A couple of questions about libertarianism

[Little_Nemo]

@xtisme

Not really Der’s fault…he simply has a different definition of what libertarianism and libertarians are than most people. Unfortunately, even among libertarians the definition is going to vary, and the term libertarianism is going to mean different things to different people. And since no one has ever actually implemented anything like libertarianism in a society we can only guess at what it would really mean, and how it would be implemented…assuming it ever could be. My guess is that like any political philosophy, it would never be implemented in a pure form (even if there WAS a ‘pure form’ that libertarians could actually agree on), so it would only be aspects of it that would be put into practice.

I can tell you one thing…it wouldn’t be Der’s corporate totalitarianism, as that is pretty much anathema to just about every stripe of libertarians I know. It wouldn’t be chaos or anarchy either. Nor would it be a world without limits that anyone could do anything they wanted any time they wanted. Myself, I think it would look a little like Europe and a little like the US in that I imagine a practical implementation of libertarianism would have fewer ‘sin’ type laws and more freedom for adults to decide for themselves what they should or shouldn’t do (unlike in the US today and even unlike in parts of Europe), but less government and regimentation than the Europeans have (and more like the US has today). But it wouldn’t actually look all that much different than either looks today…it certainly wouldn’t be an alien sci-fi world of corporate nation states battling it out for supremacy while the peasantry is forced to work as slave labor.

-XT

Der Trihs may be exaggerating the threat of corporate totalitarianism. But, in my opinion, his fears are not completely groundless.

I agree that the government can oppress people. It’s a big powerful organization with its own set of goals. Libertarians are correct when they worry about the potential threat of government oppression.

But here’s the thing the libertarians miss. Corporations are also big powerful organizations with their own set of goals. So they are just as much a potential threat to invidiual liberty as the government is. It’s foolish to believe the government is our friend and would never hurt us. But it’s equally foolish to believe corporations are our friends and would never hurt us.

As individuals we are not strong enough to resist a corporation. The only thing that can check a corporation is something as big as it it - like the government. I acknowledge government is something we need to keep an eye on and view with suspicion - but it’s a necessary evil and things would be worse without it.

So I don’t disagree with libertarians because I have a naive trust of the government. I disagree with libertarians because I have a cynical suspicion of corporations.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Little_Nemo

But here’s the thing the libertarians miss.

<snip>

As individuals we are not strong enough to resist a corporation.

I apologize for missing that point, over all of these years.

Which corporation are you not strong enough to resist? Which one am I not strong enough to resist?

[Little_Nemo]

@IdahoMauleMan

I apologize for missing that point, over all of these years.

Which corporation are you not strong enough to resist? Which one am I not strong enough to resist?

Me? Most of them.

You? All of them.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Der Trihs may be exaggerating the threat of corporate totalitarianism. But, in my opinion, his fears are not completely groundless.
[/QUOTE]

I think his fears are totally groundless the way he states them. Corporations have as much power as they do because the government is totally in bed with them, and the government conveys that power. It’s always been that way. Monopolies in the past were possible because of the government, not because of how powerful corporations were. In an anarchy (which is basically what Der thinks a libertarian society would be, based on his assertions in this and other threads) corporations wouldn’t have ultimate power because there would be no structure for them to operate in. There would BE no corporations…it would be back to warlords and the military, with the strongest person being the one who could build the biggest army. How could corporations work in that environment?? Answer…they couldn’t because not only would they have no customers but whoever had the biggest army would simply seize their goods.

Libertarianism isn’t anarchy. There would still be laws…and the rule of law. There would still be courts and police. There would still be a military and a government structure. There would even still be regulation. What would the balance be? No idea…as I said, it depends on who you talk to and what assumptions you make about what parts of libertarianism would be implemented and what compromises would be made…because, realistically, it would have to be part of the system. You aren’t going to break down a continental nation state like the US and rebuild it from scratch, you are going to have to work within the system as it exists. Just like if the US goes socialist…no one is going to break apart the US and rebuild it from scratch because if you tried the states would just fly apart, each going their own way. You would implement socialism (or libertarianism) from within, building it on the existing structure and implementing the parts that work best with our system, people and attitudes and tossing out the parts that don’t work for us. IMHO, that’s actually what we have…a social democracy that has some aspects of socialism (in a uniquely American way), and some aspects of democracy and republicanism…and even some aspects of libertarianism. To me it’s a continuum…a sliding scale. Move the bar a bit left and you have our system with a more socialistic bent…move it right and you have more republicanism…move it up or down and you might get more libertarianism. But within our system.

I agree that the government can oppress people. It’s a big powerful organization with its own set of goals. Libertarians are correct when they worry about the potential threat of government oppression.

Too much of anything is as bad as too little…and government is no exception. IMHO we have too much government these days, and that translates into too much power for the corporations. The government is sticking it’s nose into what I feel is the business of the private citizen. It’s insane, IMHO, for the government to say who can or can’t marry based on what anatomy they have. Fuck that. It’s insane, IMHO, for the government to decide what I put into my body, what I can or can’t smoke and where, etc etc…and the myriad things the government decides I should or shouldn’t do ‘for my own good’. I’m an adult…I should be able to decide for myself. And, as part of that, I should be fully responsible for my acts. If I drink heavily and get in my car and kill someone then I should be charged with manslaughter, just as I should be if I fire a gun in a mall. If I smoke and get cancer then that should be my lookout, and insurance companies should be able to charge me a premium for my risky behavior. If I want to own a gun I should be able too…and if I commit an illegal act with that gun I should face the full consequences of my actions. If I want to drive without a helmet on, or without my seat belt then I should be able too…and I should have to take full responsibility for making those decisions if something happens to me.

We all pay for the government fixing all of these problems for us. The police, instead of dealing with crimes instead deal with making sure we follow the speed limit, wear our seat belts (they actually stop you here in New Mexico if they observe you not wearing one), and all manner of other nanny things…for our own good, of course. They have to make sure I don’t smoke the evil weed or that I’m not drinking and driving because I can’t decide those things for myself and I’m not responsible. And what does that buy us? Up until I was in my 40’s I still smoked the evil weed, I just didn’t get caught. And how many stories have you heard about drivers getting DWI after DWI and then going out and killing someone anyway when they got trashed and drove? We get that a lot here in New Mexico.

But here’s the thing the libertarians miss. Corporations are also big powerful organizations with their own set of goals. So they are just as much a potential threat to invidiual liberty as the government is. It’s foolish to believe the government is our friend and would never hurt us. But it’s equally foolish to believe corporations are our friends and would never hurt us.

Nope, I didn’t miss that. Corporations ARE big and powerful in many cases, and they have entirely too much power. And why is that? Well, because the government is so powerful, and allows corporations to highly influence said government. The power comes from the government, not from the corporations. Basically, I don’t see how corporations could be MORE powerful than they already are in the US.

I don’t know how the balance might or might not shift. Possibly corporations would still have all that power and influence under a more libertarian US government. I like to think that they wouldn’t, but it’s hard to say. My GUESS is that this aspect would stay much the same, because this seems to be the balance that most Americans want between the power of the government and the power of the corporations. There might be less laws and less regulations, but they would be enforced more seriously than today, and the consequences of breaking them would be meaningful (unlike today where, like the example of the police, we have lots of regulations that aren’t really enforced all that seriously)…that’s how I’D like to see it.

As individuals we are not strong enough to resist a corporation. The only thing that can check a corporation is something as big as it it - like the government. I acknowledge government is something we need to keep an eye on and view with suspicion - but it’s a necessary evil and things would be worse without it.

But see, individuals wouldn’t NEED to be strong enough to face down a corporation. If a corporation tried to do the silly bullshit Der is going on about, would YOU buy their products? Me either. And millions of other consumers would make similar judgments. And, of course, there would still be the government, still be the courts, still be the police and all the rest. ETA: And, the most important thing…there would still be the press to tell us all this stuff was happening and to allow us to make informed decisions. Hell, there might be more press and more data available without the government getting involved. There certainly wouldn’t be less.

But really, for me, it’s all about the social aspects of libertarianism that most appeals. The economic and government aspects…I just don’t know how that would play out, overlayed with our system. What I DO know is that it WOULD be an overlay…not a complete revamp. So, my WAG is that it would really boil down to pretty much what we have now, with perhaps some libertarian tweaks such as perhaps fewer regulations but more heavy enforcement, and perhaps more direct democracy from the bottom up instead of government from the top down. But how it would fall out would depend on the initial assumptions you are making about what aspects of libertarianism is being implemented, how it’s being implemented (and it might vary widely from region to region, state to state and even county to county).

So I don’t disagree with libertarians because I have a naive trust of the government. I disagree with libertarians because I have a cynical suspicion of corporations.

And well you should. It might surprise you to learn that I actually have a lot of suspicion of corporations as well. The difference is that I have an equal or higher distrust of a large, ponderous and top heavy government, and that to me the power of the corporations we see today stems from the power of and top heavy nature of our government and our system.

Anyway, I’ll jump off my soap box at this point. I don’t think I’ve written this ponderous a post in a long time, and I don’t have time to edit my stream of consciousness here or cut it down…I have a plane to catch.

-XT

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Little_Nemo

Me? Most of them.

You? All of them.

The prosecution rests its case, your honor.

As was to be expected, from such a vacuous and indefensible point such as yours. A typical wallowing in victimization from the statist left.

I’m so sorry that you are unable to resist “most” corporations. Best of luck to you.

[Little_Nemo]

@IdahoMauleMan

The prosecution rests its case, your honor.

Really? You’re giving up that easily? Usually you at least try and argue your point.

[Little_Nemo]

@xtisme

Anyway, I’ll jump off my soap box at this point. I don’t think I’ve written this ponderous a post in a long time, and I don’t have time to edit my stream of consciousness here or cut it down…I have a plane to catch.

I feel that the overall context of your post tends to support what I wrote.

If corporate influence over the government is a problem, doesn’t that presuppose that we should be worried about the corporate agenda? If their agenda was benign, we’d have no reason to be concerned if they were influencing the government to promote it.

And the fact that corporations are influencing the government says that they have significant power already and are seeking to use it. So again, the concern about corporations is valid.

If corporate control over the government is a problem, the solution is not to weaken the government. That might weaken the tool but it wouldn’t address the problem of the entities that were using that tool. They would still exist and would still seek to wield their power by other means.

The smart solution is to maintain the tool and take control of it. That way the corporations will not be able to use it against us and we will be able to use it in our defense.

And conversely, I don’t want to go to the opposite extreme. A unchecked government is as dangerous (or even more so) than unchecked corporate power. Plenty of totalitarian regimes have shown that truth.

The best system is one of balance where different power groups keep each other in check.

[Grumman]

@Little_Nemo

But here’s the thing the libertarians miss. Corporations are also big powerful organizations with their own set of goals. So they are just as much a potential threat to invidiual liberty as the government is.

No, they aren’t. The thing you miss is that the government possesses powers that a corporation in a libertarian society would be explicitly forbidden from obtaining. For example, a corporation could never obtain the right to buy your house without your permission. It could never obtain the right to break into your house and shoot you if you have the gall to try to protect your family. It could never gain the right to unilaterally decide that you must fight and die for them in some third world hellhole. If they do any of these things, then you have the police hunt them down like any other criminal.

[randomface]

@Little_Nemo

If corporate control over the government is a problem, the solution is not to weaken the government. That might weaken the tool but it wouldn’t address the problem of the entities that were using that tool. They would still exist and would still seek to wield their power by other means.

The smart solution is to maintain the tool and take control of it. That way the corporations will not be able to use it against us and we will be able to use it in our defense.

I don’t agree with this. If the corporate influence is out of hand now, giving the government more power is just giving corporations bigger and better favors to buy.

[Little_Nemo]

@Grumman

No, they aren’t. The thing you miss is that the government possesses powers that a corporation in a libertarian society would be explicitly forbidden from obtaining. For example, a corporation could never obtain the right to buy your house without your permission. It could never obtain the right to break into your house and shoot you if you have the gall to try to protect your family. It could never gain the right to unilaterally decide that you must fight and die for them in some third world hellhole. If they do any of these things, then you have the police hunt them down like any other criminal.

Making up rules that you don’t have the power to enforce is an empty gesture. We need a government that’s strong enough to enforce our laws.

[Little_Nemo]

@randomface

I don’t agree with this. If the corporate influence is out of hand now, giving the government more power is just giving corporations bigger and better favors to buy.

A weak government is more subject to corporate influence. If corporate influence is the problem, that’s a sign that we need to adjust the balance by strenghtening the government not weakening it further and making it easier for corporations to influence it.

[XT]

Why would a libertarian government be a weak government? You are making assumptions here that I’m not seeing. Having a ton of laws and regulations on the books that don’t get enforced doesn’t make you stronger than having fewer laws and regulations but actually enforcing them.

-XT

[IdahoMauleMan]

@xtisme

Why would a libertarian government be a weak government? You are making assumptions here that I’m not seeing. Having a ton of laws and regulations on the books that don’t get enforced doesn’t make you stronger than having fewer laws and regulations but actually enforcing them.

-XT

Having a ton of laws and regulations on the books also disempowers the citizens to make their own choices, and places the power to make those choices (backed up by the legal use of force) in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

As our often misguided poster has noted above, “corporate goals” aren’t they same as individual goals.

Of course they aren’t. Everyone’s goals are different. That is why voluntary transactions are required, with both party’s consent, in order to match the goals together in the marketplace and create a surplus.

It is actually very easy to “resist” a corporation. Don’t do business with them. That’s why they call it a voluntary transaction. Nothing can happen without your consent. You are in total and complete control.

Government bureaucrats also have their own agendas. They want to preserve their jobs. They want to trade favors with other departments. They want to grow their power and budgets. They are susceptible to bribes and other corrupt influence.

Only you don’t have a choice as to whether or not to do business with them. And their agenda is backed up by legal use of a gun.

Those who prefer to view themselves as helpless victims, flailing in the wind at the whim of their corporate oppressors, obviously see things differently than libertarians. And for a variety of reasons, are quick to run into the arms of a savior and disempower themselves to make their own choices. By signing over their rights to other people - with the legal use of the gun.

[randomface]

@Little_Nemo

A weak government is more subject to corporate influence. If corporate influence is the problem, that’s a sign that we need to adjust the balance by strenghtening the government not weakening it further and making it easier for corporations to influence it.

A weaker government can be influenced exactly the same way as a stronger government. It’s a matter of limiting what there is to buy. People can be corrupted. People will be corrupted. Giving the government more power makes the damage worse.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@randomface

A weaker government can be influenced exactly the same way as a stronger government. It’s a matter of limiting what there is to buy. People can be corrupted. People will be corrupted. Giving the government more power makes the damage worse.

Thank you for your post.

[furt]

@Little_Nemo

A weak government is more subject to corporate influence. If corporate influence is the problem, that’s a sign that we need to adjust the balance by strenghtening the government not weakening it further and making it easier for corporations to influence it.

A big government is an invitation to corporate influence. If the functions and powers of government are limited and transparent, there’s no motive to use government as a mechanism to advantage your company.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@emacknight

Since you asked:

The various health departments including the FDA, USDA, CDC, and state organizations have no idea how to deal with sushi. …

Now the solution is to put a disclaimer on the menu saying, "eating raw or under-cooked meat is potentially dangerous.

Sounds like they have found a way to deal with it.

They lose most people. But note that “income taxes” aren’t the only way for government to collect revenue.

Sure, they could do it in all sorts of ways but a progressive income tax has proven to be the best and most sustainable form of taxation.

How exactly would I go about doing that? Are the Dems about to toss out every idiot that says something stupid?

The Democrats that consistently do so are ridiculed by their own party. The Republicans that consistently do so end up leading in the polls for the Republican nomination for President.

There are a lot of cafeteria libertarians that want to pick and choose the parts they like. Just as there are cafeteria liberals and conservatives who also lack the strength of their convictions.

For some reason, if a person wants lower taxes they get called libertarian and end up in a pit thread. If someone wants legalized SSM they get called a progressive and become a hero. Both are the same philosophy, ie less government involvement in their lives.

The desire for SSM (at least fform anyone that doesn’t want to marry someone of the same sex) frequently comes from a different place than the desire of someone who wants lower taxes. One is frequently based on notions of what equality means and the other is frequently based on not wanting to pay taxes.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@IdahoMauleMan

It is actually very easy to “resist” a corporation. Don’t do business with them. That’s why they call it a voluntary transaction. Nothing can happen without your consent. You are in total and complete control.

You apparently have not heard of contracts of adhesion or monopolies.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@randomface

A weaker government can be influenced exactly the same way as a stronger government. It’s a matter of limiting what there is to buy. People can be corrupted. People will be corrupted. Giving the government more power makes the damage worse.

Or it makes govt better able to withstand corruption? It sounds like you simply don’t trust our form of government and would prefer to have little or no government at all.

You seem to want to fight the disease by killing host.

[randomface]

I don’t trust the government, at least no more than I trust people I don’t know. Do you trust the government?

Do you trust them to tell you the truth?

There are some valid functions of government, but the more local the power is, the better.