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.
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
"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.
“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?
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".
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. 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. In general, yes. The checks are only justified when third parties incur some level of negative effect that warrants compensation or regulation. No, but it should all be voted on, no decrees or edicts. who has argued that?
...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. 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? 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? Can you give me an example of what you mean? 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. 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!
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.
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.
