Libertarianism and Private Power

[Hightop]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm Do you have faith in the same institutions that flagrantly manipulate interest rates for their own benefit and are involved in all kinds of fraud, cut costs by dumping toxic waste in Somalia, and generally seek to extradite the most resources possible in order to beat superfluous projections that grant them bonuses? By faith in humanity, what exactly do you mean?

I already said I don't have faith in the government.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Hightop I already said I don't have faith in the government.

And the reason why you have faith in Goldman Sachs traders is because---???

[False]

Interesting article vaids_13, the blatant disregard that most self-described libertarians have for private power is something that needs to questioned. The responses in this thread from self-described libertarians have been illuminating in their brevity and in their absence - in effect, proving the thrust of the article.

[Rashmon]

I posted this thread back in February and pissed off a few who were never able to acknowledge the flaw in their philosophy.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=215916

[Hightop]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm And the reason why you have faith in Goldman Sachs traders is because---???

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."

C. S. Lewis

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Hightop "It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." C. S. Lewis

Oh, okay.

Let me just tell that to the people who dump toxic waste in Somalia, and who drive workers to suicide in Third World nations, that you'd like to be part of that boat too. Because, robber barons torment with the approval of their pocketbooks, but government workers have consciences.

[vaids_13]

Originally Posted by Hightop "It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." C. S. Lewis

“In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 79

I find your point about not trusting governments but trusting humanity to be interesting- in what way are those two different? Democracies invariably normalize the particularities of dominant groups, but are at least somewhat regulated by the presence of power balancing institutioins.

Empirically speaking, when corporations have persisted unregulated, they've imposed draconian measures and taken advantage of people in some of the worst ways. Although governments too are capable of this, is it not more rational to say both institutions are in need of offsetting institutions to keep them in check rather than assume the solution to be the virtual elimination of one?

[thadeus]

Originally Posted by Haymitch ::EDIT:: I just want to say that libertarianism is so misunderstood on this BBS it is depressing. I guess it's better to be severely misunderstood than ignored, but not much so. To paraphrase Houston's own Stephan Kinsella, to be a libertarian "only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that 'we' 'need' things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that... The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same — innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized — libertarian, one might say — and prefer peace over violent struggle." To find out what libertarianism is and is not, and the counter-arguments to all of the tired, old critiques, check out Jacob Huebert's Libertarianism Today, published in 2010.

Are you satisified with those counter arguments? Can you paraphrase them for us? Any quick scan of many of my old posts will find that I'm squarely against state (federal, state, or local) power that finds expression in forms of violence.

I very much dislike the idea of governments employing violence, but private industries hire their own security firms and, when the police weren't as powerful and the FBI didn't exist, corporations regularly paid Pinkertons to beat the living hell out of striking employees. The only reason they don't do so (as frequently) now is because they use the government to do it for them. But the absence of government will not make the corporate need for power evaporate - in fact, I'm sure it'd make it even more brazen than it was in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

So, while it's nice to be anti-violence, I need to ask - do you believe that capitalism should be left to roam unchecked across this country? Should all regulation be removed? Should the federal government be abolished?

Instead of telling me that I don't understand your view of libertarianism, why not explain it to me? I'm not going to go buy and read a book on the subject - unless, of course, you agree to buy and read "Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy".

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by thadeus ^ Keep pretending like there's no such thing as power.

You are conflating power and influence with force. Daryl Morey has power in that the decisions he makes can have a profound impact on people. But he can't make anyone do anything.

This is a ridiculously narrow definition of tyranny.

Give us an example of tyranical behavior that falls outside use of force (theft and fraud perhaps?). You cited the Pinkertons but that is an example of use of force. Hiring a private firm to beat up striking employees is not capitalism. Capitalism is voluntary exchange, by definition, free from physical coercion.

So, while it's nice to be anti-violence, I need to ask - do you believe that capitalism should be left to roam unchecked across this country?

In general, yes. The checks are only justified when third parties incur some level of negative effect that warrants compensation or regulation.

Should all regulation be removed?

No, but it should all be voted on, no decrees or edicts.

Should the federal government be abolished?

who has argued that?

[RedRedemption]

Originally Posted by Commodore who has argued that?

Hightop.

[Mathloom]

Because this type of government will defend a Goldman Sachs before it will defend you.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Mathloom By default, a government should actively try to be as small as reasonably possible. Is this something everyone generally agrees with?

Yes...is that the case in the UAE, though?

[thadeus]

Originally Posted by Commodore You are conflating power and influence with force. Daryl Morey has power in that the decisions he makes can have a profound impact on people. But he can't make anyone do anything.

...and you appear to be denying that they have anything to do with one another. Your definition of 'libertarianism' seems to operate only on ideal cases and in absolute terms. It's unrealistic. But, using your terms, I always have a choice in every situation I'm ever in because, no matter how bad a situation gets, I can always choose to kill myself. The unfortunate aspect is that, under your (briefly mentioned, barely fleshed-out, and wholly idealistic) scenario, that may be one of the few choices that many of us would have.

Originally Posted by Commodore Give us an example of tyranical behavior that falls outside use of force (theft and fraud perhaps?).

Sure. I need medicine to stay alive. Over the past 10 years of using this medicine, the price has (literally) tripled. The medicine has not changed. If I can't afford this medicine, I am ****ed, and will die a long, slow, painful, and miserable death.... and there is nothing preventing the pharmaceutical corporation from continuing the raise the price. The pharmaceutical corporation has a patent on this particular medicine, so no other company can make it. (Unless ... would you have us do away with patents?) Completely removing government controls (as limited as they are) means that I may as well be enslaved by this pharmaceutical corporation because I am completely at their mercy in any situation.

This medicine, the same medicine, is sold more cheaply in other parts of the world. I'm prevented from buying it from anywhere else because of a government restriction (no doubt paid for by the corporation). Now, let's say that a reduction of this restriction means that there is no government mandate against me ordering it from overseas... you don't think the pharmaceutical company would use their influence to somehow prevent me from getting it from elsewhere? You don't think they'd use all of their power to perpetuate a status quo that they find financially beneficial?

This is one tiny, tiny example. Overall, think in terms of collusion. Currently, for example, almost all home rental rates in my area are the same. Compared to most areas around here, the rental rates are very similar. I doubt this is planned, but the dynamic is such that I may have choices, but the difference between all my choices is not substantial. Now .... take this dynamic ... and apply it to everything. Freedom of choice! Voluntary transactions!

...are they voluntary if you have no choice?

Originally Posted by Commodore You cited the Pinkertons but that is an example of use of force. Hiring a private firm to beat up striking employees is not capitalism. Capitalism is voluntary exchange, by definition, free from physical coercion.

So, by your strict and idealistic definition of capitalism, any use of force negates the definition. Great! But who cares about your definition? We've seen how unrestrained capitalism works, and much of it is based on violence to a greater degree than state power (because state power, to a limited extent, has to be answerable to the people). Your definition, as murky as it is, doesn't seem to come into contact with historical reality at any point. Your definition is stringent, but that has nothing to do with practice. If this situation came about (and it would), you could say "hey, that's not capitalism!"

It wouldn't make any difference.

I can imagine lots of idealisms working great in an ideal world. That's why they're called that. They never play out that way. Why would it be different this time?

Originally Posted by Commodore In general, yes. The checks are only justified when third parties incur some level of negative effect that warrants compensation or regulation.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Originally Posted by Commodore No, but it should all be voted on, no decrees or edicts.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, though at this point it's hard to have faith in the ability of people to make good decisions.

Originally Posted by Commodore who has argued that?

Many, if not most, of the self-identified libertarians I've met have argued that. Consistently.

Now, with all of this, keep in mind that I haven't even mentioned the way that 'capitalism' insinuates itself into all of our lives, severely limits our options, and sets forth our entire life in many ways before we have a chance to question it. Deviation, in that case (and in the current case) is a mandate that your life will be very, very difficult. It's a system that demands completely conformity, and the failure to do so means that your life will always be far, far more difficult (perhaps fatally so) than those who choose to internalize the (so called) ethics of the system and cease all resistance.

Liberty!

[rhadamanthus]

Originally Posted by thadeus But, using your terms, I always have a choice in every situation I'm ever in because, no matter how bad a situation gets, I can always choose to kill myself. The unfortunate aspect is that, under your (briefly mentioned, barely fleshed-out, and wholly idealistic) scenario, that may be one of the few choices that many of us would have.

Sadly, it seems that this discussion with the neo-feudalist crowd never seems to change.

Originally Posted by rhad Regardless, at the end of the day, this is what capitalism offers - a fake freedom to choose. But, as thadeus noted, it absolves anyone of blame for this situation other than the worker not willing to slave away at whatever price the "market" pays. Originally Posted by Chomsky If you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority. If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

[Hightop]

Originally Posted by thadeus Sure. I need medicine to stay alive. Over the past 10 years of using this medicine, the price has (literally) tripled. The medicine has not changed. If I can't afford this medicine, I am ****ed, and will die a long, slow, painful, and miserable death.... and there is nothing preventing the pharmaceutical corporation from continuing the raise the price. The pharmaceutical corporation has a patent on this particular medicine, so no other company can make it. (Unless ... would you have us do away with patents?) Completely removing government controls (as limited as they are) means that I may as well be enslaved by this pharmaceutical corporation because I am completely at their mercy in any situation. Liberty!

The cost of drug approval is $1 billion. How much of that is due to the FDA?

[Classic]

Originally Posted by Mathloom Because this type of government will defend a Goldman Sachs before it will defend you.

Goldman=Government

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Hightop The cost of drug approval is $1 billion. How much of that is due to the FDA?

You obviously pulled that number out of your ass. You didn't even specify an example molecule.

I could go into why the FDA tests so rigorously, but here's an example; a drug that begins to lose integrety and metabalizes due to unstable conditions (ex: extreme heat) can kill people even if there were tested "best before" dates. If you value human life, then that cost is nothing to pay.

[Rashmon]

Originally Posted by Commodore ...Give us an example of tyranical behavior that falls outside use of force (theft and fraud perhaps?)...?

GlaxoSmithKline pleads guilty in $3B US drug fraud case

[da_juice]

Originally Posted by Classic Goldman=Government

Jon Corizine was a governor, not a senator.

[thadeus]

Originally Posted by da_juice Jon Corizine was a governor, not a senator.

via Wikipedia:

A Democrat, Corzine served five years of a six-year U.S. Senate term representing New Jersey before being elected Governor in 2005.