• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why libertarianin capatalism?

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What continually amazes me is that many propose a libertarian solution to the worlds problems. In my view capatalism causes alot of the worlds problems by bringing the economy under the control of a small unelected section of the worlds population. If the capatalism works in the intrests of the worlds population then why do we not see multinationals respecting human rights, the enviroment and there employes. The reason this doesnt happen is that each corporation runs for the benefit of those it makes money for rather than humanity as a whole . To me this doesnt seem a logical way of meeting the worlds needs and its completely illiogical to give this system a free reign over the world as most libertarians surgest. The enivitable end doing so is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor.

A good example of this is Hong Kong. The Hong Kong portrayed in much of the media is full of large sky scrapers and wealthy buissnessmen with a high standard of living, supossedly a wonderful example of what free markets can achive. What you rarely see in the media is Hong Kongs Heriorin ridden slums, some of the worst in the world. To me this seams a fairly logical outcome of Neo-liberal policys, as you cant expect corporations that work for profit to work in the intrests of the poor. The enivitable outcome is that they will produce things at the lowest possible price and therefore pay the lowest possible wages. As this is envitiably going to lead to those at the top of this system getting rich and everyone else getting poor [hence the ever growing gap between rich and poor that exists today] why would any moral person advocate such a system?

The same problems occured during the industrial revolution in europe but where to an extent countered democratically through the state through social policy. In varying degrees depending on how interventionalist the government is the state does and should provide democratic balance to capatalism. So What im curious to know is why people want to take the state out of economic life and give capatalism a free reign considering its undemocratic and destructive nature? By takeing the state out of economic life you are createing a power vacume which corporations will fill, as they would use and power they get to run the world for there own advantage to a greater extent than they do now it seams illogical to me to let this happen.

What i find particually disturbing is that many want to remove social poilcy that people depend on for education, healthcare and sometimes food. The envitiable result of takeing these things away is a situation where many are left without food, healthcare, or and education and each of these resources are monopolised by the rich. Isnt this completely amoral?

Many would argue that the poor are poor through lack of work, and the rich are rich through hard work. This would be true if we lived in a society in which
there was perfect social mobility, i imagine no one here does. On the whole rich kids have far better opertunitys in life than poor kids and although it does happen its quite hard to climb the ladder from one class to the next. For example someone living in Harlem and going to a crap state school is likely to do worse then someone going to a nice private school regardless of how much either of them works. Without social mobility those from a poor background are likely to stay poor so its seams unfair to me to punish people for being poor when its not there fault.

This is why its seams hipercritical to me that many libertarians advocate perpetuating social inequality by privitiseing education. All this would do is remove any social mobility that already exists and create a de facto caste system. Surely its hypercritical to on the one hand claim that the poor and work there way out of poverty yet on the other hand remove the means for them to do so through education. Im just curious to know why anyone would want to do this?
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Red_Dave said:
What continually amazes me is that many propose a libertarian solution to the worlds problems. In my view capatalism causes alot of the worlds problems by bringing the economy under the control of a small unelected section of the worlds population. If the capatalism works in the intrests of the worlds population then why do we not see multinationals respecting human rights, the enviroment and there employes. The reason this doesnt happen is that each corporation runs for the benefit of those it makes money for rather than humanity as a whole . To me this doesnt seem a logical way of meeting the worlds needs and its completely illiogical to give this system a free reign over the world as most libertarians surgest. The enivitable end doing so is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor.

A good example of this is Hong Kong. The Hong Kong portrayed in much of the media is full of large sky scrapers and wealthy buissnessmen with a high standard of living, supossedly a wonderful example of what free markets can achive. What you rarely see in the media is Hong Kongs Heriorin ridden slums, some of the worst in the world. To me this seams a fairly logical outcome of Neo-liberal policys, as you cant expect corporations that work for profit to work in the intrests of the poor. The enivitable outcome is that they will produce things at the lowest possible price and therefore pay the lowest possible wages. As this is envitiably going to lead to those at the top of this system getting rich and everyone else getting poor [hence the ever growing gap between rich and poor that exists today] why would any moral person advocate such a system?

The same problems occured during the industrial revolution in europe but where to an extent countered democratically through the state through social policy. In varying degrees depending on how interventionalist the government is the state does and should provide democratic balance to capatalism. So What im curious to know is why people want to take the state out of economic life and give capatalism a free reign considering its undemocratic and destructive nature? By takeing the state out of economic life you are createing a power vacume which corporations will fill, as they would use and power they get to run the world for there own advantage to a greater extent than they do now it seams illogical to me to let this happen.

What i find particually disturbing is that many want to remove social poilcy that people depend on for education, healthcare and sometimes food. The envitiable result of takeing these things away is a situation where many are left without food, healthcare, or and education and each of these resources are monopolised by the rich. Isnt this completely amoral?

Many would argue that the poor are poor through lack of work, and the rich are rich through hard work. This would be true if we lived in a society in which
there was perfect social mobility, i imagine no one here does. On the whole rich kids have far better opertunitys in life than poor kids and although it does happen its quite hard to climb the ladder from one class to the next. For example someone living in Harlem and going to a crap state school is likely to do worse then someone going to a nice private school regardless of how much either of them works. Without social mobility those from a poor background are likely to stay poor so its seams unfair to me to punish people for being poor when its not there fault.

This is why its seams hipercritical to me that many libertarians advocate perpetuating social inequality by privitiseing education. All this would do is remove any social mobility that already exists and create a de facto caste system. Surely its hypercritical to on the one hand claim that the poor and work there way out of poverty yet on the other hand remove the means for them to do so through education. Im just curious to know why anyone would want to do this?
my bad, libertarian capatalism. Bit of a bad spelling day there:doh
 
T

The Real McCoy

Red_Dave said:
What continually amazes me is that many propose a libertarian solution to the worlds problems.
I wish more would do the same.


Red_Dave said:
In my view capatalism causes alot of the worlds problems by bringing the economy under the control of a small unelected section of the worlds population.
Who are bound by a competitive market.


Red_Dave said:
If the capatalism works in the intrests of the worlds population then why do we not see multinationals respecting human rights, the enviroment and there employes.
Corporations don't make the laws, they're restricted by them. If you have an issue with child labor/sweatshops then take it up with socialistic governments like China.


Red_Dave said:
The reason this doesnt happen is that each corporation runs for the benefit of those it makes money for rather than humanity as a whole .
The drive for profit creates wealth and brings everyone up to a higher standard of living, not just the fat cats.


Red_Dave said:
To me this doesnt seem a logical way of meeting the worlds needs and its completely illiogical to give this system a free reign over the world as most libertarians surgest.
To me, socialism is totally illogical in meeting the worlds needs and its completley illogical to give the government free reign over the economy.


Red_Dave said:
The enivitable end doing so is an ever increasing gap between rich and poor.
I have an uncle on my mom's side. They grew up on a farm. Started out as poor as could be. He had a dream of becoming successful. He worked his ass off and saved up enough money to buy a vending machine. After a little while, the money started to flow and he bought a couple more. 30+ years later when he was ready to retire, he had a few hundred pepsi machines, about 20 employees who he provided health insurance for and a bunch of company vans. He sold his business and is living quite comfortably now. Just recently bought a plasma screen TV that I gotta help him install later today.

Which brings me to the TV/electronics market. Look at all the different companies building the same stuff. Sony, Magnavox, JVC, Hitachi, Emerson, the list goes on and on and on. All these companies are competing with each other for our money. Last year I bought a TV for $300. Just recently saw the same damn thing at Circuit City for $129. Capitalism my friend. It's a beautiful thing.



Red_Dave said:
A good example of this is Hong Kong. The Hong Kong portrayed in much of the media is full of large sky scrapers and wealthy buissnessmen with a high standard of living, supossedly a wonderful example of what free markets can achive. What you rarely see in the media is Hong Kongs Heriorin ridden slums, some of the worst in the world.
Maybe instead of wasting their money and lives on heroin, those peole could make something out of themselves. You got any labor statistics for Hong Kong?


Red_Dave said:
To me this seams a fairly logical outcome of Neo-liberal policys, as you cant expect corporations that work for profit to work in the intrests of the poor.
I just got a job at Maines in Binghamton, NY. It's a food distribution company. The job I applied for was "driver helper." Basically I just ride around with truck drivers and help them unload the product. On my application, undr wage desired I put "Any." They started me off at $500/week. What an evil corporation. They could have given me minimum wage, I even encouraged them to, but no, they decided to give me almost double that. True story.


Red_Dave said:
The enivitable outcome is that they will produce things at the lowest possible price and therefore pay the lowest possible wages.
No. (See above.) If they were to pay the lowest possible wages then everyone working for a corporation would make minimum wage which is hardly the case. Labor, you see, is a good like any other.. hence the "labor market."


Red_Dave said:
As this is envitiably going to lead to those at the top of this system getting rich and everyone else getting poor [hence the ever growing gap between rich and poor that exists today] why would any moral person advocate such a system?
Because this system does not exist.




I'll continue later... gotta go install that TV.
 
Last edited:
T

The Real McCoy

Red_Dave said:
The same problems occured during the industrial revolution in europe but where to an extent countered democratically through the state through social policy. In varying degrees depending on how interventionalist the government is the state does and should provide democratic balance to capatalism.
I've noticed that there seems to be 2 sects of libertarianism: the anarcho-capitalists and (IMO) the realists. I'm not the type to condemn every single form of government intervention in the economy. I believe there's a necessity for laws/programs like the Sherman Act, the SEC, the FDIC, etc. I do, however, feel that the government has overstepped it's limits and has become too intrusive in the market. No country has successful flourished for very long with a government run economy. Free markets are a necessity to the prosperity of nations.



Red_Dave said:
So What im curious to know is why people want to take the state out of economic life and give capatalism a free reign considering its undemocratic and destructive nature? By takeing the state out of economic life you are createing a power vacume which corporations will fill, as they would use and power they get to run the world for there own advantage to a greater extent than they do now it seams illogical to me to let this happen.
You put far too much faith in a government's ability to sucessful control an economy. Bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency become rampant.



Red_Dave said:
What i find particually disturbing is that many want to remove social poilcy that people depend on for education, healthcare and sometimes food. The envitiable result of takeing these things away is a situation where many are left without food, healthcare, or and education and each of these resources are monopolised by the rich. Isnt this completely amoral?
I see the necessity for the gov't to provide education because it's beneficial to society as a whole.

As for food, there's plenty of churches and private charities/organizations that provide food for the truly needy.

Now, why should I, someone who exercises and leads a pretty halthy life have my hard earned money forcibly taken away from me to pay for some alcoholic/smoker/fast food junkie's health coverage? That's not equality.


Red_Dave said:
Many would argue that the poor are poor through lack of work, and the rich are rich through hard work. This would be true if we lived in a society in which there was perfect social mobility, i imagine no one here does. On the whole rich kids have far better opertunitys in life than poor kids
What the poor kid lacks in money, he makes up for with motivation, a virtue that the rich kids tend to lack.


Red_Dave said:
and although it does happen its quite hard to climb the ladder from one class to the next.
Yes, hard work is hard. I'll take that any ****ing day of the week over a system where I have no chance of rising up.



Red_Dave said:
For example someone living in Harlem and going to a crap state school is likely to do worse then someone going to a nice private school regardless of how much either of them works. Without social mobility those from a poor background are likely to stay poor so its seams unfair to me to punish people for being poor when its not there fault.
And the socialistic solution is to drag the private schooled kid down to the lowest common denominator.


Red_Dave said:
This is why its seams hipercritical to me that many libertarians advocate perpetuating social inequality by privitiseing education.
I personally advocate a MORE privatized system (like many European models), but not 100% privatized.


Red_Dave said:
All this would do is remove any social mobility that already exists and create a de facto caste system. Surely its hypercritical to on the one hand claim that the poor and work there way out of poverty yet on the other hand remove the means for them to do so through education. Im just curious to know why anyone would want to do this?
Me too. Totally privatized education would be nuts.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Corporations don't make the laws, they're restricted by them
They can easily lobby for laws, anti-corporatists virtually have no money and so can't.
If you have an issue with child labor/sweatshops then take it up with socialistic governments like China.
I have a problem with both child labor and sweatshops, and China is nowhere near being socialist.
The drive for profit creates wealth and brings everyone up to a higher standard of living, not just the fat cats.
How?
To me, socialism is totally illogical in meeting the worlds needs and its completley illogical to give the government free reign over the economy.
I agree that giving the state more power is simply stupid, but that isn't the goal of socialism. Also I would not describe capitalism as "free" in a sense.
I have an uncle on my mom's side. They grew up on a farm. Started out as poor as could be. He had a dream of becoming successful. He worked his ass off and saved up enough money to buy a vending machine. After a little while, the money started to flow and he bought a couple more. 30+ years later when he was ready to retire, he had a few hundred pepsi machines, about 20 employees who he provided health insurance for and a bunch of company vans. He sold his business and is living quite comfortably now. Just recently bought a plasma screen TV that I gotta help him install later today.
Nice story, can't happen to most people. Got lucky.
Capitalism my friend. It's a beautiful thing.
I adore those smokestacks they put close to my house.
Maybe instead of wasting their money and lives on heroin, those peole could make something out of themselves
Strange how impovershed people are stereotyped so much as being drug addicts. Most I know aren't. That's also probably a reason why they cant say get job, no one wants a drug addict as they're often stereotyped.
No. (See above.) If they were to pay the lowest possible wages then everyone working for a corporation would make minimum wage which is hardly the case
The reason why wages are so high was because of past events, though I have found wages to be dropping ever so slightly since the 70s.
Labor, you see, is a good like any other.. hence the "labor market."
Agreed, labor is a commodity.
Because this system does not exist.
It exists today that is how capitalism functions.
What the poor kid lacks in money, he makes up for with motivation, a virtue that the rich kids tend to lack.
Motivation for what?
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I believe Abraham Lincoln said it best:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

Our Founding Fathers contended with corporate powers that were dedicated to expanding the economic interests of the crown. History shows us that the Founding Fathers put strong limitations on corporate power in the United States. Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For the first 100 years of America's history corporate charters were very difficult to attain. Only after much debate did legislators grant corporate charters. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders.

Corporations repeatedly tried to subvert law and the authority of state legislatures. In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passedto circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person." From this point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power."

Corporate power is a devil. It isn't capitalism. It's corporatism. No freedom loving society can embrace corporate ethics. For nearly the first 100 years of our nation's history many laws resticted coporate power. Our Founding Fathers new best. Since the advent of "corporate personhood" coporations have become all powerful bodies that are at liberty to rob us of our God given rights. The nearly unlimited amounts of money that corporations can put forward for a political campaign completely subverts democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people.

At present the United States of America is the target of a massive corporate takeover. We must return to our Founding Father's vision if we are to preserve the liberties of individual persons before it's too late. Corporations must be heavily regulated.

The choice is ours:



or...



As for me, give me Old Glory.
 
Last edited:
T

The Real McCoy

To add on to what galen already said...

Comrade Brian said:
They can easily lobby for laws, anti-corporatists virtually have no money and so can't.
Plenty of anti-corporatists have mountains of money.


Comrade Brian said:
I have a problem with both child labor and sweatshops, and China is nowhere near being socialist.
Not so much anymore. The Chinese government doesn't quite have the socialistic stranglehold on it's economy that it once did. Free market reforms took place and what happen? The Chinese standard of living began to skyrocket. Gee.... wonder why?


Comrade Brian said:
Innovation, ingenuity, invention... you know, all the "I's"


{QUOTE=Comrade Brian]I agree that giving the state more power is simply stupid, but that isn't the goal of socialism. Also I would not describe capitalism as "free" in a sense.[/QUOTE]

It may not be the goal of socialism by it's the inevitable byproduct of it

Comrade Brian said:
Nice story, can't happen to most people. Got lucky.
Please elaborate on how he "got lucky."


Comrade Brian said:
I adore those smokestacks they put close to my house.
Those smokestacks would still be there regardless of what economic system was in place, unless of course we reverted to the pre-industrial revolution days.


Comrade Brian said:
Strange how impovershed people are stereotyped so much as being drug addicts. Most I know aren't. That's also probably a reason why they cant say get job, no one wants a drug addict as they're often stereotyped.
Red Dave was the one who brought up the heroin junkies, not me. I have no sympathy for those who are in poverty yet waste what money they have on drugs.


Comrade Brian said:
The reason why wages are so high was because of past events, though I have found wages to be dropping ever so slightly since the 70s.
Past events? You mean the implementation of a free market?


Comrade Brian said:
Agreed, labor is a commodity.
I can always count on us agreeing on something.


Comrade Brian said:
It exists today that is how capitalism functions.
The way Red Dave portrayed it, it does not exist. Of course there's a gap between the rich and the poor but I fail to see how redistributing wealth solves more problems than it creates.



Comrade Brain said:
Motivation for what?
$$$
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thank you for the insights galen and McCoy

You can move.
Not necessarily. Moving is often quite expensive. Also I live in a rather "industrial" city. Also there are basically 3 social sections of the city. One which has the wealthiest, I do not live in. Nor do I live in the "middle class". I live in the heaviest industrialised part, or the "poorest". So if I felt like moving somewhere where there were not industries the houses are far more expensive. And I would not consider moving to another city, usually expensive and I do rather love this city despite its problems.
Those smokestacks would still be there regardless of what economic system was in place, unless of course we reverted to the pre-industrial revolution days.
I agree. But also many industries are run very "dirty", as in environmental sense, and many things can be done to reduce things.
Past events? You mean the implementation of a free market?
No, I was referring to things like WWII. But when the "free market" was implemented it had terrible wages and such.
Free market reforms took place and what happen? The Chinese standard of living began to skyrocket. Gee.... wonder why?
I find it has more to do with the fact that the nation is becoming more "industrialised". Because a capitalist would be more than happy to set up a factory, labratory, or whetever because of the "untapped labor".
Please elaborate on how he "got lucky."
Most people fail.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
I wish more would do the same.




Who are bound by a competitive market.




Corporations don't make the laws, they're restricted by them. If you have an issue with child labor/sweatshops then take it up with socialistic governments like China.




The drive for profit creates wealth and brings everyone up to a higher standard of living, not just the fat cats.




To me, socialism is totally illogical in meeting the worlds needs and its completley illogical to give the government free reign over the economy.




I have an uncle on my mom's side. They grew up on a farm. Started out as poor as could be. He had a dream of becoming successful. He worked his ass off and saved up enough money to buy a vending machine. After a little while, the money started to flow and he bought a couple more. 30+ years later when he was ready to retire, he had a few hundred pepsi machines, about 20 employees who he provided health insurance for and a bunch of company vans. He sold his business and is living quite comfortably now. Just recently bought a plasma screen TV that I gotta help him install later today.

Which brings me to the TV/electronics market. Look at all the different companies building the same stuff. Sony, Magnavox, JVC, Hitachi, Emerson, the list goes on and on and on. All these companies are competing with each other for our money. Last year I bought a TV for $300. Just recently saw the same damn thing at Circuit City for $129. Capitalism my friend. It's a beautiful thing.





Maybe instead of wasting their money and lives on heroin, those peole could make something out of themselves. You got any labor statistics for Hong Kong?




I just got a job at Maines in Binghamton, NY. It's a food distribution company. The job I applied for was "driver helper." Basically I just ride around with truck drivers and help them unload the product. On my application, undr wage desired I put "Any." They started me off at $500/week. What an evil corporation. They could have given me minimum wage, I even encouraged them to, but no, they decided to give me almost double that. True story.




No. (See above.) If they were to pay the lowest possible wages then everyone working for a corporation would make minimum wage which is hardly the case. Labor, you see, is a good like any other.. hence the "labor market."




Because this system does not exist.





I'll continue later... gotta go install that TV.
even if the minoirty of people who control the worlds resorces are bound by a competative market how would that make the situation any more acceptable?

I dont think its possible to shift the blame onto non-western governemts. Given the amount of online buissnessess and co-ops specialiseing in "Fair Trade" goods [goods produced in ethical working conditions] i think its unlikely its overseas governments driveing multinationals to pay people crap wages. Its there own pockets.If corporations where as omnibenvolent as those on the libertarian right surgest they would be paying their workers a fair wage out of the goodness of there hearts and actually do something about the damage there doing to the enviroment.

Which particular socialist idealogy do you feel the chinease government adhears to?

I dont see any evidence that the drive for profit itself can make everyone better of. As i said Hong Kong is a good example of how the opossite is the case, there is not a very high standard of living in slums.

Socialism meets my needs quite well as i would be in agnoniseing pain right now if it wasnt for those nasty socialists who got me free healthcare. Another thing to consider is that alot of those in development agencys are in favor of socialist policys. For example oxfam and a number of other development agencys campain against the world banks forceing third world countrys to privitise there industys by not giveing them aid or cancelling there debt if they do not do so. This is because they see keeping these industrys nationalised [a socialist policy] as better for the poor and an effective way to deal with poverty. I imagine they know what there talking about.

I suporrt alot of government intervention in the economy [though i am wary of centralist nationalisation, i would prefer something more localised] because democratic governments idealy have an electoral mandate to act in the way they do. Although this ideal doesnt work out in many "representive democracies" ,espicialy those useing first post the post voteing systems, this can be solved through moveing towards more proportional voteing a systems and more direct democracy [like the swiss].

As corporations are not given a mandate to act the way they do by those whos lives they control it is unjust to allow them to do so. Historically any minoirty that has controlled a minoirty Socialism provides the means for democratic control of resources and industrys.

For each person who manages to work there way out of poverty theres a number that work just as hard but end up just as poor. Plenty of pre-teens in sweatshops work hard but they are unlikely to get anywhere in life without an education. Incidently the only reason many of these young people end up in sweatshops rather in school is that there parents dont earn enough to support the family on there own. This could be fixed by tight controls on coporations like the ones in place when they first came about but those on the libertarian right are argueing for less control rather than more.

As regards the slums in Hong Kong obviously not everyone in those slums is on herion, but there still stuck in slums full of herion addicts likely to rob them and have generally crap living conditions through no fault of their own.

Though incidently its pretty darn hard to give up herion due to withdrawel symptoms and all. I know someone whos been on and off herion since he was 14 and gone through the withdrawel symptoms a number of times only to laspe back. He was obviously pretty keen on quiting due to the fact he went through the withdrawel symtoms but giveing up all together is more easly said then done. Hence why the surgestion of many anarco-capatalists that herion should be legalised is just another way to bring peoples lives under the control of the rich.

I havent got any labour statistics for hong kong but will dig some up.

On the whole corporations do tend to go for low wages but this goes higher if there is competition for peoples labour. This is rarely the case in less developed countrys as global unemployment is something like 30%.

If capatalism doesnt lead to an ever growing gap between rich and poor then why did this happen in hong kong and in europe during the industrial revolution?
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First off, you have to understand, that EVERY corporation, large or small, is in effect created by the state.

Corporate status is a legal status created by state intervention. The State is the Parent of every corporation.

What's more, the state is also the insitution that confers special and favorable market activity upon the corporation. The state exempts corporations from many civil and crimminal liabilities. The State licenses property destruction resulting from pollution. The State conducts wars for resources and control to the benefit of corporations. The State confers "person status" upon corporations. The State protects the shipping lanes on behlaf of corporations. The State sets labor law, price floors, price ceilings, "anti-trust" law, enacts tariffs and "free trade" treaties all geared to benefit the state's child, the corporation. State workers and politicians will move to corporate jobs after their term of service.

Adam Smith, for all his faults, also recognized the anti-capitalist relationship between the state and corporations.

Grants businesses and corporations have not been the steward of Utopia. Libertarians simply recognize two things 1: Nither has the state. 2. Without the state corporations would not exist, certainly not like the do now, or with less state influence many corporate activities would not be sanctioned or licensed by the state.

For example. If, in the USA, NY state or the Federal Government refused to honor, from this point forward, all corporate chaters, there would be no more corporations. Every Corporate chater that exists in the US, and I assume also Britian, could be revoked, does the Government do that? no. And it's not because the government is beholden to the corporate donations. It's because they are extentions of the same thing. They are symbiotic in the sense that they each feed and grow as the other feeds and grows, and both feed, largely, off the taxpayer.

Not to mention, some of the largest corporations do a tremendous amout of work, for the state. Sometimes whole businesses or industries will develop with the sole purpose of providing for the state.

the Corporate structure, including profit-minded shareholders, can produce a wide array of business practices, but no matter what, they are all dependant upon state fiat to grant corporate status.

Many libertarians recognize if you take away state interference in the economy, you also, at the same time, take away a HUGE portion of corporate power, if not make them virtually powerless.

==
You should ask yourself, why are there no corporately funded insitutions calling for the abolition of state interference in the economy, including revokation of corporate charters?

Why are all the corporate billionaires either closely linked to the state, or doing significant business with the state?

Why are there no libertarian billionaires? our economics are not wrong, history keeps proving us right, our politics are different. Corporate heads are all to willing to trade from money the federal government already stole from the people.

For every corporate act you see as evil, there is a proud State parent looking over the shoulder of the CEO saying "Good Job."

It's no mistake that there are no large, malicious, corporations with offices spanning the globe, in countries with small governments and free economies. (Using the Idea of "British Corporation" "American Company" "Japanese Auto Maker" etc.)

Big Corporations are a result of Big Government, and especially government intervention in the economy.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Real McCoy said:
I've noticed that there seems to be 2 sects of libertarianism: the anarcho-capitalists and (IMO) the realists. I'm not the type to condemn every single form of government intervention in the economy. I believe there's a necessity for laws/programs like the Sherman Act, the SEC, the FDIC, etc. I do, however, feel that the government has overstepped it's limits and has become too intrusive in the market. No country has successful flourished for very long with a government run economy. Free markets are a necessity to the prosperity of nations.





You put far too much faith in a government's ability to sucessful control an economy. Bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency become rampant.





I see the necessity for the gov't to provide education because it's beneficial to society as a whole.

As for food, there's plenty of churches and private charities/organizations that provide food for the truly needy.

Now, why should I, someone who exercises and leads a pretty halthy life have my hard earned money forcibly taken away from me to pay for some alcoholic/smoker/fast food junkie's health coverage? That's not equality.




What the poor kid lacks in money, he makes up for with motivation, a virtue that the rich kids tend to lack.




Yes, hard work is hard. I'll take that any ****ing day of the week over a system where I have no chance of rising up.





And the socialistic solution is to drag the private schooled kid down to the lowest common denominator.




I personally advocate a MORE privatized system (like many European models), but not 100% privatized.




Me too. Totally privatized education would be nuts.

Scandanavian countrys like norway and sweeden have very interventionalist social democratict governments but are still quite wealthy. Norways the richest country in the world if i remember rightly. As i said in the "green party suporters" thread if Adam Smith and co where right about free markets leading to the wealth of nations those in development agencys would agree with him . However oxfam and a number of other development agencys run campians against the forced opening of markets and forced privitisation of industy in thrid world countrys through the world bank.

What evidence is there that free markets lead to the prosperity? That certainly not the case in america. There may be lots of money around but the way i see is that money is much like ****. Your preisident is full of it and it is only usefull when spread out allowing things to grow. America has plenty of billionaries but it also has an obsence gap between rich and poor and the poor have far less suport than they would have in social democratic states. For some reason the libertarian right wishes to perpectuate this.

Nationalisations often go awry because they are too centralised .As you pointed out this often leads to alot of berucracy. Thats why i would avocate a decentralised version of socialisism akin to anarco-syndicalism where workers would run there industrys as directly as possible thus removing much of the need for burucrats and creating a comunal work ethic. That said i feel Nationalisation is often a better alternative to corporations as norway has demonstrated.

On the whole theres plenty of governments that have intervened in the country without everyone dieing. Like i said if it wasnt for government intervention myself and hundreads of others would be in a bad way medically if the government hadnt intervened and given us free healthcare. It i was healthy I would be working in a factory with no minimum wage and no chance of and education and the possibilty of haveing my arm cut off by machinary. Lukily for me after alot of pressure from the public the government has invervened and prevented this from happening. The logical path of action is to progessively intervene more where needed untill the economy is run democratically. The libertarian solution however is move society back a hundred years or so and leave the corporations to it. The more you remove legislation protecting people from coporate abuse the more room for corporate abuse there is. Surely whats needed is more of this legislation and not less.

As regards healthcare an active/healthy persons paying for an inactive/unhealthys persons healthcare no where near as unjust as a badly paid but unhealthily under weight mine worker earning the money for an obese c.e.os heart surgery. I think the socialist option is much fairer.

I wouldnt be in favor of abolishing the economy completely but i would be in favor of improveing state education by investing more [among other things] by taxing the rich more. This would mean some kids who would be privitely educated if it wasnt for the high taxes would end up going to state schools with lesser mortals but thats not something i am going to lose sleep about. That wouldnt mean dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominater that would mean creating equality of opertunity. It might create a level playing feild but that doesnt mean everyone is going to end up with the same jobs and such. On the contary the good jobs would go to those who where clever and actually worked for their qualifications.

If by "more privitised system" you mean corporate sponcerd schools then I dont think thats a very good course of action as it gives the rich to much influence over what is taught. For example if coca cola has influence over what is taught in a school it is inevitably going to play down the damages of unhealthy foods in science lessons. One university in america that was sponcered by coca cola banned a speaker from campus because he criticised the countrys actions overseas.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Red_Dave said:
Scandanavian countrys like norway and sweeden have very interventionalist social democratict governments but are still quite wealthy. Norways the richest country in the world if i remember rightly. As i said in the "green party suporters" thread if Adam Smith and co where right about free markets leading to the wealth of nations those in development agencys would agree with him . However oxfam and a number of other development agencys run campians against the forced opening of markets and forced privitisation of industy in thrid world countrys through the world bank.

What evidence is there that free markets lead to the prosperity? That certainly not the case in america. There may be lots of money around but the way i see is that money is much like ****. Your preisident is full of it and it is only usefull when spread out allowing things to grow. America has plenty of billionaries but it also has an obsence gap between rich and poor and the poor have far less suport than they would have in social democratic states. For some reason the libertarian right wishes to perpectuate this.

Nationalisations often go awry because they are too centralised .As you pointed out this often leads to alot of berucracy. Thats why i would avocate a decentralised version of socialisism akin to anarco-syndicalism where workers would run there industrys as directly as possible thus removing much of the need for burucrats and creating a comunal work ethic. That said i feel Nationalisation is often a better alternative to corporations as norway has demonstrated.

On the whole theres plenty of governments that have intervened in the country without everyone dieing. Like i said if it wasnt for government intervention myself and hundreads of others would be in a bad way medically if the government hadnt intervened and given us free healthcare. It i was healthy I would be working in a factory with no minimum wage and no chance of and education and the possibilty of haveing my arm cut off by machinary. Lukily for me after alot of pressure from the public the government has invervened and prevented this from happening. The logical path of action is to progessively intervene more where needed untill the economy is run democratically. The libertarian solution however is move society back a hundred years or so and leave the corporations to it. The more you remove legislation protecting people from coporate abuse the more room for corporate abuse there is. Surely whats needed is more of this legislation and not less.

As regards healthcare an active/healthy persons paying for an inactive/unhealthys persons healthcare no where near as unjust as a badly paid but unhealthily under weight mine worker earning the money for an obese c.e.os heart surgery. I think the socialist option is much fairer.

I wouldnt be in favor of abolishing the economy completely but i would be in favor of improveing state education by investing more [among other things] by taxing the rich more. This would mean some kids who would be privitely educated if it wasnt for the high taxes would end up going to state schools with lesser mortals but thats not something i am going to lose sleep about. That wouldnt mean dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominater that would mean creating equality of opertunity. It might create a level playing feild but that doesnt mean everyone is going to end up with the same jobs and such. On the contary the good jobs would go to those who where clever and actually worked for their qualifications.

If by "more privitised system" you mean corporate sponcerd schools then I dont think thats a very good course of action as it gives the rich to much influence over what is taught. For example if coca cola has influence over what is taught in a school it is inevitably going to play down the damages of unhealthy foods in science lessons. One university in america that was sponcered by coca cola banned a speaker from campus because he criticised the countrys actions overseas.

First realize, that the US Market is more interventionist that what Smith wrote against. Poeple imagine that the dozens and dozens and dozens of resource control board and market "regulatory" agencies are somehow capitalist, they are exactly NOT capitalist. 12,000 pages of rules, regulations, and law in ONE Trade agreement (NAFTA) is not "free trade." Control over the printing and coining of money is not free trade. Arbitrary interest rates set by government fiat is not free trade. IMF and World Bank, are not free trade bodies. There are literally hundreds of large and small policies that I can list (and research) that are examples of not-free-trade.

The US and the West play lip service to free trade, and particularly when it benefits the state's (or state supporters) economic interests.

The Problem developing countries have, is that what they really need is free trade, what they get is international control over services and resources, and entry into unfavorable markets. When MOST State officials talk about free trade, especially politicians, they are lying. They, again, give lip service to the ideas of free trade, but never actually implement it.

Also, generally, most free traders are willing to allow government intervention into the economy when a pattern of behavior exhibits a systemic violation of life, liberty or property (which includes the human body).

Government involvement to promote and enforce business practices that protect life and limb, are generally acceptable to most libertarians and free traders. Yes, there are some people, including non-libertarians, that think the prosecution of and protection from injury could be handled by other groups, rather than the state.

However, when government interveins to promote a certain business or industry at the expense of other businesses or industries, comsumers, or taxpayers, that is wrong. When government tries to run the market, by setting price floors, price ceilings, quotas, VAT, Tariffs, export and import controls, anti-"gouging" laws, exemptions from crimminal and civil suit, use of emminent doamin for private business use, licensing products or services, and a multitude of other non-injury producing practices, these areas are where free traders get upset (these are in addition to all the other facets listed earlier as well).

These practices are not free trade, they are not capitalist either. They are halmarks of statist intervention, under BOTH the guise of socialism and capitalism, but in actuality is niether. The central element of "the middle way" (mixing capitalism and socialism) is the state.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Red_Dave


Another thing, you can't "abolish the economy completely." Economy is simply the study of the way goods and services are created and distributed. Human beings have overwhemlingly decided they prefer goods and services to not having them.

You can abolish all white markets, and punish black markets, but you really can not stop markets. Markets developed and exist because they have been more effective (if not perfect) than any other system of resource, labor, capital, land, goods and services distribution.

The primary alternative is central distribution, either by dictatorial fiat or some board or councul. In the absence of the price mechanism in non-market distribution systems, no effective understanding of what goods and services are most needed or most wanted can be niether timely nor accurately understood.

You may think price is just a way to help figure out profit (and loss) but it is the fundamental economic calculator used by all people engaged in any trade (even barter). It allows billions of people to make millions of value assesments every year. This valuation does not just happen for things people choose to purchase, but also for all things not-purchased as well. It also establishes a complex relationship between functionally infinite goods and services, wants, ends and means for millions of people.

Most individuals spend a fair portion of their lifetime figuring out what they want and like in and from life. To imagine that a few hundred people sitting in rooms, looking at numbers, absent price, can make any rational consideration of what Millions or Billions of other people want and need to live, let alone live comfortably, is on it's face wrong.

People spend a lot of time thinking, looking, planning and shopping for things they need and want, how could a relative few people understand the mind of MILLIONS.

Not to mention, the planners need to what new technologies to promote, and which to abandon, absent price, all you are left with is ONLY the inidividual value judgements of the planners.

What you effectively advocate when abolishing the market system is substituting the values of MILLIONS or BILLIONS, for the Subjective value of a relative few planners.

If you want to let "the masses" make their own value assestments, and be able to act on them, the only effective way, is NOT a vote, it is the price mechanism. Price can allow for litterally millions of choices in a given year, to establish a "scale of values" for various means and ends (or goods and services), FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL. There is currently no effective "voting system" or planner's plan, that can take all this into account. It's irrational to expect people to vote, all day, every day on what resources goods and services they want, and what means or ends they will be used for, wait for a tally, and wait for the distribution. (By which time of course the value of the person voting, may have actually changed, and a distribution of goods to them (assuming they got all the things they wanted then) may be of lesser, little or no value now. It may not be enough, it may be too much, since time does not stop, and value changes as time changes, let alone as other events occur).

This is just a BRIEF synopsis on the fundamental importance of the price mechanism is economics and markets.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
libertarian_knight said:
First realize, that the US Market is more interventionist that what Smith wrote against. Poeple imagine that the dozens and dozens and dozens of resource control board and market "regulatory" agencies are somehow capitalist, they are exactly NOT capitalist. 12,000 pages of rules, regulations, and law in ONE Trade agreement (NAFTA) is not "free trade." Control over the printing and coining of money is not free trade. Arbitrary interest rates set by government fiat is not free trade. IMF and World Bank, are not free trade bodies. There are literally hundreds of large and small policies that I can list (and research) that are examples of not-free-trade.

The US and the West play lip service to free trade, and particularly when it benefits the state's (or state supporters) economic interests.

The Problem developing countries have, is that what they really need is free trade, what they get is international control over services and resources, and entry into unfavorable markets. When MOST State officials talk about free trade, especially politicians, they are lying. They, again, give lip service to the ideas of free trade, but never actually implement it.

Also, generally, most free traders are willing to allow government intervention into the economy when a pattern of behavior exhibits a systemic violation of life, liberty or property (which includes the human body).

Government involvement to promote and enforce business practices that protect life and limb, are generally acceptable to most libertarians and free traders. Yes, there are some people, including non-libertarians, that think the prosecution of and protection from injury could be handled by other groups, rather than the state.

However, when government interveins to promote a certain business or industry at the expense of other businesses or industries, comsumers, or taxpayers, that is wrong. When government tries to run the market, by setting price floors, price ceilings, quotas, VAT, Tariffs, export and import controls, anti-"gouging" laws, exemptions from crimminal and civil suit, use of emminent doamin for private business use, licensing products or services, and a multitude of other non-injury producing practices, these areas are where free traders get upset (these are in addition to all the other facets listed earlier as well).

These practices are not free trade, they are not capitalist either. They are halmarks of statist intervention, under BOTH the guise of socialism and capitalism, but in actuality is niether. The central element of "the middle way" (mixing capitalism and socialism) is the state.

If free trade was what developing countrys needed. Oxfam and other n.g.o's/development agencys would be lobbying for it. There doing the opossite and trying to stop the world bank from forceing open thrid world economys, lobbying for tighter legislation to control multinationals and campaining against the world banks tendancy to force privitiseation of nationalised industrys. They campain agaisnt subsidys but apart from that I cant see any development agencys calling for free trade.

As for allowing government intervention in the economy, if you belive government intervention in the economy is needed to protect human life then doing so would look more like social democracy or social/new liberalism then libertarianism.
This is because to protect human life the U.S and European economys would need a complete overhaul. The policies of most of the largest european and american multinationals are deteremental to human life.

Sorry i meant to say i wasnt in favor of abolishing private education completely rather then saying i wasnt in favor of abolishing the economy completely.

Why would abolishing the price system be nesscessary under socialism? and central distribution?
 
Top Bottom