>> ^DerHasisttot:

blankfist Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulated environment)


I think having more choices for work is a good thing. With less competition in the market, that also means less places to work that aren't corporations. With more competition, you'd see companies offering better positions, pay and benefits to attract better employees.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.
For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).
So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.
This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?


Not really.

If all state-influences (regulations and subsidies et cetera) to all businesses are gone, how can a small competitor then compete with a larger competitor? (I'm working under the presumption that there had not been a null-setting of all capital.) Would the large competitor not be able to be more efficient and therefore cheaper? Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulatet environment)

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
No, none of what I mentioned is really political at all, even though it directly relates. What my message did note is that without effort from the people even the most successful government format can do nothing. And the funny part is, if the masses are educated, hardworking, freedom loving, and kind and generous, then they would make perfect libertarians. They wouldn't need government to tell them how to live.

Reminds me of this quote from James Madison, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Madison of course knew men weren't angels. The paragraph (and indeed the entire Federalist paper it's contained in) speaks to the entire problem one must solve when designing a government.

It's why I'm leery of people who want to reinvent society without taking any of that commentary into consideration.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

But sadly, I see no way out. Term limits have created a horrible environment in Florida, where Pols just grab for quick power even faster. The gulf of the Mexico will either be drilled for by the U.S. or some other nation (And we get polluted either way.) Heck, the only way to stop other countries from stripping the world of its resources would be to war, or cease trading--which is not going to happen.

I agree, they're all hard problems. I'm just saying there's no easy fix. Unwinding the government doesn't seem like a fix for any of them.

On the environment, I actually agree with the Reason answer above. We need to move away from treating the environment as an unowned collective commons, and set up a property regime.

A.K.A, Cap & trade.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Hopefully the people. I believe that their should be government but government without elected representatives I long for a direct democracy with resolutions and legislation voted for/against by everyone, where no-one is allowed to starve to death because they can't work, where the long term goals of the human race can be debated and considered and where money and its corrupting influences can be learned about in history classes not fought over.

>> ^NetRunner:
My interest in having these conversations with you is because I care what you think.


Stop flirting with me.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.

Is any of what you said meant to serve as some argument in favor of libertarianism?
All of those things are issues I'd love to address. What's the course of action you suggest? Do you claim to have better ideas on how to solve them? Out with 'em then.


No, none of what I mentioned is really political at all, even though it directly relates. What my message did note is that without effort from the people even the most successful government format can do nothing. And the funny part is, if the masses are educated, hardworking, freedom loving, and kind and generous, then they would make perfect libertarians. They wouldn't need government to tell them how to live. Unfortunately--that's not the case, and so our government is screwed no matter what form it takes.

But sadly, I see no way out. Term limits have created a horrible environment in Florida, where Pols just grab for quick power even faster. The gulf of the Mexico will either be drilled for by the U.S. or some other nation (And we get polluted either way.) Heck, the only way to stop other countries from stripping the world of its resources would be to war, or cease trading--which is not going to happen.

And you should know I do not defend libertarianism Net, it is only as good as its people. And the active people today (I.e., the tea party) would turn this country into flames. With that said, god I am tired. Did that make any sense? I guess I have to read it tomorrow.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, of course you think your mock answers are better. I think I answered enough. If you want more answered you should email reason.


Well, I think my mock answers were at least attempts to answer the questions directly, rather than a series of attempts to dodge the question. Yes, there was quite a mocking tone to them, but they're all based on arguments I've seen other conservatives and libertarians make with a straight face when asked similar questions.

>> ^blankfist:

You can always head to http://reason.com/ to submit your questions for the next round of 'Ask a Libertarian Day'. You don't always have to ask grandpa blankfist.


The thing is, I'm not interested in what Reason has to say. My interest in having these conversations with you is because I care what you think. For some reason, I have this silly notion that you do care about the little people who're suffering, and aren't just putting on airs to try to get a tax cut by any means necessary.

I do mock and cajole, but turnabout is fair play. In any case, I mostly do it to try to shake you out of this really weird logical cul de sac you've fallen into.

At a minimum, I'd love to induce you to reexamine your deeply held beliefs, but these days you just dodge and weave away from the contradictions laid out in front of you, rather than try to untangle them.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Is any of what you said meant to serve as some argument in favor of libertarianism?

All of those things are issues I'd love to address. What's the course of action you suggest? Do you claim to have better ideas on how to solve them? Out with 'em then.

If you wanna play the ultra-cynical card, then all you're offering is different lies from different politicians.

You're also offering an illogical cynicism. Why would suing a politician provide me any assurance? Courts are government too.

You're also offering a dishonest cynicism. It's not as if it's impossible for politicians to lose their jobs. People can vote them out when their term is up, and sometimes even before that with recalls. You know that's true, you've seen it happen.

>> ^blankfist:

You all want assurances, but you don't have assurances in the current system. You only have lies from politicians. And when a politician promises something and doesn't deliver, what then? You can't sue them. There's zero accountability now.

@blankfist, I think my libertarian answers were actually better defenses of libertarianism.

And some of my answers were humorously echoed.

The Great Depression:

>> ^NetRunner:

The Great Depression was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
>> ^blankfist:

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

Incidentally, you're citing Friedman the inflationist there, who said that the Great Depression was prolonged by government refusing to restore confidence to the markets by bailing out failing banks, and by trying in vain to hold to the gold standard when what it needed to do was print shitloads of money to counteract the drop in the money supply caused by people stuffing cash into their mattresses. Seriously, go look it up.

On Monopolies:

>> ^NetRunner:

Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.

Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
>> ^blankfist:
And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

On deregulation's benefits:
>> ^NetRunner:
Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story.
>> ^blankfist:

[A]ccording to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

Though technically that last was offered as a defense of violently implementing deregulation, even though you cited growth numbers from an era after they'd shifted from the Randian wet dream of Pinochet's rule to a more regulated and democratic system.

Oh, and on the aforementioned violent implementation of libertarianism:

>> ^NetRunner:

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...
>> ^blankfist:
The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

Lulz.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government.
Actually this is one of the major problems we have with talking with you about this kind of stuff anymore.
We ask "how would X corporate behavior be reigned in under a libertarian system?"
Rather than address X corporate behavior, your response is invariably "all corporate evil is actually government evil."
Is working people longer hours in less safe environments for less pay somehow not in the interests of business owners? Why do they do that anywhere and everywhere they don't have laws preventing it?


I'm answering them as I read them. Sorry if your comprehension of a question is different, but DerHasisttot didn't ask "how would X corporate behavior be reigned in under a libertarian system?" And I don't think Libertarians want a definitive "Libertarian system". We just want freedom to interact without people telling us when and how to do that.

You all want assurances, but you don't have assurances in the current system. You only have lies from politicians. And when a politician promises something and doesn't deliver, what then? You can't sue them. There's zero accountability now.

If you don't like corporations, then it's government you should have a problem with. They created them.

If you don't like X corporate behavior, then it's government you should have a problem with. They created the corporations.

See a trend?

You asked a lot of questions, @dystopianfuturetoday. Let's jump in.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

Patently false. Slavery was held over from early British rule. And a lot of industrialized nations followed the same trend of slavery and child labor, but that's more endemic of the path of civilization than free markets. To think child labor or slavery would come back to the US if we deregulated the markets is ridiculous.

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

I had to reread that a couple times. Always results in massive unemployment? Where has that happened once in history? Regulations have lead to less employment, because less people can create jobs. If you want to open a florist in some states, you must pay several grand to take a test and get a license. Or be a barber. And so on. Regulations kill employment opportunity.

And inflation is caused mainly by growing the money supply. And you have the central bank system and the government to thank for that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

There was no evidence to suggest an individualist society would work prior to the US. Good thing they took a chance.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

What movement is that exactly? Not too many corporations are really for a free market. A free market would add unwanted competition that would decrease their profits. But I take it you meant the Koch brothers supporting CATO? That's hardly my movement.

But for every one corporation you find in favor of Libertarianism, I can find you twenty against it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

If you mean the Libertarian Party, then they're acting in accord with capitalism just as Democrats and Republicans are. Because that's the current economic system. You want a better system? Then offer one up... oh, oops, you can't because we're not allowed those kinds of freedoms in this society, are we? It's the US Dollar or else.

For those of us who are libertarian in name (not party), it doesn't have to be capitalism. It doesn't have to be money. It just has to be voluntary.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Interesting choice of words. The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

I doubt adoption of free markets is primarily done at the butt of the gun. I think you're alluding to Friedman and Chile. I doubt Friedman lead an army of Libertarians through Chile, but I know he was consulted regarding their economy. And according to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

But, to get back to your question, I don't know of any Libertarians that want to "bring" free markets to other countries; they just want to be able to freely provide for themselves and their families without other people telling them how to do it. Again, why not use your power of perception to look at the countless acts of violence perpetrated on the people by their government. And Chile is no different.

>> ^blankfist:

I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government.

Actually this is one of the major problems we have with talking with you about this kind of stuff anymore.

We ask "how would X corporate behavior be reigned in under a libertarian system?"

Rather than address X corporate behavior, your response is invariably "all corporate evil is actually government evil."

Is working people longer hours in less safe environments for less pay somehow not in the interests of business owners? Why do they do that anywhere and everywhere they don't have laws preventing it?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?


I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.

For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).

So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.

This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?

Uncle Sam can't but in the UK we get free health care (Although no free soda).
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.