Libertarian & Corporate hypocrisy

Great Debates
1

I have noticed that there is a thriving group of fairly bright libertarians on this board. And they are not afraid to speak out. I wonder if they are aware of this.

Last fall, with very little fanfare and little explaination, came this announcement

For those who do not know, BB&T is a banking and investment giant in its field. Accepting money from the government TARP fund puts them in with other major financial institutions who saw fit to accept the government funds.

However, what most people do not know, and few people have ever even heard of is the effort by BB&T Corporation to use its money to spread the political and philosophy of Ayn Rand as written in her novels. And Rand would probably roll over in her grave at the thought of giving tax payer backed moeny through the government to private corporations.

Here is an article detailing the efforts of the BB&T Corporation to buy their way onto college campuses with bribes of money and place Rands books on mandatory reading lists for students.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=as6BR0QV4KE8&refer=home

The article details the amount of money paid, the reasons behind it, the universities who took the money, and the opposition of many professors to such a policy.

It brings up a very interesting question. Is it all right to betray the very principles you are advocating if that betrayal benefits you financially?

It further brings forth the question as to the ethical issues of using tax payer monies to push an extremist political idealogy through cash payments to universities.

If Libertarians are against such government bailouts, is this consistent with their principles to accept the efforts of BB&T to push Rands beliefs through case payments to universities while accepting taxpayer bailouts?

To me it sounds a bit like some Nevada whorehouse using funds to support sexual abstinence programs.

I would very much like to hear from some of our libertarian minded folks here to see what they think about this.

2

Hmmmm. I thought it was more like the director of a sexual abstinence program using his funds to visit a whorehouse.

3

Wow, I certainly did not know that. I will cross BB&T off the list of banks that I’m considering for the loan on my house.

I would answer you questions with no, no, and no. People should practice the principles that they claim to hold. Doing otherwise is morally wrong and practically ridiculous, since once your hypocrisy is exposed it will cause distrust of both yourself and the cause. Still, no one can claim to be surprised by this sort of thing. Citibank was also a huge driver of deregulation in the 90’s and they had no trouble taking a bailout. John Stossel in one of his books admits that he’s taken free federal insurance for his house, but justifies it by saying “I’d be a fool not to take it.”

4

I’m neither bright nor a libertarian therefore I can’t speak for them but I’m looking for clarification here…

It looks like the Rand charity contribution and tax money (bailout funds) are 2 separate events. Are you joining these 2 events after the fact? Or are you saying these 2 events been intertwined all along?

Also, if there is hypocrisy, then let’s step back and realize that there’s plenty of hypocrisy all around for all ideologies. Pointing out cases of libertarian hypocrisy does nothing to erase socialist hypocrisy. Nobody should be that naive.

Aside from tax subsidies, I see no problem pushing Rand novels to universities. Libertarians should be exposed to and well versed in statists such Paul Krugman, Naomi Klein, etc. And likewise, socialists should read up on free-market thinkers such as Hayek, Friedman, etc. Christians should read Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Greek polytheism, etc. Various private entities have been pushing their ideological agendas (including non-libertarian agendas) for ages.

Which issue bothers you more? The Ayn Rand grants or the acceptance of the bailout money?

5

Its the combination of the two that disturb me. Obviously the people who run this company feel strongly that the philosophy (if that is the right word) of Rand needs to be spread to young people and are willing to pay big money for the right to do that.

But what would Rand say about the same company taking this government money? I think she would object very strongly.

6

I presume that what’s bothersome is the fact that the taxpayers are financing a corporation, which is financing hate speech directed against almost all taxpayers. There may not be taxpayer money flowing directly into the attempt to manipulate universities, but if the taxpayers are keeping BB&T in business then they’re keeping the university contributions flowing all the same. It’s similar to the outrage about Citibank and stadium naming rights, or the auto executives and their private jet planes. If we’re giving money to a corporation just because we have to, those corporations should spend only on things vital to their business, not on frills. (And at least Citibank and GM are endorsing hatefulness.)

7

Gee, where to begin…

First of all, BB&T is an admirable company in many respects - it conducted its business conservatively (small c), didn’t engage in risky financial behavior and was well capitalized all along. It only took TARP money because Treasury was forcing it on failing and nonfailing banks alike so as not to cause a run on the nonfailing ones - and refusing the money would have put BB&T at a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors.

Given all of that - and the head of BB&T is very up front about his disgust for TARP despite his participation in it, there is no reason why he shouldn’t continue his corporate philanthropy. And if he wants to ship copies of Rand novels out with his donations, that’s his right as well.

Link.

8

I think you’re focusing on the wrong “evil” in this case. The issue here is not libertarian discipline – this is just predictable corporate psychology and its desire for self-preservation. The money is out there to take, they will take it.

Any Rand would object more the creation of govt bailout in the first place instead of letting BBT stumble and fall. The fact that corporations take advantage of it is already 2 steps removed from the libertarian argument.

libertarian thinking is: should government create $700 bill bailout or not?
corporate thinking is: we apply for $3 billion and try to survive, or we die. [too late at this point to worry about libertarian hypocrisy]

Same idea with a socialist who receives welfare. If that socialist wins the lottery but doesn’t share the winnings with his community, does that make him a hypocrite? No, it just makes him human.

The focus of libertarianism and socialism arguments should be on government’s behavior and not on individuals or corporations seemingly inconsistent day-to-day reaction to what government is doing.

9

No, she would object most strongly to someone like you putting words in her mouth, by making assumptions on her behalf. You are obviously not in agreement with her philosophy and know very little about it, yet take it upon yourself to assume what Rand would object to.

I will not attempt to speak for Rand, but I will tell you the Objectivist view on accepting governmental assistance: In the course of a person’s (or especially a corporation’s) life, a tremendous amount of money is stolen through taxes, to support activities that are not the proper function of government. If the government then offers to return a part of that money . . . in the form of welfare, scholarships, medicare, social security, etc. . . . that person or corporation is within its rights to accept it. It’s simply a matter of getting back a part of what is rightfully one’s own money. This is totally consistent with a philosophy of rational self-interest and free enterprise. You do not have an obligation to be self-sacrificial in order to be moral.

So please don’t tell us what Rand would think, since you never knew her, and obviously don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

10

Panache - but you did know her right? A good friend possibly? A confidant? Or do you just channel Rand as needed for your posts? It is most interesting that while I cannot speculate what Rand might think - you have absolutely doing it for her and coming up with an intricate rationalization for corporate welfare and taxpayer money to help push her ideas. So when its in your own interests, its fine. That pretty much tells me everything.

Its really too bad that a few folks claim to have high principles that separate them from the rabble but when push comes to shove, they are in the trough with the rest of the swine… and enjoying it mightily.

11

Actually, yes.

12

Which gives you the right to speak for I presume?

I debated William F. Buckley as part of a three person panel in college. We had refreshments at a private reception afterwards at the university presidents home. He is now dead. But I would not presume to speak for him even though we ate together.

13

I gave you the Objectivist view on accepting government assistance, which is the issue at hand. If you object to that view, fine. Anything beyond that, and you’re hijacking your own thread.

14

Except that view you gave me totally and completely is at issue with every other Libertarian I have heard hold forth on the issue of the bailout. From Ron Paul on down the libertarian opinion was solidly against it.

Now you are coming up with a rationalization for this one company taking the money based on the circumstances of rationalizing past taxation as theft and other intellectual gymnastics all in the name of Selfishness… ooops - sorry Objectivism.

Its all the same. Every thief can excuse their own actions.

15

haymarket, I don’t really think that it’s intellectual gymnastics. panache said:

The money is there. It’s already been taken. Accepting it when offered isn’t an immoral act. It wouldn’t prevent the money from being restored to the taxpayers; the deed’s been done, and the government isn’t going to just turn around and give it back. If the head of BB&T accepts the funds, that gives him more freedom to prevent further taxation/“theft”/whatever he thinks it is in the future.

Yes, it benefits him; that’s the point. It’s not irrational or immoral to act in one’s own self-interest. But rejecting the money does nothing to change the system. It’s a melodramatic gesture that works against his own self-interest. Declining the money wouldn’t be the rational thing to do, for him or his company.

Note–I’m not an Objectivist. In fact, I disagree pretty vehemently with just about every part of it. But I don’t find panache’s explanation to be mental gymnastics; it’s pretty succinct, and spot-on.

16

This is exactly right, and I remember Rand writing specifically about this issue (although I don’t remember exactly where).

17

Against bailout altogether.

Anybody is free to donate whatever they want to whomever they want.

But if they are using shareholder’s money to do so, that seems like a breach of fiduciary duty. Would certainly raise my eyebrows as a shareholder.

But it’s only the shareholders’ fight to pick with the CEO, and no one else’s, so if the shareholders don’t care I guess that is their own problem.

18

People can even rationalize murder and rape when it helps them.

Libertarians, for all their sainted "holier than thou"principles and philosophy, are covered in the same waste that everyone else is.

19

haymarketmartyr, why did you open a thread about this in Great Debates? It looks like that sentence of yours I quoted has been on your mind before you even typed the first words in post #1.

Libertarians are pieces of shit! Ok, got it. You’ve said that twice in this thread and several times in other threads. What’s there left to debate?

If you’re on a crusade to rant about Libertarians, isn’t it more appropriate in other forums such as IMHO or The BBQ Pit ?

[Yep, I’m not a moderator but definitely clueless as to what your purpose is.]

20

but you did not know about this little hypocrisy did you?

as if it makes any difference.