Libertarians- why does anyone take them seriously?

[20000miles]

No 20000miles. YOU MUST HAVE SOME RESOURCES TO SET UP A BUSINESS!!

So how does this mean that you have to work for someone again?

Ah now. That's either a lie or you're very ignorant. ESPECIALLY given your definition of exploitation. Large corporations all over the world trample all over the property and personal rights of individuals to increase profits.

Some might, but this isn't the defining feature of the firm is it?

No! You're assuming that noone ever used that property before you homesteaded it. A completely unreasonable assumption!

No I'm not. Abandoned property is fine too.

Mises isn't here and I'm taking it up with you.

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises

[Red Boyneside]

Centralising power? What power? Can a large firm compel you to purchase their goods any more than a small one. And can a large firm forcefully prevent new entrants into the industry?

If they outcompete their rivals they are the only ones producing said good so if you need something you have to buy from them. Do you think the oil companies don't excercise power?

[dotski_w_]

funny how they continued to race ahead with the abolition of slavery

Marxists would of course see this as a historical inevitability, but the economic foundations of white America were already laid by the time slavery was banned, and they were established much more 'inexpensively' by that means. This combined with the (uncontested by you) theft of the entire continent from the people who lived there by a more technologically advanced society undoubtedly was more influential in US success than "freedom".

[Red Boyneside]

Marxists would of course see this as a historical inevitability, but the economic foundations of white America were already laid by the time slavery was banned, and they were established much more 'inexpensively' by that means. This combined with the (uncontested by you) theft of the entire continent from the people who lived there by a more technologically advanced society undoubtedly was more influential in US success than "freedom".

Nothing is a historical inevitability.

[cHeal]

Marxists would of course see this as a historical inevitability, but the economic foundations of white America were already laid by the time slavery was banned, and they were established much more 'inexpensively' by that means. This combined with the (uncontested by you) theft of the entire continent from the people who lived there by a more technologically advanced society undoubtedly was more influential in US success than "freedom".

While I absolutely agree 100% on both counts, I don't think there can be any doubt that the freedom provided to it's citizens, with regard to enterprize was a real catalyst for the creation of a singular world power just 200 years after the countries own formation. However, as you assert, I think it is unlikely that the nation would have become so power and so wealthy without the slave trade and the newly discovered lands to exploit.

Lets not forget that the US lead the way in the Automobile industry for a long time. It was behind the computer age, it has a huge pharmacuetical industry, it has owned film ever since its inception and still is the predominant force for popular music. Ignoring it's political power, it's private industry is absolutely astonishing.

[sarahj]

So how does this mean that you have to work for someone again?

Are you deliberately being facetious? It's obvious. You don't have resources, you can't start a firm so to survive you must sell your labour.

Some might, but this isn't the defining feature of the firm is it?

No - increasing profits and increasing market share is. And firms will do anything they can get away with to do so. That is the defining feature of a firm.

No I'm not. Abandoned property is fine too.

How do you mean abandoned? It's abandoned by its owner. So you can have an abandoned property just by happening upon it? It's yours then. That makes no sense - if that is the only way that you can justly acquire property (As we have alrady decided that property received for work is not justly acquired) then you have done nothing for it. There is no justification for being rewarded simply for happening upon something.

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises

Read it.

[Dios]

Centralising power? What power? Can a large firm compel you to purchase their goods any more than a small one. And can a large firm forcefully prevent new entrants into the industry?

Yes, they most certainly can. Lets take a look at Microsoft for example. Far from having a government granted monopoly they have been repeatedly censured by global governments, and are in the process of being fined an increasing amount by the EU for abusing their power. What you have here are barriers to entry via economies of scale, presigned contracts with OEMs like Dell giving MS an unbeatable advantage, and speaking of Dell, its almost impossible for a new business to start manufacturing computers due to the economies of scale they and their competitors have achieved.

This checks every box in your post.

Are you deliberately being facetious? It's obvious. You don't have resources, you can't start a firm so to survive you must sell your labour.

Actually thats not a bad thing as long as you are adequately compensated for your labour, and as such are in a position to accumulate enough resources to start a business. The problem with the libertarians is they want to undercut worker wages to the extent that it becomes impossible to leverage them to any useful level, thus ensuring the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and effective feudalism.

Also there are other means to gain capital, like getting loans from banks or investment from VCs. If you can't earn it you can convince someone else to give it to you. Of course the weakness with that system is that you need to reveal your business idea to these erstwhile partners before they give you anything, so there is nothing to stop them taking your idea to an alternate and possibly pre-established competitor, and working out a better deal with them.

Relaxing the criteria for publicly traded companies and government funding would go a long way towards resolving these problems, I feel.

[sarahj]

Actually thats not a bad thing as long as you are adequately compensated for your labour, and as such are in a position to accumulate enough resources to start a business. The problem with the libertarians is they want to undercut worker wages to the extent that it becomes impossible to leverage them to any useful level, thus ensuring the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and effective feudalism.

No, it's coercion to have to work to live. It's just as bad as the totalitarian states that you and others give out about who force people to work or kill them.

Also there are other means to gain capital, like getting loans from banks or investment from VCs. If you can't earn it you can convince someone else to give it to you. Of course the weakness with that system is that you need to reveal your business idea to these erstwhile partners before they give you anything, so there is nothing to stop them taking your idea to an alternate and possibly pre-established competitor, and working out a better deal with them.

And what if you don't want to compete with your idea? What if you just want to contribute towards society and have just enough to live instead of setting up a structure that requires you to line other people's pockets?

Relaxing the criteria for publicly traded companies and government funding would go a long way towards resolving these problems, I feel.

Which criteria?

[Dios]

No, it's coercion to have to work to live. It's just as bad as the totalitarian states that you and others give out about who force people to work or kill them.

You don't need to work to live. There are families in Ireland where nobody has worked for generations.

And what if you don't want to compete with your idea? What if you just want to contribute towards society and have just enough to live instead of setting up a structure that requires you to line other people's pockets?

Then release it to the general public under creative commons/patent so nobody else can exclusively patent it, or look up the open source software movement, who produce professional quality software at no cost.

Which criteria?

Right now you need to have been in business for quite a few years and have many millions in capitalisation to join the stock market, which is why there are so few companies on it, as opposed to the broader economy. The original idea of the stock market was to let people invest in companies they liked, which has not been the case for a long time. What I'd like to see is a situation where any publicly limited company could sell stocks to the public on the market, given certain regulations, and hence raise investment without the intervention of financial institutions or venture capitalists.

[sarahj]

You don't need to work to live. There are families in Ireland where nobody has worked for generations.

We're not talking about Ireland in the present day. We're talking about the libertarian ideology. That's what this thread is about.

Then release it to the general public under creative commons/patent so nobody else can exclusively patent it, or look up the open source software movement, who produce professional quality software at no cost.

And how am I supposed to survive doing that? Also I have to have the skills and motivation, as well as the exposure to relevant experiences and ideas to be able to come up with an idea.

Right now you need to have been in business for quite a few years and have many millions in capitalisation to join the stock market, which is why there are so few companies on it, as opposed to the broader economy. The original idea of the stock market was to let people invest in companies they liked, which has not been the case for a long time. What I'd like to see is a situation where any publicly limited company could sell stocks to the public on the market, given certain regulations, and hence raise investment without the intervention of financial institutions or venture capitalists.

But you're still placing economic control in the hands of those with the ability to pay. If they already have the ability to pay, then they already have some eocnomic control, thus investment will increase it. This mechanism is how control got centralised in the first place.