An unchecked free market does not "tend to become dominated by a few corporations". It certainly can, in some instances. However, a regulated market increases that chance by creating protectionist environments, encouraging consolidation, and imposing regulatory and feduciary barriers on entering the market. It is no coincidence that the most heavily regulated industries tend to be the ones also dominated by only a few players.
Sure it does and has.You say it CAN. How do we prevent that when there are no rules? Oh yeah, everyone will automatically follow the golden rule, right. But in libertarian speak the golden rule is 'those with the gold, get to rule' Look, given the libertarian's uncompromising fidelity to property rights and his 'faith' in the free market, those with property and with the wealth to enter the market have the 'freedom to choose', in direct proportion to their wealth. But at whose expense?
Oh, this reminds me of something else, privatization. Is it the libertarian's goal for total privatization? Is there a line that is drawn concerning this?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Be careful where you lay credit. The government that "solved" the above problems also did much to create them. The 19th Century was marked by laissez-faire capitalism to roughly the same extent as it was marked by governmental cronyism, influence, injustice and coersion. Furthermore, be careful with your environmental relativism. Two centuries from now, human beings will look back at the very heavily regulated 21st century and ask with the same disgust, "how did they live like that"? The 19th Century, while very far from perfect, held better lives for most Americans than did in the 17th Century, just as the 21st century holds better lives for most Americans than did the 19th Century.
I don't disagree with what you've said here, but you can't deny the track record or reform.
If you do not want to see these protections dissolved, don't dissolve them. But if what you want to have or do not want to have has any relevance, understand that what others want to have or do not want to have has equal relevance.
That depends. If what you want is for your workers to work a six or seven day work week with 12-hour days, a pittance for wages, in a hellish and unhealthy environment and absolutely no benefits, then I would have to say that there is not a moral equalivance here. I absolutely believe in individual freedoms, but I also believe in community and in responsibility to that community. You can't prop up one while ignoring the other.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Sure it does and has.You say it CAN. How do we prevent that when there are no rules?
Hehe...there are rules, baraka. The problem is that you don't necessarily control them or get to make them in a free market. Markets are always bound by the rules of economics.
So-called "natural monopolies" can certainly happen in a free market. Microsoft, for example, is largely a natural monopoly holder and their market position is basically maintained in a free-market environment. However, natural monopolies have an enemy that always wins out: innovation. Sometime, in the next 10-20 years, Microsoft's dominant position in the operating system market will be beaten by someone who did exactly what Bill Gates did: take what came before you and do it a little better. The last great monopoly before Microsoft was AT&T (not quite as natural, but close enough). That monopoly was broken up by force, costing tax payers and consumers trillions of dollars in the process, when all they really had to do was wait for Martin Cooper from Motorolla to come along and invent the cell phone, or, better yet, beat him too it.
It seems absolutely ridiculous to defend government from the perspective of market monopolies. First, government itself represents a monopoly. Second, governments have historically created thousands of monopolies via deliberate lawmaking or unintended consequences of well-meaning policy. Monopolies do not require governments, but governments tend to help create them rather than stand in the way of their creation.
Look, given the libertarian's uncompromising fidelity to property rights and his 'faith' in the free market, those with property and with the wealth to enter the market have the 'freedom to choose', in direct proportion to their wealth. But at whose expense?
I think you believe the answer here to be "the poor". But you're incorrect. Let's say I'm rich and you're poor. And then let's say I wish to do business in a free market with my friends. How does that come at your expense?
Oh, this reminds me of something else, privatization. Is it the libertarian's goal for total privatization? Is there a line that is drawn concerning this?
Libertarians, for the most part, are strongly against the government's granting of exclusive service contracts to private companies, if that's what you mean. Libertarians, for the most part, are strongly for private ownership of all property, however. Do you understand what I mean here?
Huh? My argument for Libertarianism is not defined by a "drive to obtain capital". Why do you see it that way? My argument for Libertarianism simply extends to a belief that people should be able to keep what they own, and it plays an important role here since so many people's arguments against Libertarianism are defined by a desire to have what those people own.
This is kind of all over the place, and I'm not sure what you're saying. Certainly there is an important point found in the fact that too many of us are economically separated from our sustenance, and that voters are fickle, and that many politicians are hypocrites. I don't disagree with any of those things, at least on the surface. What's your point here?
How would a libertarian congressman oppose an ongoing foreign aggression policy while at the same time honor a viable legal contract that serves his constituency at home that serves the foreign policy?
How would a libertarian congressman oppose an ongoing foreign aggression policy while at the same time honor a viable legal contract that serves his constituency at home that serves the foreign policy?
Likely by either contradicting himself or determining that honoring a contract takes a higher precendence over opposing a piece of foreign policy. There are many potential reasons for this. Can you provide some specifics?
Likely by either contradicting himself or determining that honoring a contract takes a higher precendence over opposing a piece of foreign policy. There are many potential reasons for this. Can you provide some specifics?
I mentioned the congresswoman from California that made news for the same thing. I'm sure you read the story. She out and out opposes the Iraq war, yet then voted for the increased defense spending because it directly affects defense contract obligations to a factories in her state.
It's pretty much the state of affairs today with corporate globalization.
I don't disagree with what you've said here, but you can't deny the track record or reform.
I don't, but one also shouldn't ignore their negative consequences in addition to their positive ones, as well as their total failures. For instance:
That depends. If what you want is for your workers to work a six or seven day work week with 12-hour days, a pittance for wages, in a hellish and unhealthy environment and absolutely no benefits, then I would have to say that there is not a moral equalivance here. I absolutely believe in individual freedoms, but I also believe in community and in responsibility to that community. You can't prop up one while ignoring the other.
Do you think your regulations have prevented a single 12-hour day? Or have they only prevented a single 12-hour day for you?
Also, the original point holds. If what you want is an 8-hour day and that, in your mind, justifies putting such a restriction on another delivered via force, you have no claim against that person if he or she simply makes you to work a 24 hour day via a greater force. Actually...let me try this a different way. How would you feel if I proposed mandating a 20-minute work day?
I mentioned the congresswoman from California that made news for the same thing. I'm sure you read the story. She out and out opposes the Iraq war, yet then voted for the increased defense spending because it directly affects defense contract obligations to a factories in her state.
It's pretty much the state of affairs today with corporate globalization.
Come to think of it, this is the state of affairs for the Democratic Party and its "opposition" of Iraq.
I am asking how a Libertarian Congress would handle the same situation.
I mentioned the congresswoman from California that made news for the same thing. I'm sure you read the story. She out and out opposes the Iraq war, yet then voted for the increased defense spending because it directly affects defense contract obligations to a factories in her state.
It's pretty much the state of affairs today with corporate globalization.
I don't know the exact specifics of this case, but someone certainly could feel obligated to honor a contract even if he or she no longer believed that the product of the contract was right. Such a thing is defensible, at least on some level.
But this does sound like just another example of silly populism in politics.
I don't know the exact specifics of this case, but someone certainly could feel obligated to honor a contract even if he or she no longer believed that the product of the contract was right. Such a thing is defensible, at least on some level.
But this does sound like just another example of silly populism in politics.
No, not populism. I'm challenging your past assertions that Libertarianism has a base in moral choices. If one is to oppose meddling in foreign affairs through aggression/ warfare, then why wouldn't a libertarian follow through on dissolving contracts that serve that immoral purpose?
So-called "natural monopolies" can certainly happen in a free market. Microsoft, for example, is largely a natural monopoly holder and their market position is basically maintained in a free-market environment. However, natural monopolies have an enemy that always wins out: innovation. Sometime, in the next 10-20 years, Microsoft's dominant position in the operating system market will be beaten by someone who did exactly what Bill Gates did: take what came before you and do it a little better. The last great monopoly before Microsoft was AT&T (not quite as natural, but close enough). That monopoly was broken up by force, costing tax payers and consumers trillions of dollars in the process, when all they really had to do was wait for Martin Cooper from Motorolla to come along and invent the cell phone, or, better yet, beat him too it.
I'm glad you brought this up, it's something that I have thought about before. I would say that unchecked capitalism PREVENTS innovation. For example, in this kind of market you get a handful of big players. You argue no, but I think you will find many economists agree with me. This handful of large corporations 'buy out' the little guy's innovative idea. The little guy has no capital to see his idea to fruition by himself. So the large corporation buys out this idea to obtain rights to it, then sits on it until the current technology runs it's course and maximum profits are realized, thus delaying it.
It seems absolutely ridiculous to defend government from the perspective of market monopolies. First, government itself represents a monopoly. Second, governments have historically created thousands of monopolies via deliberate lawmaking or unintended consequences of well-meaning policy. Monopolies do not require governments, but governments tend to help create them rather than stand in the way of their creation.
I know, I know, the big bad gov't. It's a nice scapegoat, huh?
I won't argue that the gov't has been in the wrong. Again, and I think I stated this earlier in the thread, this is were our political ideologies come into play. I align myself with political views that are opposed to this practice.
I think you believe the answer here to be "the poor". But you're incorrect. Let's say I'm rich and you're poor. And then let's say I wish to do business in a free market with my friends. How does that come at your expense?
Example, let's say, for arguments sake that your 'dream society' is a reality, no rules, no regs. Now let's say that you only wish to pay your labor staff $1 an hour and expect them to work 16 hour days with no breaks, no benefits, etc. Now you would say to me, 'well, these folks have a choice not to work for me' Well, if you are the only game in town and this individual's choice is you or nothing, well you see where I'm going with this. Slave labor, ffg.
Another example is phony trade deals. Under phony free-trade deals, unions are being broken and pressured by the movement of and the threat to move factories overseas. So to me anybody who expects real compassion from a corporation is well, misguided, imo.
Libertarians, for the most part, are strongly against the government's granting of exclusive service contracts to private companies, if that's what you mean. Libertarians, for the most part, are strongly for private ownership of all property, however. Do you understand what I mean here?
What qualifies as all property? Do you propose the abolition of all national parks, and the privatization of all public lands and utilities, including roads and airports? And if so, where do you draw the line? What about oceanic resources? What about wildlife on these privatized lands? Do you propose total privatization of the earth? Where does this privatization end?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Come to think of it, this is the state of affairs for the Democratic Party and its "opposition" of Iraq.
I am asking how a Libertarian Congress would handle the same situation.
It probably depends on the Libertarian. Libertarians are usually both anti-war and anti-defense spending, so they probably wouldn't find themselves in this exact problem, but similar ones could certainly arise. I remember an online discussion I saw amongst some local Libertarians about a similar question regarding honoring an existing municipal contract. I'll see if I can find it and I'll post the link....
No, not populism. I'm challenging your past assertions that Libertarianism has a base in moral choices. If one is to oppose meddling in foreign affairs through aggression/ warfare, then why wouldn't a libertarian follow through on dissolving contracts that serve that immoral purpose?
A Libertarian may also have a believe in honoring contracts (something not uncommon at all among Libertarians). Given the example, many Libertarians would immediately try to extricate themselves from that contract, whereas some may honor it and let that be the end of it. None would likely fight to extend the contract or renew it.
This is a thorny ethical question you're asking. Let's say, for instance, you sign a contract today and then change your mind tomorrow. Does the contract lose its meaning?
A Libertarian may also have a believe in honoring contracts (something not uncommon at all among Libertarians). Given the example, many Libertarians would immediately try to extricate themselves from that contract, whereas some may honor it and let that be the end of it. None would likely fight to extend the contract or renew it.
This is a thorny ethical question you're asking. Let's say, for instance, you sign a contract today and then change your mind tomorrow. Does the contract lose its meaning?
I'm thinking in terms of the actual state of affairs in the country now. Paul is adamantly against the way our foreign policy is being used, yet, if he and a boatload of other likeminded folks were to assume their seats in Washington, DC in '08, they would have to presumedly extricate not only US troops from Iraq, but many contracts in the billions of dollars that are invested in that effort both home and abroad.
Sure. And governments have in the past ignored public health and what is best for the community because their eye is on the bottom line or on power or on populism. So what's your argument here? Any individual human being or groups of human beings can ignore public health or what's best for the community.
Yes, exactly. The contrast in public health and safety, and in environmental quality, before and after the introduction of government regulation further validates my point. It offers strong refutation to the libertarian's assurance that 'the free market', the enforcement of property rights and the threat of civil law suits are the best means of protecting the public and the natural environment.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm glad you brought this up, it's something that I have thought about before. I would say that unchecked capitalism PREVENTS innovation. For example, in this kind of market you get a handful of big players. You argue no, but I think you will find many economists agree with me. This handful of large corporations 'buy out' the little guy's innovative idea. The little guy has no capital to see his idea to fruition by himself. So the large corporation buys out this idea to obtain rights to it, then sits on it until the current technology runs it's course and maximum profits are realized, thus delaying it.
This makes no sense, so maybe I'm misunderstanding it. Are you saying that an inventor comes up with an idea that costs X to produce and is offered X + Y to sell it to a big corporation, but that it would actually be worth X + Z which is greater than Y, but he would choose to sell it to a major corporation for X + Y simply because he doesn't have the startup capital??? You think that's how a free market would operate?
I won't argue that the gov't has been in the wrong. Again, and I think I stated this earlier in the thread, this is were our political ideologies come into play. I align myself with political views that are opposed to this practice.
Opposed to what practice? Monopolization???? You work in healthcare, right? Why do you think the major drug companies lobby for increased FDA user fees that they have to pay? Why do you think they lobby for increased standards on laboratories and labelling? Why do you think they lobby for expanded patent rights? Do you think they do that because they like meeting those standards and paying those fees or being subject to those patent restrictions, or do you think they do it because they know it significantly raises the barriers to market entry for newcomers?
Example, let's say, for arguments sake that your 'dream society' is a reality, no rules, no regs. Now let's say that you only wish to pay your labor staff $1 an hour and expect them to work 16 hour days with no breaks, no benefits, etc. Now you would say to me, 'well, these folks have a choice not to work for me' Well, if you are the only game in town and this individual's choice is you or nothing, well you see where I'm going with this. Slave labor, ffg.
Hehe...if I'm the "only game in town", what good is that $1 an hour? Who would they possibly exchange that money with if I'm the "only game in town"?
Another example is phony trade deals. Under phony free-trade deals, unions are being broken and pressured by the movement of and the threat to move factories overseas. So to me anybody who expects real compassion from a corporation is well, misguided, imo.
So "real compassion" is found in violently preventing someone from moving a factory overseas? It's "compassionate" to demand your job at gun-point at a lower value than your employer could find elsewhere? You have a weird definition of compassion. Would it be compassionate for me to hold a gun to my employees' heads and demand they work for lower wages so I could get a higher value for me?
And there's nothing "phony" about a free-trade deal that stipulates that someone can operate a factory in another country. That's free-trade. What isn't free-trade is when that factory in another country enslaves people or when people here enslave that factory-owner.
What qualifies as all property?
Anything that is a product of a man's labor that another can be deprived of. That's all property.
Do you propose the abolition of all national parks, and the privatization of all public lands and utilities, including roads and airports?
I support private ownership of all those things, yes. Most Libertarians would agree.
And if so, where do you draw the line? What about oceanic resources?
If you catch a fish, it's yours, baraka.
What about wildlife on these privatized lands?
If you raise goats, they're yours, baraka.
Do you propose total privatization of the earth?
Sure.
Where does this privatization end?
Wherever property ends, baraka. This isn't that complicated.
Do you think your regulations have prevented a single 12-hour day? Or have they only prevented a single 12-hour day for you?
Also, the original point holds. If what you want is an 8-hour day and that, in your mind, justifies putting such a restriction on another delivered via force, you have no claim against that person if he or she simply makes you to work a 24 hour day via a greater force. Actually...let me try this a different way. How would you feel if I proposed mandating a 20-minute work day?
It is my belief that unmoderated capitalism is just as brutal and cruel as communism. We can look at history to provide examples of this. I would suggest that we can see examples pure capitalism in places such as Somalia and Calcutta.
As far as your question, I was simply posing an example of an abuse of labor. Unsanitary working conditions, no benefits, folks forced to to work like dogs in order to feed their families, etc. We see examples of these sweat shops all over the world in countries that turn a blind eye. Do we really want to go back to this? The 'market' will not work out these problems. There is no example in history of the 'market' ever working out these problems. But there is a track record with our gov't. I can not accept on faith your claims.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm thinking in terms of the actual state of affairs in the country now. Paul is adamantly against the way our foreign policy is being used, yet, if he and a boatload of other likeminded folks were to assume their seats in Washington, DC in '08, they would have to presumedly extricate not only US troops from Iraq, but many contracts in the billions of dollars that are invested in that effort both home and abroad.
Well, sure. Extricating the troops is easy. So is honoring the contracts, really. I mean, just because you spend $10B on cruise missles doesn't necessarily mean you have to use them and violate your beliefs in the process. In the event that the contract requires you to violate your beliefs, then you have a difficult decision to make. Personally, I tend to believe that a strong belief should override a contract, but one must be willing to except whatever consequences one agreed to in violating the contractual relationship.
Well, sure. Extricating the troops is easy. So is honoring the contracts, really. I mean, just because you spend $10B on cruise missles doesn't necessarily mean you have to use them and violate your beliefs in the process. In the event that the contract requires you to violate your beliefs, then you have a difficult decision to make. Personally, I tend to believe that a strong belief should override a contract, but one must be willing to except whatever consequences one agreed to in violating the contractual relationship.
But we're talking billions and billions of dollars here from some really heavy hitters, warmongerers, death merchants... you know, that whole "market" that is the military industrial complex. How does a libertarian think he can fare against the likes of that?
And I've never suggested that the gov't is perfect, but that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
That's perfectly fine.
It is my belief that unmoderated capitalism is just as brutal and cruel as communism. We can look at history to provide examples of this. I would suggest that we can see examples pure capitalism in places such as Somalia and Calcutta.
Hehe...pure capitalism and federal anarchy in the past decade have actually improved Somalia to some extent, but your point is fine here.
As far as your question, I was simply posing an example of an abuse of labor. Unsanitary working conditions, no benefits, folks forced to to work like dogs in order to feed their families, etc. We see examples of these sweat shops all over the world in countries that turn a blind eye. Do we really want to go back to this?
You keep assuming that, absent government regulation, we'd all go back to working in sweatshops. That's ridiculous. Our economic environment and labor base make little sense in a sweatshop environment whereas developing economies (like the one we were in 100 years ago) do.
However, some sweatshops would likely open here, absent regulations. Can you explain to me a) why that's wrong and b) how it's any different than simply pushing your sweatshops overseas like you do today.
The 'market' will not work out these problems.
Of course it will. The "market" works out these problems via machinery, knowledge labor, and many other means. What you mean to say is that the market will not work out these problems quickly enough or somehow else to your liking.
Markets will eventually work out most inefficiencies. To suggest that a person sitting on a stool weaving a shirt for 16 hours a day is "efficient" is silly.
There is no example in history of the 'market' ever working out these problems.
But we're talking billions and billions of dollars here from some really heavy hitters, warmongerers, death merchants... you know, that whole "market" that is the military industrial complex. How does a libertarian think he can fare against the likes of that?
The same way you can fare against the likes of Wal-Mart: by withholding what you have that they need. It's not complicated.
Opposed to what practice? Monopolization???? You work in healthcare, right? Why do you think the major drug companies lobby for increased FDA user fees that they have to pay? Why do you think they lobby for increased standards on laboratories and labelling? Why do you think they lobby for expanded patent rights? Do you think they do that because they like meeting those standards and paying those fees or being subject to those patent restrictions, or do you think they do it because they know it significantly raises the barriers to market entry for newcomers?
I'm not suggesting that there are not problems, but you are suggesting we scrap the whole system, just dissolve things like the FDA. Do you deny the increase in public health due to organizations like the FDA or CDC? Do you suggest that throw out a system that has a track record of improving public health? What do you suggest, ffg? Why not address the concern above opposed to dissolving the whole thing? Why no just address the problems within the system?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes, exactly. The contrast in public health and safety, and in environmental quality, before and after the introduction of government regulation further validates my point.
It doesn't validate anything. Government has existed since the dawn of civilization. The monitor on my desk isn't a tiger repellant. It just happens to exist in a place where no tigers are to be found.
The fact that this particular government is the biggest polluter, killer, and slaveowner in this country does validate something. It doesn't mean that absent that government, pollution, killing and slaveowning will stop. But it does mean that this government is morally corrupt.
It offers strong refutation to the libertarian's assurance that 'the free market', the enforcement of property rights and the threat of civil law suits are the best means of protecting the public and the natural environment.
That Libertarian assurance is pretty silly. So is the assurance that the government has done much to "protect the public and the natural environment".
This makes no sense, so maybe I'm misunderstanding it. Are you saying that an inventor comes up with an idea that costs X to produce and is offered X + Y to sell it to a big corporation, but that it would actually be worth X + Z which is greater than Y, but he would choose to sell it to a major corporation for X + Y simply because he doesn't have the startup capital??? You think that's how a free market would operate?
Yes, if the capital is held by a handful of corporations, then this guy has no means to see his idea to fruition. There is no level playing field. I believe in markets as much as anyone. But the expression free markets is often misinterpreted to mean that unregulated markets are all that is required for markets to work their 'wonders' and achieve efficient outcomes. But there are many, many other conditions that must be present. Deregulation or privatization may even move the outcome further from the ideal competitive benchmark rather than closer to it, it depends upon the characteristics of the market in question. Many economists argue this point.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You keep assuming that, absent government regulation, we'd all go back to working in sweatshops. That's ridiculous. Our economic environment and labor base make little sense in a sweatshop environment whereas developing economies (like the one we were in 100 years ago) do.
However, some sweatshops would likely open here, absent regulations. Can you explain to me a) why that's wrong and b) how it's any different than simply pushing your sweatshops overseas like you do today.
Do I really need to explain why that is wrong? Also, about me pushing the sweatshops overseas, you said this................
Comments
Sure it does and has.You say it CAN. How do we prevent that when there are no rules? Oh yeah, everyone will automatically follow the golden rule, right. But in libertarian speak the golden rule is 'those with the gold, get to rule'
Oh, this reminds me of something else, privatization. Is it the libertarian's goal for total privatization? Is there a line that is drawn concerning this?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I don't disagree with what you've said here, but you can't deny the track record or reform.
That depends. If what you want is for your workers to work a six or seven day work week with 12-hour days, a pittance for wages, in a hellish and unhealthy environment and absolutely no benefits, then I would have to say that there is not a moral equalivance here. I absolutely believe in individual freedoms, but I also believe in community and in responsibility to that community. You can't prop up one while ignoring the other.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...there are rules, baraka. The problem is that you don't necessarily control them or get to make them in a free market. Markets are always bound by the rules of economics.
So-called "natural monopolies" can certainly happen in a free market. Microsoft, for example, is largely a natural monopoly holder and their market position is basically maintained in a free-market environment. However, natural monopolies have an enemy that always wins out: innovation. Sometime, in the next 10-20 years, Microsoft's dominant position in the operating system market will be beaten by someone who did exactly what Bill Gates did: take what came before you and do it a little better. The last great monopoly before Microsoft was AT&T (not quite as natural, but close enough). That monopoly was broken up by force, costing tax payers and consumers trillions of dollars in the process, when all they really had to do was wait for Martin Cooper from Motorolla to come along and invent the cell phone, or, better yet, beat him too it.
It seems absolutely ridiculous to defend government from the perspective of market monopolies. First, government itself represents a monopoly. Second, governments have historically created thousands of monopolies via deliberate lawmaking or unintended consequences of well-meaning policy. Monopolies do not require governments, but governments tend to help create them rather than stand in the way of their creation.
I think you believe the answer here to be "the poor". But you're incorrect. Let's say I'm rich and you're poor. And then let's say I wish to do business in a free market with my friends. How does that come at your expense?
Libertarians, for the most part, are strongly against the government's granting of exclusive service contracts to private companies, if that's what you mean. Libertarians, for the most part, are strongly for private ownership of all property, however. Do you understand what I mean here?
How would a libertarian congressman oppose an ongoing foreign aggression policy while at the same time honor a viable legal contract that serves his constituency at home that serves the foreign policy?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Likely by either contradicting himself or determining that honoring a contract takes a higher precendence over opposing a piece of foreign policy. There are many potential reasons for this. Can you provide some specifics?
It's pretty much the state of affairs today with corporate globalization.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't, but one also shouldn't ignore their negative consequences in addition to their positive ones, as well as their total failures. For instance:
Do you think your regulations have prevented a single 12-hour day? Or have they only prevented a single 12-hour day for you?
Also, the original point holds. If what you want is an 8-hour day and that, in your mind, justifies putting such a restriction on another delivered via force, you have no claim against that person if he or she simply makes you to work a 24 hour day via a greater force. Actually...let me try this a different way. How would you feel if I proposed mandating a 20-minute work day?
Come to think of it, this is the state of affairs for the Democratic Party and its "opposition" of Iraq.
I am asking how a Libertarian Congress would handle the same situation.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't know the exact specifics of this case, but someone certainly could feel obligated to honor a contract even if he or she no longer believed that the product of the contract was right. Such a thing is defensible, at least on some level.
But this does sound like just another example of silly populism in politics.
No, not populism. I'm challenging your past assertions that Libertarianism has a base in moral choices. If one is to oppose meddling in foreign affairs through aggression/ warfare, then why wouldn't a libertarian follow through on dissolving contracts that serve that immoral purpose?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm glad you brought this up, it's something that I have thought about before. I would say that unchecked capitalism PREVENTS innovation. For example, in this kind of market you get a handful of big players. You argue no, but I think you will find many economists agree with me. This handful of large corporations 'buy out' the little guy's innovative idea. The little guy has no capital to see his idea to fruition by himself. So the large corporation buys out this idea to obtain rights to it, then sits on it until the current technology runs it's course and maximum profits are realized, thus delaying it.
I know, I know, the big bad gov't. It's a nice scapegoat, huh?
I won't argue that the gov't has been in the wrong. Again, and I think I stated this earlier in the thread, this is were our political ideologies come into play. I align myself with political views that are opposed to this practice.
Example, let's say, for arguments sake that your 'dream society' is a reality, no rules, no regs. Now let's say that you only wish to pay your labor staff $1 an hour and expect them to work 16 hour days with no breaks, no benefits, etc. Now you would say to me, 'well, these folks have a choice not to work for me' Well, if you are the only game in town and this individual's choice is you or nothing, well you see where I'm going with this. Slave labor, ffg.
Another example is phony trade deals. Under phony free-trade deals, unions are being broken and pressured by the movement of and the threat to move factories overseas. So to me anybody who expects real compassion from a corporation is well, misguided, imo.
What qualifies as all property? Do you propose the abolition of all national parks, and the privatization of all public lands and utilities, including roads and airports? And if so, where do you draw the line? What about oceanic resources? What about wildlife on these privatized lands? Do you propose total privatization of the earth? Where does this privatization end?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It probably depends on the Libertarian. Libertarians are usually both anti-war and anti-defense spending, so they probably wouldn't find themselves in this exact problem, but similar ones could certainly arise. I remember an online discussion I saw amongst some local Libertarians about a similar question regarding honoring an existing municipal contract. I'll see if I can find it and I'll post the link....
A Libertarian may also have a believe in honoring contracts (something not uncommon at all among Libertarians). Given the example, many Libertarians would immediately try to extricate themselves from that contract, whereas some may honor it and let that be the end of it. None would likely fight to extend the contract or renew it.
This is a thorny ethical question you're asking. Let's say, for instance, you sign a contract today and then change your mind tomorrow. Does the contract lose its meaning?
I'm thinking in terms of the actual state of affairs in the country now. Paul is adamantly against the way our foreign policy is being used, yet, if he and a boatload of other likeminded folks were to assume their seats in Washington, DC in '08, they would have to presumedly extricate not only US troops from Iraq, but many contracts in the billions of dollars that are invested in that effort both home and abroad.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes, exactly. The contrast in public health and safety, and in environmental quality, before and after the introduction of government regulation further validates my point. It offers strong refutation to the libertarian's assurance that 'the free market', the enforcement of property rights and the threat of civil law suits are the best means of protecting the public and the natural environment.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
This makes no sense, so maybe I'm misunderstanding it. Are you saying that an inventor comes up with an idea that costs X to produce and is offered X + Y to sell it to a big corporation, but that it would actually be worth X + Z which is greater than Y, but he would choose to sell it to a major corporation for X + Y simply because he doesn't have the startup capital??? You think that's how a free market would operate?
Opposed to what practice? Monopolization???? You work in healthcare, right? Why do you think the major drug companies lobby for increased FDA user fees that they have to pay? Why do you think they lobby for increased standards on laboratories and labelling? Why do you think they lobby for expanded patent rights? Do you think they do that because they like meeting those standards and paying those fees or being subject to those patent restrictions, or do you think they do it because they know it significantly raises the barriers to market entry for newcomers?
Hehe...if I'm the "only game in town", what good is that $1 an hour? Who would they possibly exchange that money with if I'm the "only game in town"?
So "real compassion" is found in violently preventing someone from moving a factory overseas? It's "compassionate" to demand your job at gun-point at a lower value than your employer could find elsewhere? You have a weird definition of compassion. Would it be compassionate for me to hold a gun to my employees' heads and demand they work for lower wages so I could get a higher value for me?
And there's nothing "phony" about a free-trade deal that stipulates that someone can operate a factory in another country. That's free-trade. What isn't free-trade is when that factory in another country enslaves people or when people here enslave that factory-owner.
Anything that is a product of a man's labor that another can be deprived of. That's all property.
I support private ownership of all those things, yes. Most Libertarians would agree.
If you catch a fish, it's yours, baraka.
If you raise goats, they're yours, baraka.
Sure.
Wherever property ends, baraka. This isn't that complicated.
And I've never suggested that the gov't is perfect, but that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
It is my belief that unmoderated capitalism is just as brutal and cruel as communism. We can look at history to provide examples of this. I would suggest that we can see examples pure capitalism in places such as Somalia and Calcutta.
As far as your question, I was simply posing an example of an abuse of labor. Unsanitary working conditions, no benefits, folks forced to to work like dogs in order to feed their families, etc. We see examples of these sweat shops all over the world in countries that turn a blind eye. Do we really want to go back to this? The 'market' will not work out these problems. There is no example in history of the 'market' ever working out these problems. But there is a track record with our gov't. I can not accept on faith your claims.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well, sure. Extricating the troops is easy. So is honoring the contracts, really. I mean, just because you spend $10B on cruise missles doesn't necessarily mean you have to use them and violate your beliefs in the process. In the event that the contract requires you to violate your beliefs, then you have a difficult decision to make. Personally, I tend to believe that a strong belief should override a contract, but one must be willing to except whatever consequences one agreed to in violating the contractual relationship.
National Parks and Forests sold off into private lots?
Hhahaahaahaa.
No offense, but this is just comic.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
But we're talking billions and billions of dollars here from some really heavy hitters, warmongerers, death merchants... you know, that whole "market" that is the military industrial complex. How does a libertarian think he can fare against the likes of that?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That's perfectly fine.
Hehe...pure capitalism and federal anarchy in the past decade have actually improved Somalia to some extent, but your point is fine here.
You keep assuming that, absent government regulation, we'd all go back to working in sweatshops. That's ridiculous. Our economic environment and labor base make little sense in a sweatshop environment whereas developing economies (like the one we were in 100 years ago) do.
However, some sweatshops would likely open here, absent regulations. Can you explain to me a) why that's wrong and b) how it's any different than simply pushing your sweatshops overseas like you do today.
Of course it will. The "market" works out these problems via machinery, knowledge labor, and many other means. What you mean to say is that the market will not work out these problems quickly enough or somehow else to your liking.
Markets will eventually work out most inefficiencies. To suggest that a person sitting on a stool weaving a shirt for 16 hours a day is "efficient" is silly.
?????
Why don't we start at the beginning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough
You don't have to accept anything. You can do anything you'd like with your govenment.
The same way you can fare against the likes of Wal-Mart: by withholding what you have that they need. It's not complicated.
No, the government has no right to sell them. That would imply that they own them.
Okee.
whew.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The government does own them. Lands are always marketable, historically speaking. The Louisiana Purchase... Alaska territory...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm not suggesting that there are not problems, but you are suggesting we scrap the whole system, just dissolve things like the FDA. Do you deny the increase in public health due to organizations like the FDA or CDC? Do you suggest that throw out a system that has a track record of improving public health? What do you suggest, ffg? Why not address the concern above opposed to dissolving the whole thing? Why no just address the problems within the system?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It doesn't validate anything. Government has existed since the dawn of civilization. The monitor on my desk isn't a tiger repellant. It just happens to exist in a place where no tigers are to be found.
The fact that this particular government is the biggest polluter, killer, and slaveowner in this country does validate something. It doesn't mean that absent that government, pollution, killing and slaveowning will stop. But it does mean that this government is morally corrupt.
That Libertarian assurance is pretty silly. So is the assurance that the government has done much to "protect the public and the natural environment".
Yes, if the capital is held by a handful of corporations, then this guy has no means to see his idea to fruition. There is no level playing field. I believe in markets as much as anyone. But the expression free markets is often misinterpreted to mean that unregulated markets are all that is required for markets to work their 'wonders' and achieve efficient outcomes. But there are many, many other conditions that must be present. Deregulation or privatization may even move the outcome further from the ideal competitive benchmark rather than closer to it, it depends upon the characteristics of the market in question. Many economists argue this point.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You don't have to dissolve the FDA. I don't care what you do with the FDA. Simply stop using it as a weapon.
I don't deny it, no.
No. You don't have to throw out anything.
I suggest you stop threatening people in the name of "public health", for one.
Because the whole thing is morally corrupt.
Why should I? It's not my system.
Do I really need to explain why that is wrong? Also, about me pushing the sweatshops overseas, you said this................
Why does one move their operations overseas? Is it perhaps due to the cheap labor among other things?
And, you say it is ridiculous to assume sweatshops will open up here, then you say they will most likely open up here?????????
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein