from entering the market and keeping the power in the hands of a few rich corps.
The problem i have with Marx predictions is that we don't live under a capitalist system...or a system that a libertarian would endorse. Actually the very system we live under i would argue that a libertarian would agree you will wind up with monopolistic control of the society by a few. Probably the most important aspect of a free market is the monetary system....and that has been far from capitalist for over a 100 years. The interest rate is the foundation of a free market monetary system, and that has been artificially produced for over a 100 years creating the boom/bust cycles we keep experiencing.
I would argue that the root of the problem is government...not because they're more evil than business.....they're both people...they both are greedy and will screw people over to further themselves. But why not take out the incentives of government to do this to people? My idea is a system that caps earnings for politicians from all avenues of income (stocks, salary, lobbyists...everything) and tie it to some marker for the average workers pay. Then get the money out of elections as well...elections should be a chance for us to see all of the possible candidates (perhaps the candidates who get a certain percentage of the vote from the people and above) for an equal amount of time...without money involved....take money out of entirely...they all get equal TV time, equal commercial time etc. For we are choosing the most important job in the US...money shouldn't dictate what the outcome will be. This way, money won't influence any decision making that occurs...it leaves no room for greed to sprout its roots and grow in government. My argument is that the private industry can't attack you directly in a libertarian society....only through the use of force (illegal) and government can this be accomplished.
The world is complex and things arn't often black or white, but overwhelmingly the corporate lobbyists push for tax cuts and free enterprise-friendly policies. Concentration of private power has increased enourmously and the financial elite have gotten more and more power thru deregulation and tax cuts etc.
Marx was describing the system that existed when he lived (of course) and that was a pretty close to a unregulated capitalist system.
There is a close link between corporations and government, and the corporations have gotten more and more power and resources into their hands making them more and more powerful. That's the problem.
Whether it's state-c or laissez faire-c, we must do away with these kind of ideas, and create a society in which people have a democratic say in the things that affect them: Libertarian Socialism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp