To The Capitalist-libertarians.. A Few Questions

[The Sloth]

well, this is something i wrote in another thread.. although it was meant for colonelquppy, i'm sure any capitalist libertarians on here are able to make suggestions.


Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:57 PM
but the intervention warps the market into performing differently then would be normal, and then when you call that system capitalist, people will assume that that whatever happens is inherent to a capitalist system, which of course isn't necessarilly true.

the term mixed economy is more accurate.

you're very right.. intervention does warp the market into performing differently than would be normal.

in the rotten, "ideal" capitalist-libertarian system, you'd have a dozen corporations fucking each other for the better profit, leaving nothing for the workers. a century and a half ago was closer to libertarianism than it is now.. yet, i already heard the objections: "of course the workers will progressively get higher wages, as the existence of more than one corporation will force wages to be competitive," and so on.

sure, as if a few giant companies couldn't get together and set the normal wages, while blowing the "competition" to little pieces. as if a few charities and privately-owned libraries and a handful of dim-witted schools will do something good for people, will do something good for general education.. yeah, it'll do good for 'em alright, in the same way that charity does a shitload for africa.

personally, i'd take the "warped" mixed-market economy over this lovely vision any day. but, maybe i haven't heard all the objections.. what would you propose for a libertarian-capitalist society so that it doesn't degenerate into corporatism? i assume, of course, that you're against corporatism, but for capitalism. to me, capitalism inevitably degenerates into the corporatism of an 1800s robber-barron society, in the same way that, in your eyes, communism inevitably degenerates into an un-equal dictatorship of the party. and, in my eyes, only certain kinds of "communist" arrangements (e.g., of the forced and leninist variety) end in a broken dictatorship.. in the same way that, to you, only certain capitalist arrangements (e.g., the mixed economy) end in corporatism and poverty. in the end, we accuse you of mis-understanding communism as you're looking at the wrong models, and you acuse us of mis-understanding capitalism because we are, supposedly, looking at the wrong models, also. we both feel that our ideological opponent is mis-understanding something, yet, naturally, at least one of us has to be wrong, and while we cannot speculate with full justification concerning social behavior, as that field is rather vast and barren, we're still capable of reasonable and educated assumptions.. and, fortunately, some of these assumptions are becoming more and more precise, and progressively corroborated.

so, do discuss.. tell me how you think that a mixed-market degenerates into corporatism, and the preventive measures you'd suggest to keep things fair and equal.

remember, adam smith advocated a free and equal society, where classes were, more or less, non-existent, as wages would progressively tend towards equalization, and people would, according to him, leave jobs as freely as they reasonably please, without any consequences or worries; employment, thus, would be guaranteed, and dignity distributed. well, i love adam smith's humanity and all, but i see (and have seen) a flaw in the methodology, namely, if a person is given that kind of power, to actually employ others underneath them, and expand this trafficking locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally, they'll do it, and if there's a profit involved, quite a few other wicked people will be in on it, too.

which is why, as a communist, i oppose things such as "communist parties" and "leadership".. to me, a change in terms (capitalist to communist, communist to capitalist) does not imply a change in structures, as things, if left to their own devices, to the will of "dignified" leaders and other kinds of elites, will fundamentally stay the same. so, it's not even a matter of "economics" with me.. the basic thing that is distributed unevenly is power, and "economics", in this society, just happens to be the title of these relationships. well, dignity should never be politicized.. nothing, in fact, should be politicized, and, at least to me, if anything is left alone, it'll probably rot as long as the people aren't there to oversee it, completely and unequivocally. i'd like to stress that final point.. whatever physical institution is in place, especially if that institution has the chance to become parasitic (as it very, very often does), it must be overseen and controlled democratically.. and, if society incurs an unreasonable expense at the hands of the instution, that vile thing should be put to rest. i don't think any reasonable person here could disagree with that.

that is, at bottom, my criticism of capitalism and especially capitalist libertarianism, as well as my criticism of leninism and its offshoots.

[colonelguppy]

hey dude i'll get back to this later i gotta go to a party

[The Sloth]

sounds good. :)

i'll check the response in the morning, then.

g'nite all.

[colonelguppy]

in the rotten, "ideal" capitalist-libertarian system, you'd have a dozen corporations fucking each other for the better profit, leaving nothing for the workers. a century and a half ago was closer to libertarianism than it is now.. yet, i already heard the objections: "of course the workers will progressively get higher wages, as the existence of more than one corporation will force wages to be competitive," and so on.

actually with government imposed barriers of entry removed, the market would probably have more competitors, not less. and most benefits that that workers have can't really be attributed to government regulation (maybe like 3% of our work force actually earns minimum wage)


sure, as if a few giant companies couldn't get together and set the normal wages, while blowing the "competition" to little pieces.

they could pretty much do that now. they don't because not only would that give you shitty workers, but because no market which employs unskilled labor is so dominated that a company could do it, and that would be even more true with state barriers of entry removed.


as if a few charities and privately-owned libraries and a handful of dim-witted schools will do something good for people, will do something good for general education.. yeah, it'll do good for 'em alright, in the same way that charity does a shitload for africa.

i'm not sure what this is directed at.


personally, i'd take the "warped" mixed-market economy over this lovely vision any day. but, maybe i haven't heard all the objections.. what would you propose for a libertarian-capitalist society so that it doesn't degenerate into corporatism? i assume, of course, that you're against corporatism, but for capitalism. to me, capitalism inevitably degenerates into the corporatism of an 1800s robber-barron society, in the same way that, in your eyes,

well thats only because you think that 1800's capitalism is the same thing as a libertarian free market, which is ridiculous. early industry was so protected by our government that competition couldn't get it even if it tried. US steel was basically handed its market position, same thing for many of the rail companies.


communism inevitably degenerates into an un-equal dictatorship of the party. and, in my eyes, only certain kinds of "communist" arrangements (e.g., of the forced and leninist variety) end in a broken dictatorship.. in the same way that, to you, only certain capitalist arrangements (e.g., the mixed economy) end in corporatism and poverty. in the end, we accuse you of mis-understanding communism as you're looking at the wrong models, and you acuse us of mis-understanding capitalism because we are, supposedly, looking at the wrong models, also. we both feel that our ideological opponent is mis-understanding something, yet, naturally, at least one of us has to be wrong, and while we cannot speculate with full justification concerning social behavior, as that field is rather vast and barren, we're still capable of reasonable and educated assumptions.. and, fortunately, some of these assumptions are becoming more and more precise, and progressively corroborated.

ok...


so, do discuss.. tell me how you think that a mixed-market degenerates into corporatism, and the preventive measures you'd suggest to keep things fair and equal.

many mixed economy practices (such as trade barriers, labor laws, business practices regulation, liscencing, high taxation) make it harder for small businesses to enter the market and compete, thus making it easier for large business who can handle the costs and are already long established. thats why you see walmart executives advocating raises in minimum wage, because they know it just makes small businesses time competing even harder.


remember, adam smith advocated a free and equal society, where classes were, more or less, non-existent, as wages would progressively tend towards equalization, and people would, according to him, leave jobs as freely as they reasonably please, without any consequences or worries; employment, thus, would be guaranteed, and dignity distributed. well, i love adam smith's humanity and all, but i see (and have seen) a flaw in the methodology, namely, if a person is given that kind of power, to actually employ others underneath them, and expand this trafficking locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally, they'll do it, and if there's a profit involved, quite a few other wicked people will be in on it, too

i don't really read smith or anything, he was more of a philospher and didn't have the understanding of basic economics that later economists had. i prefer guys like fredriech von hayek and milton friedman, they had the advantage of being able to observe the industrial revolution and various forms of mixed/command economies implemented.

i'd critique command economies but i don't like being long winded plus i'm slightly drunk.

[The Sloth]

actually with government imposed barriers of entry removed, the market would probably have more competitors, not less.

sure, small-time competition could get on its feet.. that is, if there is some capital to start, since state subsidies, whatever incentive they offer now, would also be removed. small-time competition, however, is rarely a rags-to-riches tale.. it's always in the shadow of those larger, monolithic structures. which brings us to monopolies.. sure, fewer government subsidies means that, to an extent, specific corporations will have less of a chance to gain a monopoly in any given market.. at least, at the very beginning. since many (if not most) libertarians claim monopoly is directly the result of state intervention via subsidies, they reason that the elimination of such self-interested subsidies would eliminate the possibility of monopoly. well, i tend to think that the elimination of government regulation would allow a rather lucky, maybe even intelligent, or at least inventive, corporation to grow beyond limit.. after all, what's there to stop it? at a certain point, a corporation can live without a subsidy. some may never receive a subsidy, and propser, and monopolize, nonetheless. the fact that there are a million other small-fry business owners underneath them is irrelevant, as they would eventually be victimized by the very corporatism that most libertarians despise. and, if they're not victimized in the sense that their owners would starve, they will, at least, never grow beyond something very local. a corner store, perhaps, or a neighborhood computer shop. the winners shall be chosen arbitrarily, and i'm not entirely comfortable having my name thrown into a hat.


and most benefits that that workers have can't really be attributed to government regulation (maybe like 3% of our work force actually earns minimum wage)

some can, some can't.. i'll grant you that. but, it would be a hell of a lot easier to live if most benefits can be attributed to some sort of huge, popular-based intervention/demand, rather than leaving the matter to a coporation's jurisdiction.. after all, nothing prevents that corporation, or a large network of monopolies, from setting specific and profitable controls. in the context of libertarianism, it wouldn't really be up to us.. and by "us" i mean the people. it's not like i trust the government on matters of my own well-being.

as for minimum wage.. most workers, of course, earn above the minimum wage. yet, the minimum wage is not inconsiderable in the context of a college student, nor is it inconsiderable in the context a poor new york city mexican that can't speak much english (well, maybe it's inconsiderable for the latter.. mexicans, around here, get paid far below the minimum wage, something that has never, ever changed.. while, at one point, they were able to work many hours a day and survive with a little dignity, now, they work most of the day, and survive rather pathetically.. despite the competition, and the many openings for menial jobs, they're still in a rather sorry state, and i don't see why it would ever change under the present circumstances). besides those two extreme examples, you have a lot of high school kids that support their families.. such considerations, while not the majority, are still important.


they could pretty much do that now.

they absolutely can, but they won't.. and that's because the companies realize that, sometimes, it's much more efficient to work more or less collectively rather than competitively. you would think that, eventually, CEO's start fearing for their lives, a fear which was fairly typical a little over a century ago. so, when i say that big business might blow the competition to pieces, i mean that in a literal sense -- explosives, assassinations, and et cetera. it happened once, and it might happen again under libertarianism.. but, libertarianism or not, i don't see how big business could possibly support such a system, which is a very important point to consider. the fact that the robber barron's little games of blood ended wasn't due to the fact that state intervention increased over the years, or decreased during some years.. it was simply a matter of common sense, and still is, to this day, a matter of common sense. government, too, has a specific interest in the growth of corporations, and i don't see them as possibly giving it up anytime soon, or ever, which makes the libertarian parties running for office almost as humorous as the communist parties trying to gain control through electoral politics. neither would be voted in, and, if the impossible does occur, and, in fact, a communist or a libertarian is sworn in as president, s/he'd be nothing but a figure-head, as now, s/he would have a lot of those pesky businesses and CEO's to deal with.

see, i don't know your specific brand of libertarianism, so i don't know if some of these criticisms would apply to you. it would be unfair, for example, to accuse you of hoping to create a rather hilarous form of chaos by introducing a pure barter system into the exchange of goods.. that is, in many cases, a popular libertarian position, although i don't hear it expressed so much. the fact that groups of people will be walking around with pockets full of coins and copper pieces that they minted themselves brings a smile to my face.. and the fact that the minting will become a competitive industry (or, a monopolized industry) opens it up to so many different kinds of lethal abuses that it's hard for me to even consider it. again, i don't know if such a criticism applies to you, but, the fact remains that it's a common libertarian suggestion.. and the point of this example is to show one of the reasons why big business could never accept such changes. your only option seems to be revolution.. and not the sought-after anti-keynesian revolution in academia, but a physical revolution against the state, not unlike what most communists are interested in. i'm not sure if you're comfortable with that alternative, but, for a radical fringe that's detrimental to big business (that is, both communists and libertarians, although i believe libertarians are detrimental to specific big businesses, for only a little while.. merely a change of names, perhaps), i think that's the only possible route.


i'm not sure what this is directed at.

again, i'm not entirely sure of your stance many issues, so i can't legitimately assume that you hold this or that opinion, but i was directing my criticism against some popular libertarian ideas. many libertarians would like to close down public libraries, public schools, public hospitals.. in fact, everything that's public, as, to them, public institutions imply a taxation, and taxation is, after all, the "unwarranted" and "unjustifiable" theft they complain about.. that is, the fact that a CEO "has to" give up much of his money to pay for things such public hospitals, a hospital which he may not even use, is unfair to the CEO. instead of this kind of public welfare, many libertarians (at least, if they're consistent with their original philosophical premises) would like to see charity organizations set up to "offer" things such as books to the un-educated, and a ration of milk for starving babies. and, i wonder if this charade will be the same as the current aid given to africa.. sure, under the extreme circumstances that libertarianism might create, some "hearty" and "good" CEO's might contribute a little more than now, but that's only because the proportion of suffering will be that much higher. i'd rather not have that as the incentive, and i'm sure you'll agree, if not with my principles, then at least with my sentiments.


well thats only because you think that 1800's capitalism is the same thing as a libertarian free market, which is ridiculous. early industry was so protected by our government that competition couldn't get it even if it tried. US steel was basically handed its market position, same thing for many of the rail companies.

oh, i agree.. libertarianism is not the market of the 1800s. i was referring to the monopolies of that period, which were, of course, subsidized by (mostly) unchecked. sure, early industry was protected by the government, as it always will be, as long as america exists via electoral politics. there's simply no way around it. however, considering that a good, in-depth textbook of modern corporate law can run anywhere between hundreds of pages to over a thousand, with so many technical descriptions of an incredibly specialized field, america is no where near letting go of intervention.. in fact, with the exception of certain trends such as protectionism and possibly some subsidies, i'll even say that the intervention is much greater than it was before, in the general, broad sense of it. the state does many things now that it didn't do before, and as long as government leaders and business owners remain loyal to their own self-interest, to their own profit, there's no chance that they'll ever let go of the present arrangement. they may adapt it to new circumstances, as they always have, but the premises and/or assumptions of the basic structure shall remain unchanged. that is not to say, however, that i believe libertarianism will offer a world without poverty, a world interest in the people's plight, which is why big business and government are both against it. i merely believe that libertarianism might allow that change in terms, that change of names, in which some new CEO's replace might the old ones.. and, eventually, create a monopoly and cut-throat world so lethal that it would, in fact, far exceed the mess that we're in now.

the steel and rail companies.. these were, in fact, more or less handed their position, but only after intense bribery and a guarantee that those actually offering the subsidies would be able to strike a serious profit. many times, favorable legislation was bought.. but, it's not a surprise, either, as favorable legislation will naturally reflect the positions and/or aspirations of the legislators. the rail companies, especially, met together and decided on a bribe for acquiring general subsidies.. and, considering the mass dis-interest of the time, the thirteen thousand workers that were actually responsible for the construction were paid pretty much nothing. i'm sure this will be a very common phenomena in a libertarian society.. theoretically, the equalization of wages and stabilization of general employment should increase, if only very slowly, but, in the context of real-world profit-making and politics, i don't see why it would. in the meantime, a huge portion of the population will suffer, with no real guarantee of the good things to come. besides monopolies, i was also referring to that kind of non-intervention on that part of workers themselves.


many mixed economy practices (such as trade barriers, labor laws, business practices regulation, liscencing, high taxation) make it harder for small businesses to enter the market and compete,

couldn't these monopolies exist as a result of too little intervention? after all, government officials could, possibly, if they weren't such greedy, filthy cowards, completely limit the existence of monopolies (this would mean, of course, that they'd lose all real funding). yet, these trade barriers and labor laws and regulations that you speak of are generally a form of subsidization, not only for small companies (theoretically), but also for the larger ones.. they're also a way for government to line their pockets.. that is, they're a way to get something out of the deal. of course, i don't believe that even the elimination of these subsidies guarantees anything permanent, as i already mentioned.. an elimination of these things might, only for a time, allow for "greater competition," but with so little intervention, it's only a little while longer until some new monolithic structure demolishes them.. or, if not demolishes them, it would, more realistically, marginalize them. and, again, at that point, success, in the elite, american sense of the word, would be a matter of those countless names inside a paper-tiger hat.

again, my question still stands.. how would my nightmare vision be prevented in a libertarian society? i still don't see any viable options, i stil don't see any reason why a specific company couldn't expand tremendously.. and expand forever, for that matter.

[colonelguppy]

sure, small-time competition could get on its feet.. that is, if there is some capital to start, since state subsidies, whatever incentive they offer now, would also be removed. small-time competition, however, is rarely a rags-to-riches tale.. it's always in the shadow of those larger, monolithic structures. which brings us to monopolies.. sure, fewer government subsidies means that, to an extent, specific corporations will have less of a chance to gain a monopoly in any given market.. at least, at the very beginning. since many (if not most) libertarians claim monopoly is directly the result of state intervention via subsidies, they reason that the elimination of such self-interested subsidies would eliminate the possibility of monopoly. well, i tend to think that the elimination of government regulation would allow a rather lucky, maybe even intelligent, or at least inventive, corporation to grow beyond limit.. after all, what's there to stop it? at a certain point, a corporation can live without a subsidy. some may never receive a subsidy, and propser, and monopolize, nonetheless. the fact that there are a million other small-fry business owners underneath them is irrelevant, as they would eventually be victimized by the very corporatism that most libertarians despise. and, if they're not victimized in the sense that their owners would starve, they will, at least, never grow beyond something very local. a corner store, perhaps, or a neighborhood computer shop. the winners shall be chosen arbitrarily, and i'm not entirely comfortable having my name thrown into a hat.

if in a free market where no business gets special treatment, i see no problem with having large corporations as long as they provide supieror products and service. the problem with trade barriers is that they tend to allow larger business to get away with serving customers poorly as its harder for someone else to come in and do it better. under complete free market settings, businesses will do well by doing good business as opposed to being handed their market share by a government for whatever reason.

i don't despise corporations, i only despise corporate protectionism.


some can, some can't.. i'll grant you that. but, it would be a hell of a lot easier to live if most benefits can be attributed to some sort of huge, popular-based intervention/demand, rather than leaving the matter to a coporation's jurisdiction.. after all, nothing prevents that corporation, or a large network of monopolies, from setting specific and profitable controls. in the context of libertarianism, it wouldn't really be up to us.. and by "us" i mean the people. it's not like i trust the government on matters of my own well-being.

the problem with with intervention for the benefit of the workers is that it seldom actaully helps anyone, and tends to to hinder economic growth which is far as i'm concerned is one of the few ways to actually raise the standard of living, by actually creating wealth instead of ridistributing it to warp the supply/demand equilibrium.

for instance, one of the most popular tools that politicians use to gain political support from workers is minimum wage raises. however, there are many effects which happen as a result from that that can actually put many workers in worse situations than they were before. most notably is raised unemployment. once businesses have to pay more for labor, naturally they can't afford to purchase as much of it, so if lets say before you were paying workers 6 dollars an hour, and now the new minimum wage is 8 dollars an hour, your labor expenses just went up by a third, and you can only afford to pay for 2/3rds of your workers now. now, your productivity lowers because you have fewer workers, and the quality of the business your doing drops, hurting the whoie economy.

for a recent example of how this works, the chicago city council voted to force big box retailors (walmart, target, macy's, etc) to pay workers 10 dollars an hour. now, target has chosen not to open 3 new stores in chicago because they decided the couldn't afford the expenses, and others may follow.

most laws aimed at social progress usually either result in inflation/unemployment, or all around stagnation of the economy.


they absolutely can, but they won't.. and that's because the companies realize that, sometimes, it's much more efficient to work more or less collectively rather than competitively. you would think that, eventually, CEO's start fearing for their lives, a fear which was fairly typical a little over a century ago. so, when i say that big business might blow the competition to pieces, i mean that in a literal sense -- explosives, assassinations, and et cetera. it happened once, and it might happen again under libertarianism.. but, libertarianism or not, i don't see how big business could possibly support such a system, which is a very important point to consider. the fact that the robber barron's little games of blood ended wasn't due to the fact that state intervention increased over the years, or decreased during some years.. it was simply a matter of common sense, and still is, to this day, a matter of common sense. government, too, has a specific interest in the growth of corporations, and i don't see them as possibly giving it up anytime soon, or ever, which makes the libertarian parties running for office almost as humorous as the communist parties trying to gain control through electoral politics. neither would be voted in, and, if the impossible does occur, and, in fact, a communist or a libertarian is sworn in as president, s/he'd be nothing but a figure-head, as now, s/he would have a lot of those pesky businesses and CEO's to deal with.

wait so you're agreeing with me now?


see, i don't know your specific brand of libertarianism, so i don't know if some of these criticisms would apply to you. it would be unfair, for example, to accuse you of hoping to create a rather hilarous form of chaos by introducing a pure barter system into the exchange of goods.. that is, in many cases, a popular libertarian position, although i don't hear it expressed so much. the fact that groups of people will be walking around with pockets full of coins and copper pieces that they minted themselves brings a smile to my face.. and the fact that the minting will become a competitive industry (or, a monopolized industry) opens it up to so many different kinds of lethal abuses that it's hard for me to even consider it. again, i don't know if such a criticism applies to you, but, the fact remains that it's a common libertarian suggestion.. and the point of this example is to show one of the reasons why big business could never accept such changes. your only option seems to be revolution.. and not the sought-after anti-keynesian revolution in academia, but a physical revolution against the state, not unlike what most communists are interested in. i'm not sure if you're comfortable with that alternative, but, for a radical fringe that's detrimental to big business (that is, both communists and libertarians, although i believe libertarians are detrimental to specific big businesses, for only a little while.. merely a change of names, perhaps), i think that's the only possible route.

i don't support a barter system, but i do support removing the fiat system that the government continues to fuck us over with again and again. we used to use gold, we wouldn't necessarilly use it again but i think our currency needs to be backed by some market commodity as opposed to nothing.


again, i'm not entirely sure of your stance many issues, so i can't legitimately assume that you hold this or that opinion, but i was directing my criticism against some popular libertarian ideas. many libertarians would like to close down public libraries, public schools, public hospitals.. in fact, everything that's public, as, to them, public institutions imply a taxation, and taxation is, after all, the "unwarranted" and "unjustifiable" theft they complain about.. that is, the fact that a CEO "has to" give up much of his money to pay for things such public hospitals, a hospital which he may not even use, is unfair to the CEO. instead of this kind of public welfare, many libertarians (at least, if they're consistent with their original philosophical premises) would like to see charity organizations set up to "offer" things such as books to the un-educated, and a ration of milk for starving babies. and, i wonder if this charade will be the same as the current aid given to africa.. sure, under the extreme circumstances that libertarianism might create, some "hearty" and "good" CEO's might contribute a little more than now, but that's only because the proportion of suffering will be that much higher. i'd rather not have that as the incentive, and i'm sure you'll agree, if not with my principles, then at least with my sentiments.

see i odn't really sucribe to the moral, universal rights side of libertarianism that many do. its all a psuedo science to me. however, i do think that pragmatically, many of the libertarian ideas work, and are much more effecient than other ideas concerning government. allthough i do believe in equal treatment under the law, and i think that taxing rich people a higher rate than poor people is unfair and a disincentive to work.

i oppose welfare because it simply doesn't work, and has adverse economic effects. the money would be much better used if it were left in the economy helping to fuel growth.



oh, i agree.. libertarianism is not the market of the 1800s. i was referring to the monopolies of that period, which were, of course, subsidized by (mostly) unchecked. sure, early industry was protected by the government, as it always will be, as long as america exists via electoral politics. there's simply no way around it. however, considering that a good, in-depth textbook of modern corporate law can run anywhere between hundreds of pages to over a thousand, with so many technical descriptions of an incredibly specialized field, america is no where near letting go of intervention.. in fact, with the exception of certain trends such as protectionism and possibly some subsidies, i'll even say that the intervention is much greater than it was before, in the general, broad sense of it. the state does many things now that it didn't do before, and as long as government leaders and business owners remain loyal to their own self-interest, to their own profit, there's no chance that they'll ever let go of the present arrangement. they may adapt it to new circumstances, as they always have, but the premises and/or assumptions of the basic structure shall remain unchanged. that is not to say, however, that i believe libertarianism will offer a world without poverty, a world interest in the people's plight, which is why big business and government are both against it. i merely believe that libertarianism might allow that change in terms, that change of names, in which some new CEO's replace might the old ones.. and, eventually, create a monopoly and cut-throat world so lethal that it would, in fact, far exceed the mess that we're in now.

the steel and rail companies.. these were, in fact, more or less handed their position, but only after intense bribery and a guarantee that those actually offering the subsidies would be able to strike a serious profit. many times, favorable legislation was bought.. but, it's not a surprise, either, as favorable legislation will naturally reflect the positions and/or aspirations of the legislators. the rail companies, especially, met together and decided on a bribe for acquiring general subsidies.. and, considering the mass dis-interest of the time, the thirteen thousand workers that were actually responsible for the construction were paid pretty much nothing. i'm sure this will be a very common phenomena in a libertarian society.. theoretically, the equalization of wages and stabilization of general employment should increase, if only very slowly, but, in the context of real-world profit-making and politics, i don't see why it would. in the meantime, a huge portion of the population will suffer, with no real guarantee of the good things to come. besides monopolies, i was also referring to that kind of non-intervention on that part of workers themselves.

i agree, no matter how logical anyones ideas are, representative government will not be able to maintain complete independence from the market, and vice versa. thats one of the problems with democracy. stupid people.


couldn't these monopolies exist as a result of too little intervention? after all, government officials could, possibly, if they weren't such greedy, filthy cowards, completely limit the existence of monopolies (this would mean, of course, that they'd lose all real funding). yet, these trade barriers and labor laws and regulations that you speak of are generally a form of subsidization, not only for small companies (theoretically), but also for the larger ones.. they're also a way for government to line their pockets.. that is, they're a way to get something out of the deal. of course, i don't believe that even the elimination of these subsidies guarantees anything permanent, as i already mentioned.. an elimination of these things might, only for a time, allow for "greater competition," but with so little intervention, it's only a little while longer until some new monolithic structure demolishes them.. or, if not demolishes them, it would, more realistically, marginalize them. and, again, at that point, success, in the elite, american sense of the word, would be a matter of those countless names inside a paper-tiger hat.

no, because trade barriers always hurt the little guy more than the large businesses. i'm not to worried about monopolies, because if they managed to acheive one under this type of setting, tehy would have to work hard for it.


again, my question still stands.. how would my nightmare vision be prevented in a libertarian society? i still don't see any viable options, i stil don't see any reason why a specific company couldn't expand tremendously.. and expand forever, for that matter.

pretty much in all the ways i've described already.

[The Sloth]

if in a free market where no business gets special treatment, i see no problem with having large corporations as long as they provide supieror products and service. the problem with trade barriers is that they tend to allow larger business to get away with serving customers poorly as its harder for someone else to come in and do it better. under complete free market settings, businesses will do well by doing good business as opposed to being handed their market share by a government for whatever reason.

but what prevents a few large corporations from merging, or, if not merging, secretly colloborating on those under-handed deals that are always so very popular? they'll provide superior products, because they'll always have enough capital for superiority. nothing will tend towards equalization, simply because it's always been rather easy to bleed the competition dry (and this ease is not only due to the subsidies/protectionism of the state.. it also comes down to the question of profits, which, if it's any question at all, is simply a question of cruelty towards the people inside the business, and outside of it.. nothing easier than bleeding the competition dry when you have human beings in all kinds of positions of power). again, whatever small-time businesses exist, they'll probably exist out of the minor capital of the owners, and will, in almost all cases, expand no further than the neighborhood. very rarely will anything become greater, regardless of their effort. abuses, no matter their qualitative level, will be remain unchecked, and even if a new corporation replaces the abuser, and restores a small degree of goodness through competitive practices, it's only a matter of time before they revert to the abuses that they once usurped.

and, in your argument, the united states is not at all a libertarian society, and that's fair enough; i certainly agree with that assertion. however, despite the fact that competition doesn't meet any real "ideals," especially not the libertarian ideals of competition, competition does, nonetheless, exist; and, however slowly competition is moving forward, however slowly new and minor-capital-based businesses are emerging, they're emerging nonetheless.. despite all this, despite the theoretical equalization of wages, living standards, and so on, things have deteriorated internationally rather quickly.. it's happening even in some parts of europe. the only exception seems to be some areas without developed capitalism.. there, too, the emerging capitalism shall cease to be progressive, eventually. if competition, even limited, protectionist competition in america, would allow for exponentially growing standards, these high living standards would have already been here.. yet, that's not the case. the standards of competition, again, may be imperfect, but they're still here, and they're not doing much, not even slowly. with that in mind, i don't see why opening up the gates to "greater competition" should lead to a better society.. if anything, it would probably lead to the very things most of us would wish to avoid, if we keep the possibility of those lethal and very probably abuses in mind.


the problem with with intervention for the benefit of the workers is that it seldom actaully helps anyone, and tends to to hinder economic growth which is far as i'm concerned is one of the few ways to actually raise the standard of living, by actually creating wealth instead of ridistributing it to warp the supply/demand equilibrium.

it tends to limit economic growth, yes, as any pro-worker legislation in a market economy will tend to limit economic growth to a degree (even though this degree might be incredibly insubstantial.. oh well, principle over profit is part of my philosophy).. however, i don't see how the argument is applicable to other economies, namely, a communist economy. it certainly depends on the cultural context in many cases, and, a purely irrational, consumerist society such as this one has quite a bit of waste to deal with and/or justify before they can offer any proper judgments on the economic alternatives.

as for economic growth raising the standards of living, that may or may not be true.. again, it certainly depends on the context, the corporate models, and, most importantly, the economic system in place. some money may, indeed, "trickle down" to the lower levels of society, which is probably your argument, but the fact that there's a trickle doesn't explain nor justify its tininess.

and, this trickle-down economic growth is certainly applicable to both libertarian and market economies, again, depending on the context.. however, despite the fact that it's applicable to market economies, the american standards of living have been in decline for a rather long time. and, again, competition may be imperfect, and it may even be considered very deformed by libertarian standards, but it nonetheless exists.. so does, to an extent, economic growth; economic growth continues every day, and the only time when it halts is not due to the fact that there's suddenly a scarcity of resources, of basic necessities, of energy, and so on, but it's due to the fact that a certain region or country or continent has ceased be competitive, for whatever reason.. it has been, in effect, bought out and even manipulated by the luckier super-structures. and, i wonder, is it justifiable that the basic method of economic growth is based on its competitiveness? is it concievable that we could have a system where competition would be irrelevant to economic growth, where nations aren't coerced into market development and exploration, but, instead, people are able to go about the business of resources and dignity through cooperation? that's the basic problem.. the whole reason why a nation ceases to be grow economically is because it cannot compete.. such a thing should not be punishable; instead, the very route to this kind of stunted growth should be destroyed, as, in the present form, it's rather cynical, not at all rational, and incredibly greedy, malicious, and somewhat spiteful.

in an alternative economic system, a region would never cease to grow economically due to its lack of competitiveness, or inability; through a certain level of cooperation, it will continue to grow despite the circumstances, and, since almost economic decision under communism will be in the hands of the people, every single profit would be trickled down to the people, and thus the standards of living will continue not gradually, not based on the arbitrary whims of a corporation, but completely, irrevocably, and certainly forever.


for instance, one of the most popular tools that politicians use to gain political support from workers is minimum wage raises. however, there are many effects which happen as a result from that that can actually put many workers in worse situations than they were before. most notably is raised unemployment. once businesses have to pay more for labor, naturally they can't afford to purchase as much of it, so if lets say before you were paying workers 6 dollars an hour, and now the new minimum wage is 8 dollars an hour, your labor expenses just went up by a third, and you can only afford to pay for 2/3rds of your workers now. now, your productivity lowers because you have fewer workers, and the quality of the business your doing drops, hurting the whoie economy.

and this is very true.. only within the context of a mixed-market or pure capitalist economy.

the argument is not applicable to many other economic systems, especially not communism. the point is, i want to discuss libertarianism within the context of the alternatives.


wait so you're agreeing with me now?

i certainly agree that the mixed-market economy benefits the government.. obviously, they have a serious interest in the growth of certain corporations. politicians receive funding, and politicians strike up or agree to all kinds of deals. no sensible critic of capitalism would disagree with this. and, the CEO's that would be threatened with libertarianism today, will only be replaced with new equally-dispicable CEO's tomorrow. again, this is that change of terms, of names.. i don't care for such superficial switches. but, i don't think any major corporation would ever support libertarianism.. nor could it be accepted by any politicians.. assuming, of course, that these politicians would like to keep their jobs. and, if, theoretically, a libertarian society could be established, the government, understanding that there's a profit, will eventually strike up all kinds of deals with the corporations, despite their professed libertarian principles. indeed, they will suddenly forget that they're libertarians, in the same way that communists forget they're communists once they have bureaucratic power. get rid of these bureaucratic structures, however, and you won't have anybody forgetting their principles any time soon. but, as long as you have these kinds of bureaucratic structures, with an incentive and, more importantly, an ABILITY to make a profit, they'll exercise that ability, and go against their own beliefs.

but, that goes back to my criticisms of leadership and elitism, from capitalist society to so-called "communist" society.

and which is why i think libertarianism could never work.. even assuming that it has some kind of desirable purity, it could only maintain it for a bit, until it falls into its own growing super-structures.


i oppose welfare because it simply doesn't work, and has adverse economic effects. the money would be much better used if it were left in the economy helping to fuel growth.

sure, it might, or it might not, as it depends on the context.. welfare doesn't necessarily have to be in conflict with development. it only conflicts in specific situations, and, even so, it might conflict rather marginally.


no, because trade barriers always hurt the little guy more than the large businesses. i'm not to worried about monopolies, because if they managed to acheive one under this type of setting, tehy would have to work hard for it.

or, at least harder than they're working now.. which might very well be the case.

however, i believe the problem arises once a monopoly has been established. the idea that large corporations will be "kept in line" by a bunch of tiny, local businesses is absurd, especially in light of what we see today. even if non-intervention were possible practically, i think the benefits of libertarianism, if any, would float around somewhere in the background for a few years.. and fizzle out as the new corporatism replaces the old. i simply do not trust the rather uncontrollable, un-democratic super-structures, nor do i trust human beings in any positions of power. the "checks" to keep corporations "nice" and "fair" that would be put in place in libertarian society -- namely, the rigors of competitiveness -- would be, at least in my eyes, incredibly inadequate.. and eventually disastrous.

that is even assuming, of course, that libertarianism is a practical option, a practical alternative against the corporatist and statist struggle.. no government official, no large business would ever accept its existence. if it ever were in place, it would be simply undermined.. even in the case of a revolution, as long as libertarians accept the existence of some form of authority and/or bureaucracy, their ideals will always be thrown overboard in the name of profit. and, of course, the only way to actually control authority and bureaucracy so such abuses are impossible would be to simply destroy authority and bureaucracy.. such institutions would have to be controlled by the very people that are most profoundly affected by them. and if libertarians would ever take these anti-authoritarian, anti-bureaucratic suggestions, they would soon find themselves not libertarian capitalists, but libertarian socialists.. any kind of real popular sovereignty and self-control implies nothing less than that, i think. it implies nothing less than anarchism, nothing less than communism.. i don't know if there's any way around that.

[Dean]

Actually, centralisation of the means of production is inevitable under a capitalist economy, regulated or not. As the profit goes up, and the cost of developing means of production goes up, a smaller and smaller fraction of the population is capable of owning productive businesses.

[James]

in reply to initial post, hayek proposed checks to keep the market competitive and to prevent monopoly. To hayek monopoly was just as bad as state dictated economy.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:53 PM
in reply to initial post, hayek proposed checks to keep the market competitive and to prevent monopoly. To hayek monopoly was just as bad as state dictated economy.

I read over the back and forth banter and thought I would touch on a few free-market points that were not made clear.


What is a "monopoly?"


A monopoly is a piece of paper issued from the state that gives exclusive rights to commerce in any given field.


Does Bill Gates have a "monopoly?" No he does not. There is the Mac still competing and there is also Linux not to mention all the home hobbiest writing their own operating systems looking to gain a part of Bill's market share.

Incorporation is not supported by capitalist-libertarians because granting citizenship to companies is a special privilidge and there is simply no need for it.

People should be able to pool their money together for whatever purposes and determine their own liability. No one needs the coercive power of the state for that.


What I never understood why why the Marxian crowd seems to think that labor is at the mercy of corporations when the truth is the reverse.


Labor is a scarcity. There are just not enough people in the world to do everything that needs to be done. In fact, labor is so scarce that some laborers called entrepeneurs must resort to enticing other laborers to help them with their dreams. Thus the notion of wages is born. The entrepeneur must offer a wage that is higher than the other laborer is already earning from his own labors.


Nike moves to Vietnam. The Vietnamesse were already there and they have been knee deep in the rice fields generation after generation. Nike has the necesassary ingriedient, capital and Nike has a footware distribution line already in place, so they need labor to work the factory. Thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese would apparently sooner sell their labor to Nike than work in the rice paddies.


No one from the rice field needs to go to work for Nike. The Vietnameses people have done fine without Nike for millions of years and likely will do just as they have been doing in the rice fields for generations to come. Only thing is Nike pay more in wages than any peasant could hope to earn in the rice field. Have a look around. There is nothing but rice for 1000's of miles. Everybody will always eat, they will always have a thatch roof over their heads. Their "needs" will be taken care of by the land just like the needs of their ancestors were taken care of for thousands of years.

Turns out the Vietnamese are not so unlike you and I. They have wants and desires and dreams that go beyond the rice paddies. So they line up at Nike for the promise of a better tommorrow.

Of course, every do gooder and champion of the underdog portrays all of that as Nike "exploiting" the Vietnamese, but the brutal truth is that Nike offers those rice paddy workers a better future than they could have ever dreamed possible.

It would take 5 years working in the rice paddy to earn enough to own your own bicycle in Vietnam. At Nike, 3 months labor and you have a new bike. 5 years labor and you may own a Korean car. In 10 years, pershaps with penny pinching the former rice paddy worker can buy real estate, or send their child to school.

Those who now labor for Nike have no claim on the good will, the factory or the distribution system and connections Nike brought to Vietnam. They may buy shares in the company if they so desire with their savings. Thereafter their earnings will be tied to the performace of Nike. Nike does not owe the former rice paddy workers a living or a share in the profits. Those rice paddy workers had nothing to do with all the intellectual labor that got Nike to Vietnam in the first place. All Nike owes them is a wage for their labor. A wage the labor would not acept if it was not aggreeable to them in the first place. An all voluntary association indeed.


The lesson in all of this is that capital must not only be earned. There must be a profit incentive to entice labor, and that capital must be saved in order to be invested.


It is to the savers in society that humanity owes it progress. Those who consume every bit of their income and save nothing do so for their own reasons. Saving takes sacrifice and the ability to put off immediate gratification for a better tommorrow.


That is why the spendthrifts ought never have a say on how the savers spend their money. That is essentially what government intervention does. It gives the spendthrifts a say in how the savers spend the money that their labor earned.

Intersting point is that the bad old Robber Barrons had very few bodies attributable to their evil. Meanwhile, Lincoln, Bismarck, Stalin, Mao and all the rest have a lot of bodies to account for. The question for the Central planner is always what to do with dissenters? All kinds of reasoning is tried, gulags, inquisitions and they always come down to the "final solution" when pursuassion fails.

That is the biggest benefit of capitalism as opposed to the central plan. One can tell Bill Gates and Nike to take a hike that you would sooner work the rice paddy or go hunting and fishing to live off the land and that is that.

Try telling Che that you would sooner not contribute to the central plan. Try telling that to Stalin and Mao. Everybody pulls for the team or there will have to be discipline least the other labors get the idea that they can slough off. That was the purpose of the gulag.

"The Corporation."


How big and evil can it get?


Let's look at the IBM lesson. In the 1960's International Buisness Machine was the No. 1 corporation on planet Earth.

Why didn't they stay so?

They made a bad business decision in the late 80's. Even with all their "profits" and potential profits to be earned, the company decided that very few individuals would be interested in having a PC in their own home. They were wrong and Bill Gates with the help of Intel eased IBM out of that No.1 spot. IBM is still around, but they are nowhere near the top in earnings anymore.

The same thing that happens to government happens to corporation when they become too large. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Ineffientcy starts to permeate and that allows an opportunity for the smaller nieche player to gain market share and perhaps even surpass their competition.


Profit is not a dirty word in any of this. The entire purpose of engaging in industry is profit. Profit is what makes it worth while getting out of bed and going to work.


Africa is poor because of the system of government the people choose. Africa is rich with resources and there is no shortage of wealth to be created.


The problem is that Africans rejected capitalism when they rejected their imperial masters up to and including the 1960's.

Since then African countries have actually done a lot poorer on their own than when they were colonies.

The reasons are obvious enough. Most of the African countries embraced some kind of central plan as the means to their salvation. That decision was very costly. The wealth that was confiscated from the British conquerers was quickly consumed rather than invested and poverty for all was the predictable result.

Charity has been from government to government. American government charity propped up all kinds of dictators and paid for arms and armies to keep the people oppressed.

All charity ought to be private. And all the charity in the world cannot make the central plan work. The people of Africa MUST adopt capitalism if they wish to prosper.

The unfettered market place, the agora, is all that is needed for men to exchange goods, services and ideas. There is no purpose served in government interventions in the economic matters of individuals.

The idea is that there is no government intervention.

How can a corporation exist if the government does not mete out the special privilidge?


The first statesman who arises to legislate the economy should be thrown from office by the people at the very first opportunity.

But the people are lazy. The people are not diligent. The people trust the politiicans and that is what delievers the evils of corportate citizenship to our midsts.

Know what I mean? Someone has to vote for all this chicanery to fly.

What can be done if the people are not vigilant and do not hold their government to the Constitutionally delegated powers?

The Americans are the prime example. Once the freest people on the face of the Earth, now mired in the evils of an all powerful omnipotent central state that is spreading imperialism throughout the world?

The "turning point" in American history is 1865 when Lee surrenders to Grant.

The Jeffersonian ideal of "a republic, if you can keep it" dies and the Lincolnian ideal of a "democracy" is born.

The idea of succession belongs to Thomas Jefferson. It was the safety value of liberty meant to keep the Federal government subordinate to the states.

The idea of a Confederacy is now forever linked to the notion of slavery, but that was not the purpose. The Consoldiation of Federal power was an evil to be fought with all vigor and the Southern States did liberty proud in fighting for the right of smaller state governments to govern themselves as they saw fit.

The victors write history goes the old saw and nowhere is that more evident in the portrayal of the causes of the Civil War, the War of Northern Agression, or the War of Southern Succession, depending on your point of view.


The war was all about the money with slavery being a side issue that had been a growing thorn in the United States at the time of Lincoln's Inaguration.

The Morril Tax is what started the war. The South was determined not to collect it and Lincoln needed the money to bring about his dreams of a National Bank, an internal improvement system, (subsidies to the Railroads et al) and a high protective tarriff.

The short of it is Lincoln wins. Consolidated government becomes the model the world over, (Bismarck, Lenin and Hitler all admired Lincoln. Lincoln was the first to justify rising above the Constituted powers to "preserve the nation" as Lincoln called it. If Lincolon could suspend the Constitution in a time of trouble, well, why not Adolph too?

George Bush can also look down the long list of Presidents since Lincoln to claim his "war powers" that George Bush thinks entitles him to ignore the Constitutional powers vested in the Presidency.


Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederated States of America wrote in his memoirs that his greatest fear in losing the American Civil war was that the Federal government would grow to become the Imperialist power it has become.

None of that would have happened had the South won. Slavery was dismantled the world over starting in 1801 in England. Slavery's days in America were numbered and that fact certainly played to the emotions of the people on both sides of the issue.

Had the South merely been allowed to go their own way, slavery would have died a very natural death and rather quickly too as the moral compass of the people was rapidly changing.

The world would be a very different place if the Jeffersonians had won the Civil war.

[James]

An interesting post there, i agree with what you said about american politics. It's fruitless trying to talk about it though with most americans. From my experiance they either don't know their constitution, or they get angry and don't want to talk about it.
I also agree with negative liberty over "positive liberty".

[Tungsten]

Tigerman
That was the best post I've read on here yet.