LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHeh, we're on the same wavelength...
Heh, we're on the same wavelength...
'The monster is in thine eye'
Libertarians tend to believe in self-ownership. Slavery cannot be reconciled with this.Originally Posted by Akrasia
In addition, many Libertarians believe that to try to have Libertarians elected to political office is in conflict with Libertarian principles. Perhaps that is what Irish Libertarians believe and consequently there is no political party? The Progressive Democrats are certainly not Libertarian.
Unfettered & unregulated "pure" libertarianism would likely lead towards a plutocratic authoritarian state: people would coalesce together naturally to form cliques 'n cabals & would act to restrict others. Oddly enough the maximal degree of libertarianism would require optimal regulation (& intervention when breached ) to maintain. Adam Smith wasn't a fan of monopolies, indeed much of his output rails against them. Similarily today even the most capitalist investment bankers desire (and nearly have) a regulatory framework for markets that enforces transparency & neutrality.Libertarians tend to believe in self-ownership. Slavery cannot be reconciled with this.
cYp
"Yawn , am I alive yet ?"
You're forgetting about a corporate monopoly. A corporation, as Lord Thurlow said- "It has no soul to damn and no body to kick." it is only amenable to its bottom line or fiduciary interest.
The above is basically a charter for turning back the clock to Victoriania and the attending horrors of allowing modern day East India Companies to run riot. IF you want to see libertarianism go to some African failed state...
Its also very undemocratic as corporations are run on an aristocratic principle (not to mind being collective entities which would benefit from the policies of libertarians.....)
http://www.theworld.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The US Libertarian Party is about as significant as Ireland's Freedom Institute. Libertarians have lost whatever small influence they had in the Republican Party, and right now their main contribution to American politics, from what I can tell, is antiwar.com.
"Somewhere out on that horizon, out beyond the neon lights/ I know there must be something better/ But there's nowhere else in sight/" - Joe Walsh, "In the City"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You assume that a government sponsored monopoly is the only kind, which is absolute nonsense to anybody with even a more basic understanding of economics than what you just said. (I'm not even going to bother listing the different kinds of monopolies it's so obvious)
Corporations love monopolies, and if they can't get a monopoly, they love cartels or oligopolies. if there was no kind of government regulation or political/popular opposition, the whole world would probably be controlled entirely by a handful of super corporations.
And anyone with a basic understanding of Economics, would have to agree that a private monopoly is far worse than a public monopoly.
No you're not. You can not possibly be an anarchist if you support Capitalism. Anarchists are opposed to Heirarchy, and capitalism creates nothing but heirarchy.Socially I'm an anarchist nutter!
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
There is nothing in libertarianism that protects people from being forced into bonded labour. In fact, some libertarians argue in favour of a mans right to 'freely contract' himself into slaveryLibertarians tend to believe in self-ownership. Slavery cannot be reconciled with this.
and another essay hereLibertarianism stands for maximum individual liberty — and thus against any kind of slavery. Yet libertarianism also stands for self-ownership; and what I own, I have a right to sell. Apparently, then, libertarianism countenances the legitimacy of selling oneself into slavery, and enforcing the slavery contract against those who change their minds. Thus it seems that the ideals of self-ownership and sanctity of contract can come into conflict with the ideal of maximum liberty and the rejection of slavery.
http://www.capitalownership.org/lib/Phi ... lmore1.htm
But even those extremists positions aside, Forcing people to work for the bare minimum wage necessary to keep them alive, a subsistance wage, is no different from slavery, except a slave owner at least would have an interest in keeping his property healthy to protect his investment)
Economics that focuses almost entirely on maximising 'economic efficiency' (ie, profit per dollar spent) is constantly trying to drive down the costs of production, and this is achieved by paying for the raw materials (in this case, Labour) at the bare minimum price necessary secure those means of production in their desired use.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
If companies work better under the principles of libertarianism, surely all the greatest companies in the world would have already converted.
The standard of excellence is an infinite suggestiveness, naturalism is the one thing to be condemned.
You missed my point - companies are collective if 'aristocratic'* entities, the policies espoused by Libertarians are beneficial to them. (to an extent as in the bottom line and not ideology rules...).If companies work better under the principles of libertarianism, surely all the greatest companies in the world would have already converted.
For an example see the billionaire Koch brothers in the US, ( a real piece of work) one of which was 'the Libertarian Party's Vice-Presidential candidate in the 1980 U.S. presidential election, sharing the party ticket with Ed Clark'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
sourcewatch._on_David_H._Koch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries%2C_Inc.
They are also (or are amongst) one of the biggest funders of various right-wing 'think' tanks and front-groups in the US. Many of the same members would hold what they say are a libertarian view.
also the site below (a little OTT in its language for my liking but its verifiable...)
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html
sourcewatch on David_H._PaddenDavid H. Padden is President of Padden & Company Inc.[1], a Chicago-based investment securities firm. He plays a prominent role in a number of right-wing think-tanks:
* Heartland Institute, founder and director 2004 [2]
* Cato Institute, director 2004 [3]
* Citizens for a Sound Economy, director
* Bionomics Institute, director
* Foundation for Economic Education, former director
* Center for Libertarian Studies, former director
* Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, director 2001 [4]
Patron saints of right wing think tanks acquire Georgia Pacific Corp
Oil barons Charles and David Koch, two of the nation's worst environmental criminals, now control the country's largest privately held company...
In other words, they are acting as representatives for the creation of a world, which does not concurr with what they proport to believe in. Or certainly not what Nordy_Trinnerhead said in "greatly improve the welfare of societies poorer members." and how we "don't forget about the virtues of private charity" .....
______
*The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Anarchy1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
CapitalismAn economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
I believe in the voluntary rather than the coercive nature of government. These two definitions are far from incompatibale.
www.anti-state.com
'The monster is in thine eye'
Reply With Quote