i have been reading these threads and trying to work towards an accurate picture of what a libertarian society would be like. it seems to me that what is being discussed is converting our present system to a libertarian one.
how would it be possible to form a libertarian society from scratch? how would a system such as this be able to industrialize?
What does “from scratch” mean?
Daniel
imagine that all libertarians, tired of the coercion, migrated to the uninhabited planet libertaria. a fertile place, plenty of natural resources, but in a raw, undeveloped state. no roads, bridges, no phone lines or electrical delivery systems. how would libertaria evolve into an industrial society from an untamed wilderness?
Ah, okay, that makes sense. I’m not sure, however, that a practical libertarian is going to have an answer for you :).
Daniel
That is really outside the scope of this OP, why don’t you ask it in the “Question for Liberal” one. No need to hijack the “practical libertarian” thread when there already is a “wildly theoretical libertarian” thread on the same page. 
Let’s work on simplification first, keeping it revenue neutral. Once the code is simplified, we’ll work on reducing the size of the budget, agreeing on a reasonable base (x% of GDP), and then tie any growth in government to growth in the economy.
Again, this is what I was complaing about. No one ever establishes a new society from scratch. Even on a new planet all the colonists will have come from a previous society with its peculiar mix of customs, laws, and economic ideas. There are plenty of threads about what would constitute the ideal libertarian society, but if you get two libertarians in a room you’ll get three opinions on what that would be.
And as a practical libertarian, the goal isn’t to remake the United States into a libertarian paradise, the goal is to make the United States more libertarian, or at least stop it from becoming less libertarian.
I’m sure some democrats do (perhaps the ‘practical’ ones ), though I’m unsure Lieberman supports true neocon philosophy. More like he supports SOME of what they have done. However, much of the neocon’s policies are pretty much solidly against basic libertarian tenets. Most libertarians are essentially isolationists, and even practical libertarians don’t want to deal any more than we have too with the outside world on that basis…certainly we don’t want to assert US dominance or whatever else the ‘neocons’ want to do. Maybe you weren’t equating neocon with libertarian…but again, what was your point then? Its like asking a ‘practical’ capitalist which communist economic plans they would like to see implimented.
The answer is none of course. He might bend enough (being practical and all) to allow some social programs and a safety net, but at its core the two economic philosophies are fundamentally too different without changes so radical that they are no longer ‘communist’ or ‘capitalist’ (sort of where China is going). That fundamental difference is the same between libertarian (even PRACTICAL libertarian) thought and ‘neocon’ philosophy.
Basically it was a strange thing for you to bring up in this thread IMHO…it just doesn’t fit.
Fine…you didn’t say what you seemed to say. Appologies.
-XT
So. Liberal, do you know what a corporation is?
Are you saying that corporations do not have the right to own anything?
That they cannot be sue?
They cannot be sued? :dubious:
Presently? It is a rights bearing entity. In United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1976), a corporation invoked the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment — successfully. “The Court of Appeals reasoned that, since reversal of the acquittals would enable the United States to try respondents a second time, the bar of the Double Jeopardy Clause ‘leads inescapably to the conclusion that no appeal lies from the directed verdict ordered by the court below.’” Id., at 589. 5 We granted certiorari. 429 U.S. 917 (1976). We affirm. [430 U.S. 564, 568]" —Justice Brennan. Corporations and consortiums of corporations have invoked the first and fourth amendments as well. Cites provide on request.
Libertarianly? It would be rather odd to say that, on the one hand, they are not rights bearings entities, and then on the other hand, they have a right to own things, wouldn’t it?
Libertarianly? Their owners can sue.
Libertarianly? Their owners can be sued.
But this is the Practical Libertarian’s thread. I corrected a misperception about general libertarian corporate theory presented as though it were fact, and then excused myself. Please don’t make this thread about me. For my part, I will not respond to your further on this matter.
I’m pretty sure that Liberal would argue that there should be no difference between a corporation and any other partnership. So no, the corporation wouldn’t own anything but the partners/shareholders would each own a portion of the corporate assets, the corporation cannot sue but the partners can together hire a lawyer to sue for them, and the corporation cannot be sued but the partners can be collectively sued.
In my opinion this would be impractical. Our current corporate system got us where we are today, the consequences of tearing it down are unknown. Maybe we’d be better off, maybe not. I imagine Liberal doesn’t care much about the consequences, what matters more is that limited liablity corporations violate his sense of ethics.
The approach I believe he takes is to start with ethical axioms that everyone assents to, and then work out the logical consequences of those axioms, and change society to match. If we don’t like the resulting society then we shouldn’t have assented to those ethical axioms. But I don’t think people work this way, and I don’t think it is a helpful method of attaining a more liberal society.
I reckon since I’m not going to respond further on that matter, I should go ahead and provide a cite now. From Hastings Law Journal.
Take it to the other thread. This ain’t the place to debate ‘pure’ libertarian philosophy.
Because I’m a political guy…not a philosopher. I’m about the art of the possible.
OK, next question…
I’ll skip to Dewey first because he’s been very patient.
What I’d discussed before is the direct prosecution of the management team (and board) of offending corporations. For the shareholders I’ll throw this out there…
If, through you actions, a criminal act was enabled, why should you have your value protected? The simple fact is that an investment is a personal endorsement of a company and its management. Who elected the board of directors, which has control over the corporate officers? The shareholders.
I can hear people crying ‘But I didn’t know! Why should I be held responsible?’
Because it’s your responsibility to know to what end your investment is being used. If you invest in a firm called ‘Dead Peasants R Us’ don’t be surprised when they kill peasants.
Sure, the votes an individual has over management is small…but in that case so is the exposure. Larger investors - larger influence - larger loss.
Money and investments are not abstracts. Your actions as an investor has real-world consequences. Stockholders should not be immune to the cost of transgressions. They are, after all, owners of the firm.
holmes said “My first problem is that all people don’t act as adults. Like it or not, some people need to be told left from right or they will lay waste to society.” along with some other stuff up there.
And this is where I disagree. People, in my experience, rapidly before as adults when required to by circumstances. The most ineffective people can become professors of government programs when required. Example: a woman who had 4 kids at my little girls first day care. She was 21 with four kids, a McJob and living at her grandmothers place. Yet get her on the subject of her insurance agency or welfare and she sounded confident, assured, and ready to navigate the system to her advantage.
Treat people like children and they’ll behave like children. Treat them like adults and they’ll come right along because they have to.
Plus the ‘not everyone is an adult’ smacks of elitism. And that should be avoided at all costs in any society that strives to be equality-based. Elitism leads to oligarchy and divine right. That’s no good for everyone. That’s just the fact that the barbarians at the gate are swilling champagne instead of mead.
After submitting, I see I was correct. 
But I don’t want to make this thread into an ethical libertarian vs practical libertarian flame war (since such a thread would be without precedent in the history of the internet), rather into a practical libertarian vs non-libertarian flame war.
Well, fine, but it sounds like you’re describing the status quo.
An investor is only liable to the extent of his investment. If you owned stock in Enron, you lost all the money you had invested in Enron stock. However, as a shareholder, the rest of your assets are are shielded from Enron’s creditors. That’s what limited liability means.
Or are you suggesting some kind of proportionate personal liability for investors? Own 100 shares and creditors can only seize your car; own 10,000 and they can seize your house as well?
Since this is a thread driven by practicality, let me say that would kill most of the economic activity in this country, and not just at the megacorporation level. People are willing to risk a fixed portion of their assets on risky ventures beyond their immediate control. They aren’t willing to do so if it might cost them more than what they are prepared to risk. It would be very hard to raise capital under such a regime.
Also, of curiosity: does the same analysis you applied above apply to bondholders and other holders of the debt of a company? After all, they too are providing capital to the enterprise. Do they under your analysis bear the same responsibility as a shareholder, and if so do they share in the same consequences?
I’m speaking of other rights held by the shareholders. For example, a corporation can assert first amendment free speech protections because doing so vindicates the underlying free speech rights of its shareholders.
An example: in BSA v. Dale, the Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts had associational rights that permitted them to exclude Dale from their membership. The BSA is allowed to assert those rights to vindicate the underlying rights of its members.
friend carnalk, my question has to do with the practical application of libertarian philosophy. maybe i am exceeding it, but the o.p. sure seemed to be a person proclaiming to be a practical libertarian willing to answer questions.
what is the difference between a political libertarian, an economic libertarian and a practical libertarian? are they not all aspects of the same philosophy?
maybe i asked my question in a more subtle form than i should have, so i will simplify it:
how would it be possible for a libertarian society to co-operate enough to establish an industrial base, install and maintain an infrastructure that would support this industrial base and to prosper from there?
lh
I think the problem is that, when asked to clarify what “from scratch” meant, you answered that it entailed going to another planet. Until we find a fertile planet that we have a feasible means of reaching, other than earth, this question has no practical answer.
Given that we have an industrial base but do not have a libertarian society, asking how a libertarian society would establish an industrial base is similarly not practical.
A practical libertarian deals with the possible, not with the purely theoretical.
Daniel
I thought you were practical. You firmly believe that everyone of us, has the same potential for success? That there aren’t some people who for what ever reason, lack the ability to go beyond the minimum and that you can through adversity make them behave as adults? What if they don’t?
Don’t misunderstand me, I not a bleeder, however experience tells me that miserable people, have a nasty habit of spreading their misery around. I would rather prevent my house being burnt down, then look for compensation after the fact.
Humans are predators, there will always be someone better at performing a deception, than you will be at detecting it. I don’t see how you’re being treated as child, if society sets up rules to protect you, even from yourself. We are not all equal; there will always be someone a little too trusting or little too cheap or unable to see the ‘big’ picture and that’s okay and the way of world.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t create a system to minimize the damage that other people’s bad decision have on the rest of us.
Libertarianism seems to be the perfect environment for the grifter, the flim-flam man, the snake oil salesman; because no matter what happens, “adults” take their lumps and should have known better. “I’m not going to prevent you from doing this, because I don’t want to treat you as a child”, is poor comfort to the innocent, injured by your poor decision; which could have been prevented had someone stepped in.
Anyway, perhaps we need to define the term adult, before we continue; this way we have a base. Yes?
Is adult an age? Behaviour? Is it the typical libertarian sense of taking responsibility for your decisions, because no one forced you?
Could you elaborate, this don’t exactly make sense. Crooked corporations die all the time and are reborn as new corporations. 