Yes, thank you. Can we all stipulate first that libertarianism is a political philosophy, and not an economic system? It describes how people ought to be governed.
These counter-arguments seem rather weak. It’s not at all clear that comparing a far-flung business to a government-managed economy is invalid. I think you need to point at specific weaknesses in that analogy in order to make that point. Cheesesteak offers one possible reason:
This assumes that competition between companies for an external group–consumers–is what encourages companies to collude internally. Since a political economy has no equivalent to “external consumers”, this type of collusion is unnecessary and therefore counter-productive.
You’re rght. I should have said as much above.
I think the bigger point, as it relates to this thread, is that it isn’t a business model.
Um, not only is this model NOT libertarian, it is the OPPOSITE of libertarian.
A libertarian organization wouldn’t have orders coming from the top at all. If there was a central voice calling for a meeting and collaboration of all the divisions to decide to open earlier, it ceased to become libertarian. Libertarianism would have been each division deciding when to open on their own.
In fact, with the mandatory monthly meetings, bonus evaluations based on singular metrics, and forced alignments to horrific decisions from singular policies deemed from the top, the organization structure is closer to the planned economies of China and Russia of the '70s-'80s than libertarianism by far.
Absolutely. A business is not an arena in which political philosophies can be intelligently tested. For instance, a business run as a democracy would almost certainly fail. Does that discredit governing a nation through democracy?
It’s not? The government isn’t competing in a marketplace with rival governments (except in the very broadest of terms) the way a retailer competes with other retailers. Sears wasn’t a government that fell from within due to a flawed system, it was an already-failing retailer that was made even worse off through inept management, because shoppers went elsewhere.
A business, no matter how far-flung, is a closed system. An economy is not.
For example, if a women’s clothing store makes bad business decisions and goes bankrupt, women will buy clothing at another, better run, store.
If Sears’ Women’s Department makes bad decisions and goes “bankrupt”, the Sears shareholders are left with stores that don’t sell women’s clothing anymore. There is no competing Sears Women’s Department to be the better run version that survives.
Competition in the economy is about survival of the fittest. Those who don’t adapt, die or are absorbed by better run companies. WTF is Sears going to do, have the successful IT department take over the failing Lingerie section?
There is a reason Sears sells hardware and toys and lingerie, and it isn’t to give them more opportunity to compete with each other, it’s to leverage the combined assets.
Yes it would; the order givers just don’t call themselves the government. A consistent feature of libertarianism is that even massive amounts of coercion are just fine, as long as it isn’t the government doing it. In fact, unless the government does it, under libertarian philosophy it doesn’t count as coercion at all (conveniently).
It’s both, like Communism. They share a fair number of similarities.
[QUOTE=the OP]
The article goes on to detail numerous problems associated with the model, problems which have cause the company to lose 20% of sales and seen its stock decline by 64% since the takeover [in 2005].
[/QUOTE]
How does that compare with brick-and-mortar retailers in general between 2005 and 2013? People buy a lot more stuff online than they did in 2005, and there’s been this recession thingy since then too. Haven’t most department stores, hell, haven’t most brick-and-mortar retailers, experienced substantial declines in sales since 2005?
I just don’t see that Sears’ failure to hold its own as the tide washed everyone else out to sea means anything.
But Libertarians fail to live by the conclusions their ideology gives them. Libertarians are competing against Democrats and Republicans in the political marketplace - and losing badly. A proper Libertarian conclusion to this evidence is that Libertarianism is a defective product. But most Libertarians reject this conclusion.
RTF, Staunch Defender of Libertarianism. 
There aren’t any “conclusions”. There is a principle that defines the core of Libertarians: Freedom from Coercion is an end in itself. Whatever “conclusions” derive from that are, well, what they are.
But they haven’t lost, yet. 
Again, you’re mixing up free-market economics with Libertarian Political Philosophy. Libertarians just let businesses compete. They don’t care which ones fail and which ones succeed. Political Philosophies come and go. Liberalism was all but dead a few decades ago (remember Reagan?), and now it’s seeing a resurgence.
Wrong, again. But keep trying. You may learn something about Libertarianism eventually.
Eh, kinda. The economic ideas that are implied by libertarianism, and often advocated for by the same people, are separate ideas and their own right, and can be (and have been) implemented separately.
That’s news to me! If it’s such a consistent feature, I’m surprised I’ve never come across it before.
Coercion is it’s defined in libertarianism is in no way limited to the government. Heck, one of the roles (non-anarchists) libertarians see for government is preventing coercion amongst the citizenry. How could that be so if only the government were capable of it?
Nor won, ever.
It should be noted that the good people of Libertaria would be free to set up a communist society if they so chose. They could operate a community or a company or a club on the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. All they would need to do is draw up a contract and off they go!
Libertarianism simply says: Do whatever you want, but don’t physically hurt anyone else.
Libertarianism does NOT say: You must run your business along free market lines in order to maximize your profits.
It says: Do whatever the hell you want, but don’t come crawling to Uncle Lib when you fail.
You’re just a half-empty kind of guy. 
If your question could be rephrased as “Are there examples that show a company successfully using a decentralized structure?”, the answer is yes. Valve uses such a structure during game development. The linked article is by an economist at Valve, and is quite interesting.
I was thinking that franchises are fairly libertarian.
Well… Atlas Smugged.
Funny you mention this. In the wake of the Valve layoffs in February, one of the former employees recently took some of her grievances online, partly over some of her perceived issues with their flat hierarchical structure. (article here).
The thesis is that their system works for 20 people but doesn’t scale up to 200 very well. A lot of the same kinds of words and phrases pop up, like stabbing people in the back and territoriality and such.
Who knows if it’s true, but if it is, it doesn’t bode well for a company the size of Sears.