One and the same. The point is, you eliminate the ability of prospective investors to control their exposure. How do I know that some company I’ve elected to invest in won’t behave criminally at some point in the future?
I never suggested that you were either a communist or an anarchist. I just suggested that your proposed reform wa a really dumb idea.
Those lines are drawn by statute. If you’re proposing a reform, you should either suggest where the line will be drawn or admit you’ve left investors to twist in the wind.
I thought since I asked about anti-racketeering laws you could see I was open to the suggestion that the rules are already on the books.
No I’m really not. Like I said, I would believe in giving a company time to reform. If a company is found guilty of some serious criminal misconduct and they do not show serious attempts to correct the issue, then yes their stock would suffer. Why is that a problem? Much the same happens with accounting irregularities. If a company was eventually forced “unlimited” and shareholders didn’t want that agreement we could allow a forfeiture of the stocks- they would only lose their initial investment. If a corporation was dissolved the facilities could hopefully be sold to reputable companies and liquidated assets (minus fines/reparations) split amongst shareholders.
Some of the free-wheeling nature of the market would be curtailed, I’m not saying my suggestions will lead to a massive increase in GDP growth rate. My goal is to force some thought of corporate responsibility when making investment decisions. I want companies that give investment advice to start including any criminal history of a company or it’s managers.
OK. Three strikes - you’re out. It works so well in baseball and drug enforcment.
Because the shares become unsaleable after the first strike. You’re asking investors to purchase a possible jail sentence (or, at least, to purchase unlimited civil exposure). No one’s going to buy into that.
You’ve just destroyed your system of accountability. If I can bail out by forfeiting my (by now already worthless) shares, then this is no different from the status quo. You haven’t eliminated limited liability at all – you’ve just created a complicated scheme that essentially does nothing.
Hmmm, perhaps you should go work for the government.
How many publicly traded companies do you know of that have known felons in executive capacities?
I mean, Good Lord – consider the recently-departed Chairman of the Board of Smith & Wesson. This guy hid his past for decades, by all accounts led a straignt and narrow life for the past thirty-five years, and he still got canned when it was disclosed he did prison time in the 1960s.
Investment profiles don’t include that kind of thing because there’s nothing to report. Companies do not knowingly promote felons to the executive suites.
I thought asking about current foreign policy was a valid question for a “practical” libertarian. I admitted the way I asked it was sloppy, and then I was frustrated and irritable when I was misunderstood. Surely you, a fellow ESL, should understand that frustration? (give a sister a break, man )
But anyway, thanks for your substantive replies re referendums, Iraq, and the other foreign policy stuff. That’s what I was looking for - specific examples of how a practical libertarian would deal with the current international climate. IMO, the libertarian platform is at it’s weakest in that area. I was really interested in hearing how a “practical” libertarian would present as a viable national candidate on those issues. Still not sure why it’s strange to want to know that. What am I missing? You claim to identify as libertarian, and you’ve got opinions about those things. So what’s “strange” about asking?
Well it’s not quite funny that the OP kinda specifically didn’t want to talk about the issue of “corporatism” and I seem to have hijacked it that way. I hope the OP can answer my question about trade agreements in the more Lib USA.
To my hijack enablers ( ) I’ll see if I can get some resources together and start a thread about the issue of corporate responsibilty from the perspective I’m trying to describe here. Hopefully it won’t drop like a stone like most of mine do. heh. A hypothetical situation I want to address that maybe you can chew on (but not respond to here) is how the current system would deal with a publicly traded waste company directly implicated in three deaths over 5 years d/t improper dumping practices. I promise I don’t think corporations get away with murder, I’m just unsure of the responsibility&rights balance.
I’d do it myself, but I’m a crap OP writer. Why corporatism is a taboo subject for libertarians is still a puzzle to me (and I say this as someone who is quite attracted to many aspects of libertarianism). BTW, I promise not to hijack, and just be an avid lurker/reader…
In the spirit of encouraging the thread in the originally intended direction may I suggest an acronym:
“>LUS” = a more Libertarian United States. As in “In >LUS tax reform would move to give local municipalities greater control of the tax base and restrict state and federal spending guidelines.” Or something, IANALibertarian.
Be kind, I have a daffodil like ego when it comes to my acronym creation.
I like it. And believe that it’s a worthwhile innovation. How’s that for you.
Just got back from ‘Pooh’s Heffalump Movie’. I’m betting my answers get less coherent.
Foreign Policy: I’d thought I’d made my support for the good neighbor policy (dating back to FDR) clear in an earlier post. But let me spell some things out.
The armed forces should be used only to counter direct or immediately looming threats. In addition, given the consitution under which we operate, war powers reside with congress and should be SPECIFICALLY authorized by Congress. In addition, this authorization should include and expiration date upon which time Congress must again approve such actions. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Foreign aid. I actually like foreign aid but would limit it severely. I would provide aid only to governments that are effective in promoting the liberty and freedom of their citizenry. Despots and oppressive regimes can go screw themselves. I continue to believe that we will pay for the ‘all of nothing’ attitudes of the cold war for the foreseeable future.
Humanitarian aid and disaster relief can be left to the United Nations to organize if they so choose. While we might well commit money to such things having a strong hand in the process goes against my grain. Too often it’s a boondoggle.
OK, you said "An employer’s freedom to fire people for any reason at all may conflict with the employees’ freedom to live their lives in ways which the employer disagrees strongly with.
Your freedom to raise your children any way you want - including restricting their access to information - may conflict with your children’s freedom to make informed choices in some situations (birth control springs to mind).
Your freedom to control your property conflicts with my freedom to walk whereever I want. (A factoid which may seem weird (?) for readers across the pond: In Norway, we’ve a legal right to walk on other people’s property, if it’s wilderness, ie. not near buildings, cultivated land, etc. It’s illegal to create barriers (fences etc) which impede this freedom.)
And so on. Do you have any guiding principles on which freedoms you’d prefer to win in such conflicts, or is it more of a case by case/gut feeling thing?
And another question: There’s freedom to, and freedom from. Freedom to do what I want, and freedom from hunger, fear, etc. It’s my impression that libertarians usually deals with the freedom to-part, and that freedom from isn’t a central part of the ideology. Comments?"
Simple enough to quote. Not so simple to answer…
I’m more a ‘freedom from’ type, personally, as I come to libertarianism not from ‘I want to do X’ but ‘I resent having government do X to me’ school of thought. I admit that I’m deeply enamored of the fact that the US Bill of Rights is specifically about things government is prevented from doing. That’s a sweet negative space in which to be.
There are certainly conflicting rights. But I’m not sure that your examples hold much water. An employer has the right to decide who works for that firm. A property owner can control access to his property. A parent, being in a position of responsibility for a child, can control the rights of the child until the child acheives majority. Contrarwise, no one has the RIGHT to be employed at a specific place of business, and no one has the right to access or use another’s land without permission, and a child doesn’t have the right to do certain things without parental approval (at what age or stage can be determined later).
I don’t recall specifying ‘legal’ reforms per se…I’m more about politics and policy in the discussion.
Let me toss out a few that could (possibly) be passable within the next 10 years. If we worked the system properly, that is…
The de-mystification of the Presidency. As the Presidency has acquired more authority and personal power the job has become less and less a required reflection of the views of the citizenry and more a reflection of the people who are close to the man elected to the office. Reining in the powers of the President and moving it to the Congress would be a wide step towards making things more a) representative and b) harder to accomplish. A frustrated government is a happy government.
Devolution of assistance programs to the state and county level. If the federal government must be involved (and with the level of cash involved it must, for all practical purposes) allow it to only award monies to the states with no strings. The states may then pursue whatever systems their citizens request. If we have 50 states pursuing 50 systems well, that’s experimentation for you.
Government or other wide-scale evaluation of drugs and ‘supplements’ while publishing the results of test in an easy to read and understand system defining the effectiveness of the item and its ability to meet it’s claims.
So you’re saying that corporations can exist, but they can’t possess any of the special qualities that make them corporations? Seems like a distinction without a difference, but I’ll defer to your expertise here.
Companies can be communally owned entities, or they can be financed by purchasing capital, or they can be proprietorships. What they cannot be is rights bearing entities. That is reserved for human beings.
Secondly, I do understand your non-interventionist military stance and restricted aid. The moral storm that hits because of aid reduction might be countered with a firm commitment to keep up UN payments.
However, I was more asking about the >LUS stance on NAFTA, WTO and relations with the EU.
NAFTA - I approve, in the abstract. What I don’t approve of are free marketeers who are blithely indifferent to the dislocations that moving from non-free to free trade cause. If we wish to spread NAFTA through the region we need to be prepared to support those who lose their jobs because of outside competition.
In time I believe that salaries outside the US will climb and therefore bring jobs back to the US on an even keel. But we’re not there yet. And if the government (and the people) want the benefits of free trade for the long run we have to be prepared to assist those who in the short term derive so-called ‘negative benefits’ (no kidding…I’ve heard the term used!).
WTO - I have grave doubts about the long-term effectiveness of the WTO, LUS or not. I think this is one of those ‘everyone likes it when it doesn’t apply to them’ things. Sort of a nationalist version of NIMBY. So I think it’s going to be a moot point. I do, however, agree that governments can enter into groups like the UN and WTO at their own discretion.
EU - I see nothing to truly concern myself with concerning the United States and the European Union. Sure, the EU will become a greater competitor for global trade. But I don’t necessarily think that’s bad. As for a greater military competitor I’d be more than happy to have the United States stop being the worlds policeman and allow the EU militaries to carry their share of the load.
I’m finding little to disagree with. Maybe I should look a little deeper into social libertarianism. Couple of follow up comments/questions if you have the time.
NAFTA- Your position seems eminently practical, not sure how libertarian. heh. Expansion of NAFTA: yay or nay?
WTO- So restart from ground up or just buff to make more neutral and authoritative?
EU- I guess I don’t have to ask how you feel about current tariff battles. Could a bilateral NAFTA/EEU agreement be a good idea and largely supplant the doubtful WTO?
Are you talking legal rights? Those vary according to where you are. Or are you talking moral/inherent rights? If so, is there some overriding principle which makes you decide that those rights you mention are more important than the freedoms they restrict?
To take one of my examples in more detail *): You own a piece of land which includes some wilderness. I own a backpack and a tent. You don’t want strangers to walk on your property. If you have to allow people to do so, you’ll feel that as an unpleasant restriction of your freedom. I want to go hiking. If I can’t go where I want in the wilderness, camping where I want, I’ll feel that as an unpleasant restriction of my freedom.
AFAIK, US laws protect the freedom of the land owner at the cost of the freedom of the hiker. Norwegian laws protect the freedom of the hiker at the cost of the freedom of the land owner. (Details (PDF), esp. §2.) There are, obviously, advantages and disadvantages with both of those choices. I’d guess that both of them are grounded pretty deeply in local culture.
So, to rephrase my question: In this situation, the government, when giving laws, has to protect some freedoms at the cost of others. Is there some principle or guideline you’d prefer the goverment to follow when making these choices, when weighing one freedom against another?
*) The “you” and “I” are hypothetical persons in this example. I’ve no idea how you’d feel in this situation, and I’m not all that prone to go hiking in the wildnerness myself
Well, you could do it like an inverse class action suit, where all of the shareholders are sued in a single suit. GM could provide a single coordinated legal defense in the case. For ease of locution, we could just call this “sueing GM” rather than “sueing the shareholders of GM in aggregate.”
…oh wait, that’s how it works now…nevermind
) I’ll see if I can get some resources together and start a thread about the issue of corporate responsibilty from the perspective I’m trying to describe here. Hopefully it won’t drop like a stone like most of mine do. heh. A hypothetical situation I want to address that maybe you can chew on (but not respond to here) is how the current system would deal with a publicly traded waste company directly implicated in three deaths over 5 years d/t improper dumping practices. I promise I don’t think corporations get away with murder, I’m just unsure of the responsibility&rights balance.