Hail to the Libertarian future!

[Larkin]

Ok, I am a liberal, not a libertarian, So you have my permission to kill me if you can find me.

I am not just liberal, i am very liberal to the point of utopian fantasies of living in peace together.

Ok, ok I know it is folly, but, on the other end, libertarians think they got it down. As small a government as posible. It's prime purpose is defence from the outside. After that the individual is king. If you want to fuck yourself up on drugs, that is your right. All the money you earn is yours and you can fail or suceed on your own merits. A true meritocracy.

I contend that the true liberaltarian point of view is just as much a folly as my liberal basket weaving paradise.

Imagine a liberaltarian government comming to power. A small government that does not interfer with people other than to charge taxes for the defence of the realm.

All those regulating agenceys gone
the free market will govern in it's natural way.
Sounds good, doesnt it?

The retreat of the great government will leave a huge vacuum and nature requires that a vacuum be filled. Do you seriously think it will be filled by free thinking individuals?

It will be filled with super individuals with rights and unfettered ability to oppress. I am speaking of global corporations. Their primary objective is profit and if you think it is bad under big government, try living under corporations with their blind profit motive.

So my challenge to INTP's is to dispute my contention and tell me what a liberatarian world would look like.

[Karl]

Issue with Libertarianism- libertarians don't like the growing state capitalism... but it's much more effective for production! 1 big farm is better than 20 small farms in terms of maintenance and machinery cost, 1 large factory can produce more than 20 small factories, etc etc...

No matter what happens, society is going to move towards what will get the greatest production. Now, while I admit I can be the idealist at times, I think that production is the single most important factor in a government, the second being how the government is using that production to benefit the people.

[Sloc10]

State run business is not efficient because its very hard for them to know how much of one thing to produce. Having one-million trinkets and two urinals is not efficient.

[Karl]

State run business is not efficient because its very hard for them to know how much of one thing to produce. Having one-million trinkets and two urinals is not efficient.

When I say "state capitalism" I don't really mean state run business in capitalism, although that's what it really means. It's just that no true "state capitalist" society has ever existed, and it probably never well.

What I really mean is that we're having production centralized in the hands of big business, who are tied in with and at least partly control the state. And these big businesses can produce more things than than a bunch of small businesses... and really, we don't have one million trinkets and two urinals and we're operating under this kind of capitalism. And it's moving closer and closer to state capitalism until we'll have to finish socializing the means of production, and socialize the means of production along with it.

I see libertarians as wanting to move backwards instead of progressing. Of course libertarianism is more complicated than this but my point still applies...

And of course I think socialized production is more efficient than any state capitalism, but that's another issue...

[Ellipsis]

Issue with Libertarianism- libertarians don't like the growing state capitalism... but it's much more effective for production! 1 big farm is better than 20 small farms in terms of maintenance and machinery cost, 1 large factory can produce more than 20 small factories, etc etc...



Forgetting one thing: competition....this simply will not go away it too is built into our system...do you think someone will build something and someone will not try and out do them...If for example there is one large factory producing Lollipops all in one flavor, all for one set price, all headed by the same set of flawed individuals...surely you see the problem...no one is going to except that. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market)

Another thing: One large farm entirely for one crop (or small selection of crops) could not be built everywhere in a specified way...and if so production would go down because that crop would have trouble adapting to every land type in a area..you then need new crops to adapt to that land so in the end you start dividing again and need new machines and new maintenance in the end you went to all that trouble and ended up with similar production but still headed by a few individuals (which in theory would save you money)...now lets say these few individuals say they don't care what happens to the people or the production? what if they stop leading? The system becomes grossly inefficient....what if these people have inadequate knowledge of certain crop types? And make mistakes which grossly harm the WHOLE population.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward

Lastly, all the people want their food but if their is a few people in charge of whole system (or even in a direct democracy) some will be ignored because of transportation costs or even simple ignorance...or simply because it is a such a small amount of the population (or unimportant part).
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Chinese_Famine

And lastly:

According to the work of Nobel prize winning economist and expert on famines Amartya Sen, most famines do not result just from lower food production, but also from an inappropriate or inefficient distribution of the food, often compounded by lack of information and indeed misinformation as to the extent of the problem. In the case of these Chinese famines, the urban population had protected legal rights for certain amounts of grain consumption. Local officials in the countryside competed to over-report the levels of production that their communes had achieved in response to the new economic organization and thus local peasants were left with a much reduced residue.

As for large cooperations funny thing it is called protecting rights! A) Cooperations would be unable like the government to infringe on your rights or the rights of other businesses b) A true freemarket would still be protected C) People are smart, forcing them to think again and use their money would force much more corporate responsibility (instead of hiring politicians to "get rid of the problem") D) More free competition if certain red tape was removed even a small bit as well as lowering/eliminating tax it could encourage the formation of more business. Sure a few big cooperations would exist but they would exhibit some of the weakness of being so huge and evolution could at any point choose to favor the young hip upstart which is innovative...should I have see software business/Google

[Larkin]

I didnt say anything about state capitalism and I'm not defending in oposition to a libertarian state.

My inquiry was a libertarian government unable to moderate between individuals and large corporations.
Corporate interest is selfish because it's interest is for profit.

You might say, they are in business to serve customers, yes, but which costumers?

In privatized prisons, profit in the motive and to get profit, you need full occupancy. What would they do to achieve that?

What I am suggesting is that if you had a true libertarian government, it would lead to the rise of preditory corporations (as if it isnt already happening)

I contend that you need a government just large enough to moderate between individuals and corporate entities.

[Colonel Panic]

I've said before, that the only real alternative to corporate power is government power. Usually right after that I say I would prefer the corporate power.
With corporations, you have many to choose from, or you can choose none. You have a choice. There is no choice with government. Plus, corporations in their one-track-mind attempt to earn profit, are at least predictable.

[Division56]

I have found that libertarianism boils down to a belief that personal neuroses and problems should be solved instead of accommodated. It is a refreshing wind in a world where people gain so much individuality from perceived limits on their own abilities. The buck stops here, if you will.

[Architectonic]

And of course I think socialized production is more efficient than any state capitalism, but that's another issue...

The fact is that information is processed more efficiently in markets - so Libertarians would argue that a move towards more centralized control of the economy would in fact be regressive, contrary to what you are suggesting.
But libertarians are against monopolist corporations just as much as governments - but as history shows, most monopolies can only survive with state support anyway.

[sorabji_66]

The real world and all the ironies and unavoidable screw-ups and (worst of all) your emotions get in the way of putting Libertarianism's lofty pronouncements into practice.

[booyalab]

I contend that the true liberaltarian point of view is just as much a folly as my liberal basket weaving paradise.


It's not, because libertarians can think in degrees. We're not striving towards utopia. We're striving towards less crap.

[Lateralus]

...It will be filled with super individuals with rights and unfettered ability to oppress. I am speaking of global corporations. Their primary objective is profit and if you think it is bad under big government, try living under corporations with their blind profit motive.
So my challenge to INTP's is to dispute my contention and tell me what a liberatarian world would look like.
You assume the status quo in regard to corporate rights. Don't forget about movements like ReclaimDemocracy.org. (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/). Libertarians don't want a world ruled by corporations any more than they want a world ruled by bloated governments.

[rek]

Imagine a liberaltarian government comming to power. A small government that does not interfer with people other than to charge taxes for the defence of the realm.

They would likely develop the most advanced society the world had ever seen, raise the standard of living for the average person in their country tenfold, create a private educations system completely dominant of anything the world had ever seen, and things would likely be so good that people from all around the globe would be willing to risk their lives making long dangerous trips just to have a chance at living in the great land of the free.

Then mens weakness would set in, a few would rise to power and abuse the people, the people would become confused and misled, the education system would be engulfed by an all powerful state, the quality of education in the nation would drop like a rock, people would blame problems on the solution instead of the cause, and slowly but surely the one great free empire would begin to crumble under the pressure of a couple hundred years of people being free.

Sound familiar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States)?

[pangolin]

I've said before, that the only real alternative to corporate power is government power. Usually right after that I say I would prefer the corporate power.
With corporations, you have many to choose from, or you can choose none. You have a choice. There is no choice with government. Plus, corporations in their one-track-mind attempt to earn profit, are at least predictable.

As long as there are corporations, you won't have any real choice either, especially if you take away government regulations.

Existent Corporations - Government Regulation = a Monopoly in every Industry

Solution: get rid of corporations, then you can have your libertarian utopia.

[Anonymous]

As long as there are corporations, you won't have any real choice either, especially if you take away government regulations.

Existent Corporations - Government Regulation - government protection = a Monopoly in every Industry

Solution: get rid of corporations, then you can have your libertarian utopia.

That, or change the equation a little bit. For instance, Existent Corporations - Government regulation - Government Protection. Might work? Tough to tell.

[Sloc10]

Existent Corporations - Government Regulation = a Monopoly in every Industry


Couldn't be further from the truth. Government regulations are the easiest way to create monopolies. Corporations get involve with the process and make sure that a regulation will benefit them and stifle their competition. Research "corn subsidies"; you will find some of the most ridiculous regulations. Who wants ethanol? Corn growers want ethanol. Archer-Daniels-Midland loves their government regulations. Thanks to them, they boast close to 50% subsidized income. Why make ethanol out of corn when sugar cane is much more efficient? Because its plentiful and cheap thanks to corn subsidies. There is also a study that has been done at Cornell University (oddly enough) showing corn is a net loser of BTUs when you factor in the amount of energy it takes to grow and harvest it.

[booyalab]

Libertarians don't want a world ruled by corporations any more than they want a world ruled by bloated governments.
Sure. Except a world ruled by corporations is a world ruled by government, since ruling implies governing. This kindergarten level truth is why "bloated" government should be more feared than business.

[CalmPassion]

I didnt say anything about state capitalism and I'm not defending in oposition to a libertarian state.

My inquiry was a libertarian government unable to moderate between individuals and large corporations.
Corporate interest is selfish because it's interest is for profit.

You might say, they are in business to serve customers, yes, but which costumers?

In privatized prisons, profit in the motive and to get profit, you need full occupancy. What would they do to achieve that?

What I am suggesting is that if you had a true libertarian government, it would lead to the rise of preditory corporations (as if it isnt already happening)

I contend that you need a government just large enough to moderate between individuals and corporate entities.


So what if some companies do better than others. So what if they have great power over the population. Some anarchist will blow up their company building and maybe then they will change business practices. Or consumers will buy through the black market or internationally.
Its a lot easier to destroy a big company than an huge government with a strong military force.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a pure libertarian society. The whole notion of libertarianism in my opinion is the realization that humans are naturally egotistical and it is a dog eat dog world. Therefore people should be given free control over their lives as much as is feasible. Then all they can blame is themselves for mistakes they make. Thats why communism and socialism doesn't work and equality is a fallacy. Libertarianism is kind of a spin off of the survival of the fittest.

[Sloc10]

So what if some companies do better than others. So what if they have great power over the population. Some anarchist will blow up their company building and maybe then they will change business practices. Or consumers will buy through the black market or internationally.
Its a lot easier to destroy a big company than an huge government with a strong military force.


This doesn't even take into consideration that typically the companies that do better are the ones that provide their customers the most value. Wal-Mart is a good example. Lower prices are good for the lower class. Companies that deceive usually get it in the end, take Enron.

[CalmPassion]

This doesn't even take into consideration that typically the companies that do better are the ones that provide their customers the most value. Wal-Mart is a good example. Lower prices are good for the lower class. Companies that deceive usually get it in the end, take Enron.

But I don't believe anything is wrong with Wal-Mart's case. They have done nothing unjust in my opinion. As you say, they offer lower prices and high quality. They are still many other stores you can shop at. The other stores are just to stupid enough to follow in Wal-Mart's example.

[rek]

Couldn't be further from the truth. Government regulations are the easiest way to create monopolies.

I don't know, I agree with you about the creation of monopolies through government regulation but I don't think he's THAT far from the truth. I don't think it's a good idea to have no regulation.

Regulation should happen, but it should meet specific guidelines and be only for specific purposes. For example if a natural monopoly is the only thing that makes sense (say a town needs electricity, having multiple companies with their own infrastructures makes no sense and is inefficient) then there are ways you can regulate monopolies such that they will act as if they were in a competitive market. To go back to my example you can't let PG&E charge you $600 a month just because it has no competitors in your area. You can setup ways that monopolies will be encouraged to produce at market efficient levels.

I always thought the best way to solve these issues was to have free markets for governments... If I get pissed because Vista fucking sucks then I can reboot to Linux.. why can't I move countries when my government starts acting like a fascist dictatorship? Down with all borders and make all immigration legal I say! (this is actually what I dislike most about socialism: under this type of policy it would fail, it requires that you force productive people to stay in your country or there'd be no one left to support everyone else)

[Robobenny]

Down with all borders and make all immigration legal I say!

Anarchists don't believe in borders.

[Sloc10]

But I don't believe anything is wrong with Wal-Mart's case. They have done nothing unjust in my opinion. As you say, they offer lower prices and high quality. They are still many other stores you can shop at. The other stores are just to stupid enough to follow in Wal-Mart's example.

I was more trying to add to your argument than subtract from it.


I don't know, I agree with you about the creation of monopolies through government regulation but I don't think he's THAT far from the truth. I don't think it's a good idea to have no regulation.


Well, we see how well government regulation works to protect us, the problem is that we don't have any real long term scenario of no regulation to compare it against. I don't think it would be as bad as many make it out to be. I'd like to just try it just to see what happens. I'll move to another country and watch through a telescope, just in case.

[Faust06]

No matter what happens, society is going to move towards what will get the greatest production.

Would that really mean capitalism though?

[booyalab]

Would that really mean capitalism though?
I doubt it. Though I also doubt the "society is moving towards greater production" theory, from what I understand of it's vagueness.

[rek]

Would that really mean capitalism though?

When I was a kid my parents would make me clean my room before doing something fun and I would shove all the toys, trash, and anything else I could find into my drawers to hide them so my room looked clean. When I moved out I got my own apartment with my own room and I always took care of it, decorated it, and even made sure it smelled nice.

When you want someone to do something the best way possible, you give them ownership and let them make the choices for themselves. To me that's what capitalism is all about, because I know people like me wouldn't produce given another situation. On my own time I like to volunteer and help people with things, but tell me I need to do something and I'll fight you on it until the bitter end.

I know I don't speak for the whole world, some people actually seem to like being little ants, but it seems a large amount of people do agree with me. That's why I'm ok with people living under any system they want, but they could kill me before I'd join them.

[rawr]

Big government and socialism removes competition and allows TNC's to exist and do business with a monopoly. How is that better than what we want (libertarians)?

[Zephyrus055]

In truth, people in power are motivated by more power and profit, and their relation to the people is usually as tools for benefiting them. And sadly for utopians, people who operate this way will always have more power. You can't change it, and any transfer of power will recreate the same system.

[Sloc10]

In truth, people in power are motivated by more power and profit, and their relation to the people is usually as tools for benefiting them. And sadly for utopians, people who operate this way will always have more power. You can't change it, and any transfer of power will recreate the same system.

This isn't always true. You'd be surprised how many people in business are motivated more by solving complex problems and a sense of "achievement" more than pay. Its really an old fallacy by people who have no experience in business that everybody just wants power. Besides, every political sect is Utopian, they all believe their ideals lead to the most perfect world, and for any of them to work perfectly they need complete cooperation and dedication from everybody inside the system. People wouldn't starve under Communism if they felt a natural duty to work as hard as they can for nothing more than to serve each other, same with hippyism.

[Sokkorobo]

Humanities wasted potential causes me much distress.

[Zephyrus055]

This isn't always true. You'd be surprised how many people in business are motivated more by solving complex problems and a sense of "achievement" more than pay. Its really an old fallacy by people who have no experience in business that everybody just wants power. Besides, every political sect is Utopian, they all believe their ideals lead to the most perfect world, and for any of them to work perfectly they need complete cooperation and dedication from everybody inside the system. People wouldn't starve under Communism if they felt a natural duty to work as hard as they can for nothing more than to serve each other, same with hippyism.
I never said that. I meant to say that a successful political or economic organization that is moving forward often has a ruthless Machiavellian at its helm, because the nature of these organizations tend to select in such people. The reason is that most people want to rely on a recipe that has worked in the past, and have some empathy for others. This course of action, however, is costly and inefficiently allocates resources. A Machiavellian, however, is willing to choose the most beneficial course of action and as a consequence ruthlessly optimize on efficiency, even if others must suffer as a consequence - which is often necessary to do so. They fucking have no empathy for others, others are tools for to be manipulated to accomplish their objectives. This gives them as huge advantage when making decisions that lead to success, and exactly why a successful organization often depends on such a person at its helm.

You can have empathic people at the helm of a successful political or economic organization, sure, but those organizations probably owe their founding and success to a Machiavellian type of person.

My point is that a successful political or economic organization tends to select Machiavellians at their helm, people who are able to optimize on cooperative and competitive strategies and apply them when most appropriate. So as a consequence, any attempt to create a Utopian society will not last, because the transfer of power to empathic individuals will not last, and the Machiavellian personality will at some point recreate itself in the economic or political organization.

[Faust06]

but tell me I need to do something and I'll fight you on it until the bitter end.

Except you do need to do something. You just have a choice.

With ownership you may have more motivation to take care of something because you have control... but often times offering a product for business means offering yourself and your skills. A "big picture" person such as yourself may want to have control over a project.. so fine, have control, but that's it's own job. For most people, their product is themselves and the skills they have to offer. They can still do what THEY like to do, and while they may not be a fan of the big finished product, fuck it, they've done a good job. It's more motivating of course to take part in something you find better or more important, but when it comes to working with others there will always be compromise.. even if your job is telling people what you want from them.

[Sloc10]

I never said that. I meant to say that a successful political or economic organization that is moving forward often has a ruthless Machiavellian at its helm.

One thing that bothers me is the people who tend to say these things tend to have absolutely no experience in a real corporate environment. I can tell you from the many conference calls I have been apart of that we have never discussed world domination or how to deceive people into giving away their house and home. Most often CEO's always try and promise/motivate the company to provide greater value to the customer, in order to build the companies reputation and to build consumer faith and trust.

When discussing competition with other companies, the emphasis is always on serving the customer better than they do. Of course there are some higher level accounting practices used to hide costs ("hiding costs" is not necessarily illegal) and other spending cuts may be carried out internally, but the best (and usually most successfully in the long term) run companies want lower cost, and higher quality.

There are companies who are Machiavellian, but they are way over represented by people who are of the spirit of this quote. You can only hide deceiving ways for so long, once they are recognized its very hard to shed that image.

[Zephyrus055]

One thing that bothers me is the people who tend to say these things tend to have absolutely no experience in a real corporate environment. I can tell you from the many conference calls I have been apart of that we have never discussed world domination or how to deceive people into giving away their house and home. Most often CEO's always try and promise/motivate the company to provide greater value to the customer, in order to build the companies reputation and to build consumer faith and trust.

When discussing competition with other companies, the emphasis is always on serving the customer better than they do. Of course there are some higher level accounting practices used to hide costs ("hiding costs" is not necessarily illegal) and other spending cuts may be carried out internally, but the best (and usually most successfully in the long term) run companies want lower cost, and higher quality.

There are companies who are Machiavellian, but they are way over represented by people who are of the spirit of this quote. You can only hide deceiving ways for so long, once they are recognized its very hard to shed that image.
I think the problem here is that we have different conceptions of Machiavellian. According to my definition, it is perfectly logical to maximize the efficiency of the services provided to the customer. Being coercive or manipulative has only short-term benefits and long-term costs, and there is the risk of being caught.

So a truly Machiavellian business executive would never speak of world domination. If he had that objective in mind he would keep it secret. What separates him from his peers is really his ability and willingness to maximize on the outcome and minimize the input. As a consequence, his organization would become uber competitive, since it is making the most of what it has. What makes this strategy Machiavellian is precisely the fact that it is so efficient, and as a logical consequence there is no empathy. Employees, for example, can be dismissed and hired at whim, all depending on the profit they add or subtract to the company. In government, even genocide can be justified if it advances the organization's objectives. Human beings are reduced to mechanistic things, used or dismissed on the basis of their value for reaching the organization's objectives.

In short, Machiavellians do not necessarily deceive, especially not if it is costly and risky, although they may do so in political battles. What they do instead is calculate how they can maximize the outcome and minimize the cost, and in their ruthlessness in applying this application they reduce human beings to tools. A good modern example of a Machiavellian is Bill Gates.

[Lateralus]

This Machiavellian leader you envision would affect company morale negatively if he's hiring and firing at will. That, alone, makes him less than optimal.

[Zephyrus055]

This Machiavellian leader you envision would affect company morale negatively if he's hiring and firing at will. That, alone, makes him less than optimal.
That may be a cost, but may be less costly than any other course of action. My point was that in his calculations for optimizing the results, humans are factored in as tools.

[Sloc10]

That may be a cost, but may be less costly than any other course of action. My point was that in his calculations for optimizing the results, humans are factored in as tools.

So? They are factored in as tools to carry out the company's business, which in the end, provides goods or services to people. Those people who get fired benefit from that companies efficiency and low cost as much as everybody else. If you are too incompetent to do your job as well as somebody else can, of course you should be fired! and they hired. That Kantian argument is easily foiled. Your sure your not INFP?

[Zephyrus055]

So? They are factored in as tools to carry out the company's business, which in the end, provides goods or services to people. Those people who get fired benefit from that companies efficiency and low cost as much as everybody else. If you are too incompetent to do your job as well as somebody else can, of course you should be fired! and they hired. That Kantian argument is easily foiled. Your sure your not INFP?

Eh, I'm not making any Kantian argument. I dislike Kant's categorical imperative, think of the honesty with the psychopath dilemma. Moreover, since all normative, or ought statements, can not be concluded empirically, I also dismiss them entirely. So you can bet I am not making a normative argument, nor would I ever honestly make one (although I have done so in the past to persuade people to my utility minded thinking, when that alone would not convince them.)

Anyhow, that post before this one was a description of the Machiavellian personality, and my point is that it those who have it have a competitive advantage in building a successful organization. As a consequence, due to their bankruptcy of empathy, they will exercise their power in the manner that maximizes results with minimal cost, to the point that even genocide and carpet bombing are justified. Yes NTs try to maximize results and minimize cost and effort as well, but most of them prioritize people even if it is secondary. Machiavellians only prioritize people in the manner that they are useful, so human costs in the pursuit of results are irrelevant to them. Not that I'm arguing against this mind-set, I am only arguing that because of their competitive advantage a Utopian society can never be reached.

[Sloc10]

Machiavellians only prioritize people in the manner that they are useful, so human costs in the pursuit of results are irrelevant to them. Not that I'm arguing against this mind-set, I am only arguing that because of their competitive advantage a Utopian society can never be reached.

ok, perhaps I have gotten off topic, its easy to do when coming back to a post to make an arguement over many days without re-reading the thread. My original response to your post was more relevent.


This isn't always true. You'd be surprised how many people in business are motivated more by solving complex problems and a sense of "achievement" more than pay.

Let me refine my argument by stating that yours doesn't take into consideration that utility can also be gained through empathy. Those people are just as motivated by utilitarian profit as others who get their utility from financial profit alone. There are also consumers who are driven by empathy, and they are more likely to do business with companies who are like minded.

A Machiavellian company could attempt to appear virtuous, but they would have to fool millions of consumers, or suppress those who see through them. Given the high population and availability of communication media, that would be hard. In the end, a Machiavellian company would be forced to take more empathetic measures in order to compete.

[LongSilence]

You know, sometimes I try to picture what zephyrus was like before and when he was introduced to 'The Prince'.

[Zephyrus055]

Let me refine my argument by stating that yours doesn't take into consideration that utility can also be gained through empathy. Those people are just as motivated by utilitarian profit as others who get their utility from financial profit alone. There are also consumers who are driven by empathy, and they are more likely to do business with companies who are like minded.

A Machiavellian company could attempt to appear virtuous, but they would have to fool millions of consumers, or suppress those who see through them. Given the high population and availability of communication media, that would be hard. In the end, a Machiavellian company would be forced to take more empathetic measures in order to compete.
Not sure how. Empathy is an emotion felt that enables an individual to identify with another and want to help them. There's really no way a customer can shop for a company whose leadership has empathy on their agenda, since they are limited to identifying empathy in ways that suggest it, such as participation in supporting social causes. A Machiavellian leader, however, could give contributions to social causes to pacify any moral criticism, for example.

Anyhow, while some customers may be attracted to a company that supports moral and social causes, I don't and I don't know anyone who does. Seems most customers want the lowest price. And at the macro level, it seems that the number who search primarily for moral companies is so small that it's almost irrelevant.

[Sloc10]

There's really no way a customer can shop for a company whose leadership has empathy on their agenda...participation in supporting social causes...contributions to social causes...Anyhow, while some customers may be attracted to a company that supports moral and social causes...

Sure there is, you gave plenty of ways a company can publicly show they are empathetic. You even argued my point that Machievellians would have to take more altruitstic actions to compete. One example of an empathetic company is Ben an Jerry's. They make some of the best ice cream, and hippies love them.





I don't know anyone who does. Seems most customers want the lowest price. And at the macro level, it seems that the number who search primarily for moral companies is so small that it's almost irrelevant.

I do. Its actually a number that's growing. One example is the rise in organic food buying peoples. Also vegans tend to research the companies they buy from relentlessly. Besides, we are arguing about a pure libertarian society, not current society right? A free market society would force people to know more about companies (forced after getting screwed over) since they would have no federal regulating bodies to rely on. Personally, If I stumbled onto the fact that a company carpet bombed a village of innocent people, I probably would try not to buy from them.

[Zephyrus055]

Sure there is, you gave plenty of ways a company can publicly show they are empathetic. You even argued my point that Machievellians would have to take more altruitstic actions to compete. One example of an empathetic company is Ben an Jerry's. They make some of the best ice cream, and hippies love them.
No there isn't. You can't shop for empathy, because your only means of identifying empathy are limited, and could just as easily be Machiavellian maneuvers to pacify criticism.

I never said a Machiavellian necessarily needs to take more altruistic actions to be competitive, but an altruistic action can mask an egocentric leader at the helm if he/she does need to.

Anyhow, a successful Machiavellian's ruthlessness is strategically expressed. If they predict a costly consequence to an act, then they won't do it, obviously. But if they find it profitable, then no amount of moral sentiments will stop them. A successful Machiavellian does not operate on a specific method like coercion or deception, rather they will do what will most effectively/efficiently maximize their desired outcomes, by looking at the facts and learning the skills to determine or influence future outcomes.

They also strategically cooperate or exploit, whichever strategy is more effective. Most people will cooperate and be honest, and this is not always the most beneficial strategy, and there's nothing stopping a Machiavellian from being exploitive.


I do. Its actually a number that's growing. One example is the rise in organic food buying peoples. Also vegans tend to research the companies they buy from relentlessly. Besides, we are arguing about a pure libertarian society, not current society right? A free market society would force people to know more about companies (forced after getting screwed over) since they would have no federal regulating bodies to rely on. Personally, If I stumbled onto the fact that a company carpet bombed a village of innocent people, I probably would try not to buy from them.
Yes, people hypersensitive to empathic concerns are researching and supporting companies that meet them, but they are small and outnumbered by the people who care mostly about lower prices and good service. My prediction is that they will also always be vastly outnumbered by people who want good service and low prices, libertarian society or not.

[Sloc10]

In truth, people in power are motivated by more power and profit, and their relation to the people is usually as tools for benefiting them. And sadly for utopians, people who operate this way will always have more power. You can't change it, and any transfer of power will recreate the same system.

Taking another look at the root of this argument (an argument that I think has become very arbitrary by now) I still have to disagree with it as a rule. I can't help but disagree because my experience in business has been that the most succesful people are motivated by more than just money. They tend to take much pride in their work and achievements and can be very discriminating in their moral choices as well. I can't help but think that your opinion is one that is born out of a naiveness which has no real experience working in a corporate environment. The kind that I am accustomed (though not comfortable with for other reasons) to.

It is not that power and profit are not motivators, they are, but they are peripheral in terms of business success. Those who do well in business are motivated by ideas, knowledge, and action. Without an interest in the subject at hand, a person driven only by profit will defiantly lose to somebody who is driven by the motivation of discovery and action alone, they will simply be more focused on it.

You might argue that a person could be motivated by profit AND the subject, but the one who is focused more on the subject at hand will still be better at it, and if shareholders want to invest in somebody who will net the greatest return for them, it will be the person who is the smartest at their job, not the most profit and power hungry, that could detract from the shareholders profit.

[DucoNihilum]

I am not just liberal, i am very liberal to the point of utopian
fantasies of living in peace together.

Well, that's what they tend to be- utopian fantasies, no?


Imagine a liberaltarian government comming to power. A small government
that does not interfer with people other than to charge taxes for the defence
of the realm.

Yes, we will have a horrible government like- I don't know, early US
(prosperous) or Hong Kong (Prosperous) !! Gee!


The retreat of the great government will leave a huge vacuum and nature
requires that a vacuum be filled. Do you seriously think it will be filled by
free thinking individuals?

A vacuum of what? There will be more freedom, I suppose. It will be filled by
freedom and prosperity.


It will be filled with super individuals with rights and unfettered
ability to oppress.

The libertarian agenda leaves no room for legal oppression- only socialistic or
authoritarianistic governments would allow such a thing.


I am speaking of global corporations. Their primary objective is profit
and if you think it is bad under big government, try living under corporations
with their blind profit motive.

I don't understand why you think profit is a bad thing. Profit is the very
motive that prevents corporations from corrupting. How would one make a profit
under a Capitalist society? You would make a profit by offering a service, one
that both you, the producer, and the consumer agree upon exchanging. Capitalism
is about mutual exchange of goods, not theft. Profit motive is what prevents
corporations from doing bad things- as under capitalism they always need the
support of the consumers or they will not be making money. It's quite the
opposite in controlled economies.

A Libertarian society would be free and prosperous. You would not be limited by
arbitrary restraints on your natural freedom.



What I really mean is that we're having production centralized in the hands of
big business, who are tied in with and at least partly control the state.


I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. You're calling socialized control
(even partly) of businesses "Capitalism"?! Anything besides free market
capitalism is NOT capitalism but socialistic control.

Socializing the means of production (Socialism, or what you call "State
Capitalism") would create (and now, to a lesser extent) problems, namely the
lack of competition and profit motives.


And of course I think socialized production is more efficient than any state capitalism, but that's another issue...

Then "State Capitalism" must be incredibly non-productive, because socialism is historically less productive.



I see libertarians as wanting to move backwards instead of progressing. Of course libertarianism is more complicated than this but my point still applies...

Depends on how you define progression. IF progression is just 'new', your argument is fallacious. Progressing to what? Freedom? It's perfect progression to freedom. Productivity? Again, free market capitalism will boost productivity incredibly. Income equality? No, not at all- but that’s a whole new issue.




You might say, they are in business to serve customers, yes, but which costumers?



The consumers that they are providing the service to.


In privatized prisons

Not all libertarians agree here, not having private prisons wouldn't make a country a "untrue" libertarian country. Many libertarians believe a small government is necessary for minor things, like police, courts, things like that.

Corporate interest is selfish because it's interest is for profit.

Sure, but it can't get profit without YOU, the consumer.


As long as there are corporations, you won't have any real choice either, especially if you take away government regulations.

No real choice? You don't choose to buy what you do? You have a gun to your head?


Existent Corporations - Government Regulation = a Monopoly in every Industry

How would that happen? Monopolies would only work if they provide exactly what the consumers last, and fail as soon as they fail to meet the needs of the consumers. There is only one exception to this- government. Government supported monopolies are usually the strongest. Let's look at a few monopolies in the US.

USPS
Public Schooling
AmTrak
..... Who runs all of these?





Solution: get rid of corporations, then you can have your libertarian utopia.

That would create a socialist dystopia.



Regulation should happen, but it should meet specific guidelines and be only for specific purposes. For example if a natural monopoly is the only thing that makes sense (say a town needs electricity, having multiple companies with their own infrastructures makes no sense and is inefficient) then there are ways you can regulate monopolies such that they will act as if they were in a competitive market. To go back to my example you can't let PG&E charge you $600 a month just because it has no competitors in your area. You can setup ways that monopolies will be encouraged to produce at market efficient levels.

Trying to make regulation work is a fun idea, but when it comes down to it it just gets more and more complex. The most simple and efficient way to make "Good regulation work" is no regulation, let the problems remove themselves.


No matter what happens, society is going to move towards what will get the greatest production.

Europe is moving toward more and more regulation- but the more regulation there is the less productive they tend to be.

[Architectonic]

That would create a socialist dystopia.

How does repealing corporation law create a socialist dystopia?

It is arguable whether creating 'a legal entity (technically, a juristic person) which has a separate legal personality from its members.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) is such a great idea, since it removes some of the legal responsibility of the members involved.

[trapstar]

Someone once said: "Libertarianism is autism converted to politics"

Smart man

[Latte]

Yay, lets return to the feudal age!

[DucoNihilum]

How does repealing corporation law create a socialist dystopia?

It is arguable whether creating XXX a legal entity (technically, a juristic person) which has a separate legal personality from its members.'XXX is such a great idea, since it removes some of the legal responsibility of the members involved.

Well, it depends on exactly what he meant. Many use "Corporation" as a blanket term for large businesses.


Someone once said: "Libertarianism is autism converted to politics"

Smart man

Ad Hominem.


Yay, lets return to the feudal age!

Wrong. Feudalism came before Enlightened ideas. Look at France. They weren't doing very well and needed a change. The French Revolution! (Around the same time as the American Revolution- which was also a 'libertarian esque' revolution) The revolution eventually was taken over by more.... socialistic thinkers (in both countries) but my point that Feudalism having nothing to do with Capitalism or Freedom remains.

[Latte]

Uhm, was more pointing to that property will get concentrated in individuals/families even more than it is now. It is a natural direction of a society that is almost without any government regulations or wealth redistribution to have it's wealth getting extremely concentrated.

Extreme libertarian principles, just as extreme socialist ones could work in theory, but the way humans think ruins it all. We are not culturally mature enough to make up for it either.

A government needs to have some control over the masses at this stage, or societies wouldn't work. If there is too much control, the general populous suffers and might revolt, or start a world war or something. If there is too little, everything gets totally screwed up for most people, which usually leads to revolt. People don't cooperate very well in large communities without sufficiently leadership.


I think this is explained in a good way by the monkeysphere http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html.

Seems some of the historically powerful societies have a sort of cycle that goes from strong government into weak government, then slowly back again to strong government. Not many cycles have happened though, slow process.

Ron Paul is a cool person though. Even though i don't agree with some of his principles i respect his (believed most likely to be real) sincerity and lack of warmongering, he also seems to give a shit about the wellbeing of people. Definitely the least bad republican alternative in my opinion.

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4418/ronpauldocno1.jpg

[trapstar]

Ad Hominem.


I think the quote is hilarious, it's not a real argument.

[DucoNihilum]

I think the quote is hilarious, it's not a real argument.

You and I must have very different forms of humor- I'd rather my humor at least have some thought into it, rather than just saying something equivalent of "LOL YOU ARE A DO DO HEAD"

[Architectonic]

Uhm, was more pointing to that property will get concentrated in individuals/families even more than it is now. It is a natural direction of a society that is almost without any government regulations or wealth redistribution to have it's wealth getting extremely concentrated.

How exactly? Magic?

Most evidence shows that market based economies have a much higher turnover of property/money, whereas concentration of wealth typically requires a state to maintain such monopolies.

[Latte]

How exactly? Magic?

Most evidence shows that market based economies have a much higher turnover of property/money, whereas concentration of wealth typically requires a state to maintain such monopolies.

It depends on how organized the "common folks" will get. If the majority gets involved in consumer communities, then it can certainly work. It would be a consumer democracy.


edit: First i didn't think you were completely serious. Free market capitalism without enough/strong unions, consumer communities and decent minimum wage (unions can make up for that) makes it easy for the small percentage of people that have a lot of capital to build it up easily as long as the unemployment rate is high enough, as they will have the upper hand as it comes to wages (supply/demand y'know). The elite families will rise and fall.

There will not be a big middle class, as only one's intellect will be what can get you a high wage job.


Strong enough unions and consumer communities will prevent this, but the ones of today aren't strong enough for that task in my opinion.

[trapstar]

You and I must have very different forms of humor- I'd rather my humor at least have some thought into it, rather than just saying something equivalent of "LOL YOU ARE A DO DO HEAD"

Ha... yeah, there is no thought into that quote. Sure
Have a little self distance (Hopefully you'll get what that means... can't find a matching word for it in english)