- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 4,030
- Reaction score
- 2,095
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
One of the greatest fallacies harbored by Trump's moronic minions is that government should be run like a business. It should never be!First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.
So here is my question.
It is my understanding that most Libertarians want private ownership, generally speaking, in as much as possible.
The claim is that anything that can and should be created should be funded privately and that this will result in improvements over the public/ private system we have now.
Now, I have an objection to this idea on practical grounds and I'm curious if there is someone who'd be willing to point out why my concerns are unfounded.
My concern is that businesses are, by their nature, risk averse. They tend to be short-sighted as a lot of emphasis is placed on short term profitability and return on investment (ROI). In the world we have now businesses are allowed to write down losses and many businesses will show losses for years before showing profitability, but it's taxpayers that pay for some if not all of the losses, This increases return on investment and reduces the barriers to entry for new businesses increasing the ability for startups to be more competitive.
It is my assumption, that people that adhere closely to "pure" Libertarianism would not agree to a government that provides tax incentives or subsidies or other advantages to any business, thus, this would cause at least two major problems in my mind.
1. The barrier to entry would be even greater than it is now delaying profitability and requiring investors to take much greater risks (with great risk must come the promise of great potential returns).
2. Increased risk comes at an increased cost.
3. Even if the private sector could have invented the internet, built the infrastructure to utilize it, settled on thousands if not 10's of thousands of interoperability standards, is there any reason to think, that without government providing tax incentives (at both the federal and state level), grants for R&D, organizations like ISO, IEC, IEEE, IETF, W3C, OASIS, Ecma International, HL7 International, IHE, SISO, DMTF, The Open Group just to name a few (and yes some are international, but almost certainly established by US government influence if not money).
I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.
I don't see the US under a purely private system can look forward 5-10 years when profits are reported quarterly.
My other issue with private companies running everything and the idea that they will do the right thing otherwise people won't purchase their products. Let's look at a real world example.
Dupont makes Teflon. Some of you may know that Teflon contamination (specifically C8 a processing aid used in the manufacturing of Teflon for many years. It helped in the polymerization process of PTFE, Teflon itself is inert at normal temperatures.) is so widespread that there isn't a single living thing that's not contaminated with it. Now Dupont has made $10 billion, extremely conservatively on it's sales of Teflon. A more realistic number could be as high as $30 billion.
They have been sued for approximately $6 billion. POFA, after 60 years was finally phased out in steps after 2003. Now we have C6. No long term publicly available testing, its assumed it's better than C8, but some preliminary testing shows it has similar effects as C8. But why should Dupon care? If future fines are some fraction of their profits.
Why should anyone believe that in a purely private system that Libertarians say that want that the Dupont case should expect to get better and not worse?
I have not closely read all of your post yet. But first things first: tax payers do not (in the UK or Sweden and I assume the USA) pay for companies losses. Companies not making profits simply pay lower taxes. They do not receive money from tax payers unlss elected governments are foolish enough to subsidise them to "protect jobs".First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.
So here is my question.
It is my understanding that most Libertarians want private ownership, generally speaking, in as much as possible.
The claim is that anything that can and should be created should be funded privately and that this will result in improvements over the public/ private system we have now.
Now, I have an objection to this idea on practical grounds and I'm curious if there is someone who'd be willing to point out why my concerns are unfounded.
My concern is that businesses are, by their nature, risk averse. They tend to be short-sighted as a lot of emphasis is placed on short term profitability and return on investment (ROI). In the world we have now businesses are allowed to write down losses and many businesses will show losses for years before showing profitability, but it's taxpayers that pay for some if not all of the losses, This increases return on investment and reduces the barriers to entry for new businesses increasing the ability for startups to be more competitive.
It is my assumption, that people that adhere closely to "pure" Libertarianism would not agree to a government that provides tax incentives or subsidies or other advantages to any business, thus, this would cause at least two major problems in my mind.
1. The barrier to entry would be even greater than it is now delaying profitability and requiring investors to take much greater risks (with great risk must come the promise of great potential returns).
2. Increased risk comes at an increased cost.
3. Even if the private sector could have invented the internet, built the infrastructure to utilize it, settled on thousands if not 10's of thousands of interoperability standards, is there any reason to think, that without government providing tax incentives (at both the federal and state level), grants for R&D, organizations like ISO, IEC, IEEE, IETF, W3C, OASIS, Ecma International, HL7 International, IHE, SISO, DMTF, The Open Group just to name a few (and yes some are international, but almost certainly established by US government influence if not money).
I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.
I don't see the US under a purely private system can look forward 5-10 years when profits are reported quarterly.
My other issue with private companies running everything and the idea that they will do the right thing otherwise people won't purchase their products. Let's look at a real world example.
Dupont makes Teflon. Some of you may know that Teflon contamination (specifically C8 a processing aid used in the manufacturing of Teflon for many years. It helped in the polymerization process of PTFE, Teflon itself is inert at normal temperatures.) is so widespread that there isn't a single living thing that's not contaminated with it. Now Dupont has made $10 billion, extremely conservatively on it's sales of Teflon. A more realistic number could be as high as $30 billion.
They have been sued for approximately $6 billion. POFA, after 60 years was finally phased out in steps after 2003. Now we have C6. No long term publicly available testing, its assumed it's better than C8, but some preliminary testing shows it has similar effects as C8. But why should Dupon care? If future fines are some fraction of their profits.
Why should anyone believe that in a purely private system that Libertarians say that want that the Dupont case should expect to get better and not worse?
What are 'ancap lolcows'?Wait until you get ancap lolcows or for fun genuine anarchists who know capitalism is a hierarchy and society requires mutual aid.
I used to be one, no way would i have voted for trump.I've read a lot of post on this board. I've yet to find a libertarian.
I found some fake ones though. They'll try to call themselves libertarians because of something. It's a way for them to skirt responsibility for what they actually vote for.
Why do you think I am a 'fake libertarian'? One can believe in freedom without being an anarchist.I've read a lot of post on this board. I've yet to find a libertarian.
I found some fake ones though. They'll try to call themselves libertarians because of something. It's a way for them to skirt responsibility for what they actually vote for.
Like you said, the label casts a wide net.First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.
So here is my question.
It is my understanding that most Libertarians want private ownership, generally speaking, in as much as possible.
The claim is that anything that can and should be created should be funded privately and that this will result in improvements over the public/ private system we have now.
Now, I have an objection to this idea on practical grounds and I'm curious if there is someone who'd be willing to point out why my concerns are unfounded.
<snip>
First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.
Shortsighted? Really? Ok. You're going to poke fun at libertarians, and that's cool. Ironic, actually.My concern is that businesses are, by their nature, risk averse. They tend to be short-sighted as a lot of emphasis is placed on short term profitability and return on investment (ROI).
That's a REALLY bad assumption. All libertarians oppose Direct Taxes, and therefore they would oppose any "Tax Incentives" on Direct taxes.It is my assumption, that people that adhere closely to "pure" Libertarianism would not agree to a government that provides tax incentives or subsidies or other advantages to any business, thus, this would cause at least two major problems in my mind.
Sorry, no - Libertarianism encourages development, innovation, exploration, and growth. Government regulations and restrictions actually thwarts these things. You have it completely backwards.. . . Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. . . .
Disagree. The Free Market works the best without government manipulations.I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.
Agreed. Government is massively powerful, and citizens are terrified of the government. I certainly am. I'm also terrified by the people who advocate for an over-powerful government. These people are scary.I don't see the US under a purely private system can look forward 5-10 years when profits are reported quarterly.
Trade and the Free Market works better for everyone when government stays out of it.Why should anyone believe that in a purely private system that Libertarians say that want that the Dupont case should expect to get better and not worse?
You are very wrong. I was with a business that was a private ownership that developed new technology that helped in the computer boom in the 90's. There was no government help or interference.I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.
How did you go from a libertarian to an authoritarian leftist inin league with globalists?I used to be one, no way would i have voted for trump.
I was aware of most of that, and I'll concede that there things that we might learn from libertarian ideas that could be integrated into a better system, however, just as those on the right would point to the idea of a socialist utopia, where everyone is cooperating and working together for the benefit of society is a punchline, a meme, I find the idea of a libertarian utopia where everything is private and competitive and people are better off for it an even bigger pipe dream than the socialist utopia.Does that help?
Be more specific, I buy I could find where government investment was at the root of your companies success. And to be clear, companies can create new and iterative products without direct government involvement. What companies won't do is invest in technologies that are not already established. Fir example. Let's say Molten Salt Reactors (MSR's) are the future of nuclear power and could create a revolution in how we make power emissions free, would less radioactive byproducts that aren't as ionizing as current reactors. They have built in safeties that prevent run-away reactions, cand can be made smaller and put closer to the communities they serve. Now whether that's true or not (though some of those claims have been made), but that's not the point, just grant me this as a fact (as if you and I are given a glimpse into the future and that's true). The point is, building these rectors is expensive (I think China just built one) and as of right now it's not known if these kinds of reactors can be profitable (ignoring all the other possible positives). The private sector would never invest in this today, but China's government will take the risk and it may or may not work out, But if it does, a world in which the private sector is all there is will almost certainly be unwilling to spend the money necessary to do the R&D to figure it out before a a government willing to to take risks that sometimes pay off.You are very wrong. I was with a business that was a private ownership that developed new technology that helped in the computer boom in the 90's. There was no government help or interference.
I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them.
I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest,
even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.
There are certain things that should remain in the public domain and others in the free market.
I don't know if there's a specific criteria. Just whatever the electorate deems is in the public interest. Schools, Libraries, Museums, Postal Service, Police Department, Military, Parks, Roads, etc.What's the specific criteria for which industries should be controlled by the state?
I didn't mean that as a derogatory statement, just pointing out the fact that next quarters numbers have enormous influence on decision making. It makes it difficult for businesses to plan longer term without impacting investment.Shortsighted? Really?
Poke fun? If I wanted to poke fun at the absurdity of Libertarianism, my remarks would have been more scathing and less consolatory (like the part where I said that we can learn valuable lessons from Libertarian ideas). I'm not arguing in bad faith. That said, I can think it's absurd, but be open minded to a well stated argument (argument in the Socratic sense).You're going to poke fun at libertarians
Except there you'd be wrong. Robert Nozick wrote in his 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argued for a "minimal state" or "night-watchman state." This minimal state's sole legitimate functions would be:That's a REALLY bad assumption. All libertarians oppose Direct Taxes, and therefore they would oppose any "Tax Incentives" on Direct taxes.
I think that Libertarians believe that as an ideal, but just a just as pure socialism has lofty goals that sound good, ideas you'd reject out-of-hand, I similarly reject the idea that in a purely privatized society that the goals you claim are achievable. Government funds the vast majority of major breakthroughs in medicine, technology, warfare, physics, chemistry etc. And, don't be confused, it's not that private industry cannot innovate, it's just that many of the innovations that private companies make find their roots in government funded research that private companies would have little incentive to engage in until the profit potential could be realized.Sorry, no - Libertarianism encourages development, innovation, exploration, and growth.
Disagree. While private industry got the US to the moon in terms of the work that was done (very commendable BTW), it doesn't happen without government taking the risk and (uh-oh....bad word) socializing that risk.Disagree. The Free Market works the best without government manipulations.
None of those companies and the technologies they make their reputations and profits on, were developed without government funding taking the risk.1) Private industry already leads globally. Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, NVIDIA, Google, Amazon
Absolutely demonstrably false.these companies did not wait around for the idiot government.
NASA got Saturn 5 to the moon in 1969, in one try.Spacex has revolutionized spaceflight, at lower cost, higher frequency
Sure, once profitability has been identified, DARPA spent billions researching these technologies throughout the early to mid 20-teens. Once government funded technologies were deemed commercially viable, the government's progress was handed off to private industry.2) Risk is everywhere in the private sector, and venture capital exists specifically to fund risky, unproven ideas, e.g. Uber, Airbnb, OpenAI, all began with high risk investment from the private sector.
It's not perfect, but the dynamism between the social and profit motive produces the best result, better than either by themselves.The idea that only a "social political mandate" can inspire industry is backwards. The private sector typically has a clearer and better vision precisely because they’re not mired in political crap and lobbying compromises.
It's easy to see the problems in a system that exists and when you compare it to a hypothetical and focus on the hypothetical best cases, of course the hypothetical looks better.You mean tax codes, regulatory compliance nightmares, IP and copyright bullshit, etc, which are all products of the state, not the market.
You would have voted for Harris?I used to be one, no way would i have voted for trump.
The problem with striking a balance is it will always be fleeting. As Emma Goldman put it, the interests of the capitalist class will always motivate them to claw back any concessions given to the working class. The American neoliberal system is working as intended. At this point, there is no getting money out of politics and reform will not happen without revolution.People are way too ideological whenever it comes to capitalism and socialism. And both full on anarcho-capitalism and socialism are refuted ideologies.
What we need to strive for is a balance. There are certain things that should remain in the public domain and others in the free market. A major area where the U.S. lags far behind is our Healthcare System. It would be much better if we had a government run healthcare system. People die every year from lack of coverage. Or end up in the emergency room for preventable illnesses. People are content with the status quo because they themselves may have good health coverage. They fail to see how ineffective our system is until their private insurer denies a claim.
1) Any industry that by it's nature creates a natural monopoly, e.g. utilities like water, electricity, gas, and large-scale infrastructure such as railways and telecom networks is what comes to mind. These industries often have extremely high fixed costs, making it inefficient for multiple companies to compete. If left to the private sector, a single company could easily gain a monopoly and exploit consumers through high prices and poor service. State control can ensure universal access, fair pricing, and long-term investment in infrastructure without the profit motive distorting these objectives.What's the specific criteria for which industries should be controlled by the state?
What nonsense.If I wanted to poke fun at the absurdity of Libertarianism, my remarks would have been more scathing and less consolatory (like the part where I said that we can learn valuable lessons from Libertarian ideas). I'm not arguing in bad faith. That said, I can think it's absurd, but be open minded to a well stated argument (argument in the Socratic sense).
I'm 100% right. You're 100% wrong. You never even knew that ALL libertarians oppose Direct taxes, if you HAD known that, then you would not have asked if libertarians support "incentives" on Direct Taxes. . . or on subsidies. ALL libertarians oppose subsidies, or any forms of market manipulations by the government.Except there you'd be wrong.That's a REALLY bad assumption. All libertarians oppose Direct Taxes, and therefore they would oppose any "Tax Incentives" on Direct taxes.
This is some interesting stuff, there, unfortunately it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the libertarian's core principle of not empowering government to force (or coerce) a citizen to do something against his or her will. Direct Taxes do exactly that. If someone doesn't pay Income (Direct) Tax, then one gets fined, or put in prison, or BOTH.Robert Nozick wrote in his 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argued for a "minimal state" or "night-watchman state." This minimal state's sole legitimate functions would be:
- Protection against force, theft, and fraud: This includes maintaining a police force, a military for defense, and a judicial system.
- Enforcement of contracts: To ensure voluntary agreements are upheld.
You've completely ignored the difference between Direct Taxes, and Indirect Taxes. Without being able to distinguish the difference between the two, you cannot possibly understand why influential people in "libertarian circles" regard some taxes as acceptable, and other taxes as NOT ACCEPTABLE.Which means there are people that are influential in Libertarian circles that believe in minimal taxation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?