What is a libertarian?
R...@webtv.net
In article <01bd097f$d34430c0$10d6...@etherman.mdc.net>,
"Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net> wrote:
>
>
> R...@webtv.net wrote in article <882149555...@dejanews.com>...
> > In article <19971214062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > whoj...@aol.com (Whojgalt) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >"Jaga the Wise" <chad....@pdq.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Although the subject of this
> > > >message sounds like some sort of fancy essay
> > > >title it is acutally a question
> > > >I want the answer to. I was wondering if
> > > >somebody could outline the
> > > >political beliefs held by libertarians for me.
> > >
> > > >Thanks in Advance,
> > > >JAGA THE
> > > >WISE
> > >
> > > Its simple. Just refer to the pledge that the Libertarian Party
> requires of
> > > its members:
> > > "I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the *initiation* of
> force
> > > as a means of achieving politcal or social goals."
> > >
> > > To be more specific, the government *does* initiate force when it does
> any of
> > > the following
> > >
> > > - redistribute income (as in welfare, social security, minimum wage,
> etc)
> > > - regulate economic activity
> > > - censor any communications
> > > - start a war on drugs
> > > - impose fines for not wearing seat belts
> > > etc.
> > >
> >
> > This is exactly what bothers me about the Libertarian party. Libertarians
> > believe, therefore it's magically correct.
>
> Is that envy I detect? Don't worry, some day you might happen to be right
> about something.
>
Is this the ad hominum I detect?
> > > it does *not* initiate force when it does the following:
> > >
> > > - defend the country from foreign invaders
> > > - arrest a burglar, or murderer or rapist, or any otherr *violent*
> criminal
> > > - hold a person to a contract he has voluntarily signed
> > >
> > > Libertarianism is a very simple political theory, with very little
> "gray area".
> >
> > Never mind that corporations often initiate force by exploiting workers,
> > creating monopolies and so on.
>
> I don't see how alleged exploitation is equal to initiation of force?
> Workers
> are free to leave their jobs and find work elsewhere, start their own
> businesses,
> or not work at all.
Not work at all? As I said: They believe, and it's magically correct.
Would you say that no passenger on the Titanic really had to die because
of the fact that, if somebody couldn't get on one life boat, he could
always find another? Here you post in this thread to tell me that the
libertarian party is not based on dogma. Then, by your faulty logic, you
prove the exact opposite.
>Also, in a capitalistic system it's very difficult to
> create
> monopolies without the help of government.
>
As I said in another post: The libertarian party believes that government
is all bad and private enterprise is all good. The dogma never ends in
the libertarian party.
> > Unfortunately, Libertarian simplicity is exactly what makes the
> > Libertarian party dangerous. It's important to point out that, in order
> > for a government to keep up with changing needs and changing
> > circumstances, it has to be at least as sophisticated as the society that
> > it governs.
>
> It's important to point out that, in order for a government to keep up with
> changing needs and changing circumstances, it has to have a set of
> principles to base policy on. Unlike the Demopulbican party, the
> Libertarian
> party has such principles.
Agreed. But I believe that our government should have dynamic principles,
not dogmatic inflexible notions. If the libertarian party doesn't agree
with this, then the libertarian party is no better than the communist
party of the former Soviet Union. And potentially just as dangerous.
The government is not your mommy and it's
> not your social net. It's not your cornucopia of "free" goods and
> services.
> And it's not a tool for social change. At least good government isn't.
>
More dogma.
I don't consider the government to be my mommy, and I certainly don't
consider the corporate establishment to be a god.
> > Libertarianism may have worked in a simpler time when humans were just
> > beginning to descend from the trees, but I doubt that it has any real
> > chance of working now.
> >
> > Robert
>
> Why, because Libertarians don't think government is to be used as a
> crutch?
Apparently, you seem to think that anyone who is not a libertarian
believes that government should be a crutch.
>
> > > If you start to pay close attention to political activity, you'll soon
> notice
> > > that you can almost always predict what the Libertarian position on a
> given
> > > issue will be, but it will less predictable what the position of the
> other
> > > major parties will be, and the position of individuals within those
> parties
> >
> > This is only because the Libertarian party is not very adaptable.
>
> No, it's because the Republicrats only goal is control. They'll support
> any position as long as they think it will get them elected.
>
I think it would be more accurate to say that both the republicans and
libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both want to
eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
government. Once they do this, the corporate establishment can simply
exploit who ever, or what ever, it wants without the fear of having to
answer to an institution that's controlled by the people.
> > > will vary greatly. This is because the libertarian position is based
> strictly
> > > on principles.
> >
> > You mean dogma.
>
> No, principles. Maybe you don't know what those are?
>
I do know dogma when I see it.
> > > In short, Libertarians believe in freedom of the individual.
> >
> > You mean freedom of the individual to be exploited by the corporate
> > establishment
>
> Freedom of the individual to lead his own life, so long as he doesn't
> harm another person or take his property.
>
This freedom would be short lived once the corporate establishment
replaced the government.
> --
> Etherman
>
> The Internet's sole purpose is to get porn and
> bomb making plans into the hands of children.
If you like libertarianism so much, why don't you move to sub-saharan
Africa or some other tropical country.
Robert
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
R...@webtv.net wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> I don't see how alleged exploitation is equal to initiation of force?
>> Workers
>> are free to leave their jobs and find work elsewhere, start their own
>> businesses,
>> or not work at all.
>
>Not work at all? As I said: They believe, and it's magically correct.
>
>Would you say that no passenger on the Titanic really had to die because
Why do you insist on reading things into other people's posts?
The worker is indeed free to not work at all. It's then his problem
to find another way to support himself. If he has savings, fine. He
can go beg on a street corner if he prefers. For that matter, if he
chooses to starve to death rather than work, he is totally within his
rights to do so. Nobody is going to come along and whip him back to
the cotton fields.
Actions and ideas have consequences. Being free to do something does
not mean that others are obligated to lift the consequence from you.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Chloe Carter
> I think it would be more accurate to say that both the republicans and
> libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both want to
> eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
> government. Once they do this, the corporate establishment can simply
> exploit who ever, or what ever, it wants without the fear of having to
> answer to an institution that's controlled by the people.
>
>
> Robert
You have to keep telling yourself:
In the mind of a libertarian,
1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
2) there is no such thing as 'exploitation', only voluntary agreements,
between consenting parties.
See? In a world where there is no private coercion, and in which
all economic relationships are free and symmetrical, we neither
want nor need government.
The question is: do we actually live in such a world?
- Chloe
Desio
>government...empower the people
Hitler's own campaign message.
Socialism's mantra.
The People's Party of (insert country here)'s symbol.
Yes, but why is it every time in history when a government empowers the
people, it ends up empowering... itself?
Look, government is not empowerment. Using your logic, if corporations
are evil, then government is worse!
It has no good reason to serve the people, while a corporation does!
Empowerment is not government; anyone can grab a gun and be empowered.
The only alternative to rule by money is rule by guns, and government
has a lot of guns, while an individual can generate his own money.
I HATE REDISTRIBUTIONISTS!
--
_________________________________________
"Argument invalid, QED."
-Me
Desio
Jim Richardson
On 16 Dec 1997 20:11:53 GMT,
Chloe Carter <qpc...@frontiernet.net> brought forth the following...:
>> libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both want to
>> eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
>> government. Once they do this, the corporate establishment can simply
>> exploit who ever, or what ever, it wants without the fear of having to
>> answer to an institution that's controlled by the people.
>>
>>
>
>You have to keep telling yourself:
>
>In the mind of a libertarian,
>
>1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
Anyone can be the source of coercion, where you come up with
the above is curious to me.
Coercion is a mugger demanding your wallet, it is a revenoor, wanting
a tax. There is no difference. It is not Ford Motor Co offering a car
for money.
Coercion could be FMC demanding you buy the car. When was the last time
you heard of that?
Corporations _can_ be the source of coercion, they rarely are here in the
US.
>
>2) there is no such thing as 'exploitation', only voluntary agreements,
> between consenting parties.
Sure there can be exploitation, but without coercion (see above) it's not
much of a threat is it?
>
>See? In a world where there is no private coercion, and in which
>all economic relationships are free and symmetrical, we neither
>want nor need government.
>
>The question is: do we actually live in such a world?
>
All men aren't angels, big surprise, do you want to live in a system
that accepts and works around that? or one which ignores it?
>
--
Jim Richardson
http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
anarchist, pagan and proud of it.
'all hail eris'
Matthew Cromer
In article <676na9$1jc8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> Chloe Carter,
qpc...@frontiernet.net writes:
>You have to keep telling yourself:
>
>In the mind of a libertarian,
>
>1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
No, a corporation will on rare occasion coerce. This is wrong and
actionable under libertarian anarchy. Governments live and breathe
coercion, and typically make it difficult or impossible to sue them for
the many kinds of harm they do.
>
>2) there is no such thing as 'exploitation', only voluntary agreements,
> between consenting parties.
Of course there is exploitation--for example, slaves were exploited.
You would be correct if you said that voluntary agreements are not
exploitation.
All the liberals who whine and complain about the poor in the third world
working in factories for a pittance need to ask themselves: Why is it
exploitation to offer workers more money than they can earn any other
way. Answer: because it offends me that they make so much less than I
think they ought to.
Do such liberals then open up textile factories paying high wages after
the workers lose their jobs due to protests, etc.? Hell no.
>
>See? In a world where there is no private coercion, and in which
>all economic relationships are free and symmetrical, we neither
>want nor need government.
And in the real world, we don't need it either.
>
Matthew Cromer
Terry Reedy
In article <676na9$1jc8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
qpc...@frontiernet.net says...
>In the mind of a libertarian,
>
>1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
Why do you keep repeating such propaganda absurdities that are the
inverse of the truth?
In the mind of this libertarian, and others, neither 'corporation's nor
'govermenmt's realy exist in the same sense that people do. The source
of coercion is people, and only people.
The premise of libertarianism is that people are people, and that people
who call themselves 'government' have no special right to push, pull,
trespass, rob, rape, and kill -- which is the premise of statism,
whether of the leftist, centrist, or rightist varieties. Libertarians
also reject any premise that anyone else has such special rights or
privileges.
If you with to argue against this philosophy, which all libertarians
agree is your right, then please argue against what it is, rather than
what it is not.
Terry J. Reedy
The Mysterious Stranger
"Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
Kim Stanley Robinson
Courtesy of:
<<??The Mysterious Stranger??>>
Victor Levis
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in article
<677i7k$3eu$2...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> On 16 Dec 1997 20:11:53 GMT,
>
> Chloe Carter <qpc...@frontiernet.net> brought forth the following...:
> >
> >In article <882236844....@dejanews.com>, R...@webtv.net writes:
> >
> >> I think it would be more accurate to say that both the republicans and
> >> libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both want to
> >> eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
> >> government. Once they do this, the corporate establishment can simply
> >> exploit who ever, or what ever, it wants without the fear of having to
> >> answer to an institution that's controlled by the people.
> >
> >You have to keep telling yourself:
> >
> >In the mind of a libertarian,
> >
> >1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
>
> Anyone can be the source of coercion, where you come up with
> the above is curious to me.
> Coercion is a mugger demanding your wallet, it is a revenoor, wanting
> a tax. There is no difference. It is not Ford Motor Co offering a car
> for money.
> Coercion could be FMC demanding you buy the car. When was the last time
> you heard of that?
> Corporations _can_ be the source of coercion, they rarely are here in the
> US.
BUSINESSES, whether incorporated or not, can be a source of
coercion, for example, POLLUTION. People can sometimes be tempted
to engage in activities that result in damage to the property of others.
These others would then make claims against the polluters. A rational
system of law would provide for a method of resolving these claims.
In most cases, however, corporations or other businesses attempting to
gain unfair advantage get the government to DO THE COERCING FOR
THEM. Examples include monopoly privileges and public subsidies.
Eliminating the government's power to dispense such favours would
effectively end these business practices.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Victor Levis
Matthew Cromer <matthew...@iname.com> wrote in article
<677nkk$3...@camel20.mindspring.com>...
> In article <676na9$1jc8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> Chloe Carter,
> qpc...@frontiernet.net writes:
> >You have to keep telling yourself:
> >
> >In the mind of a libertarian,
> >
> >1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
>
> No, a corporation will on rare occasion coerce. This is wrong and
> actionable under libertarian anarchy.
In other words, even under anarchy, we can have rules and GOVERNANCE, but it
will be voluntary in some sense.
> Governments live and breathe coercion,
> and typically make it difficult or impossible to sue them for
> the many kinds of harm they do.
I use the term "The State" to denote that INvoluntary organization that
claims a monopoly on force.
> >See? In a world where there is no private coercion, and in which
> >all economic relationships are free and symmetrical, we neither
> >want nor need government.
>
> And in the real world, we don't need it either.
You just said above we need ways to take action against rights-violating
behaviour. Institutions that perform such a function can be looked at by
some as 'a government'. However, I would agree with your post if you
meant by it that we don't 'need' to have an imposed State assert sovereignty
over a particular territory, against the will of any residents therein.
McQ
qpc...@frontiernet.net (Chloe Carter) wrote:
>You have to keep telling yourself:
>
>In the mind of a libertarian,
>
>1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
Really? Suppose you tell us what coercion is in the context of
a corporation wielding it vs. a government doing so and how each
effects the average person. I would assume, noting the above supposed
"libertarian" absolute, that you can easily answer the question since
I'm sure the absolute is the result of reasoned thought.
>2) there is no such thing as 'exploitation', only voluntary agreements,
> between consenting parties.
There is indeed such a thing as exploitation, but that isn't present
in voluntary agreement between consenting parties. But again, for
someone so knowledgable about libertarianism, I'd have thought you
knew that.
You DO understand the difference, right?
>See? In a world where there is no private coercion, and in which
>all economic relationships are free and symmetrical, we neither
>want nor need government.
Not at all. Instead government's institutions aren't needed
because their functions can be accomplished PRIVATELY.
As for coercion, "private coercion" isn't a monopoly product,
government coercion IS. Do you understand the difference
and the implication?
But hell, why botherl...you've got your own private set of
"libertarian" characteristics which I'm sure <chuckle> you've poured
immense time and thought into formulating. It's, quite evident
in the absolutes you've presented here.
Thanks so much for your work.
_________________________
McQ
David Whitt
In article <676na9$1jc8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
Chloe Carter <qpc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>In article <882236844....@dejanews.com>, R...@webtv.net writes:
>> I think it would be more accurate to say that both the republicans and
>> libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both want to
>> eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
>> government. Once they do this, the corporate establishment can simply
>> exploit who ever, or what ever, it wants without the fear of having to
>> answer to an institution that's controlled by the people.
>
>You have to keep telling yourself:
>
>In the mind of a libertarian,
>
>1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
>
>2) there is no such thing as 'exploitation', only voluntary agreements,
> between consenting parties.
>
>See? In a world where there is no private coercion, and in which
>all economic relationships are free and symmetrical, we neither
>want nor need government.
>
>The question is: do we actually live in such a world?
There are several errors in your "logic". First, you assume the
government is the only institution which can empower people. Second, you
assume the people control the government and the corporations fear it.
Third, you assume libertarians love corporations. Fourth, you assume
libertarians have a "just world" psyche.
The government is by no means the only institution which can empower
people. Usually, it is the government which is dragging its heals to
prevent citizen empowerment. Examples? How about the way judges refuse
to inform jurors of their power to acquit, even going so far as to charge
those who do know of their constitutional rights and who use them of
contempt? How about the way the two parties have set things up so it's
almost impossible for a third party to make its way onto the ballot?
Remember it wasn't the government that made society allow women to vote
and free the slaves or end segregation - it was society which dragged the
government, sometimes kicking and screaming, into a more enlightened era.
If you still believe the government is of the people, by the people, and
for the people, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
Corporations don't fear the government because corporations own the
government. No, not all government officials are corrupt. No, not all
corporations are evil. But some are, and usually they're the biggest and
most important of each and if you really think your one vote is more
important than that $100,000+ check, you're dreaming.
As you can tell, I don't love corporations. I don't hate them either.
Corporations are like people in that there are bad ones and there are
good ones and most of them are selfish and greedy. It wasn't libertarians
who gave corporations equal status as citizens. That's not in the
Constitution and it wouldn't pass a libertarian supreme court. It's not
Libertarians who give an estimated $800 billion a year to corporations in tax
credits and corporate welfare. Those were and are done by your precious
government - aka the only institution which you claim can empower people.
Libertarians would end corporate welfare and all the unconstitutional
perks they enjoy as well as their powerful influence in government.
Finally, yes some people are exploited. Is it the government's job to see
to it that nobody coerces anybody else? Where does it say that in the
Constitution? The government isn't suppose to babysit its citizens. If
people don't have the sense to take care of themselves, how can you expect
them to have the sense to elect the right person to do it for them? Why
should those of us who can take care of ourselves have to get unwanted
nursemaiding from the government? Perhaps if you gave an example of such
exploitation we could disect its causes and I think you'd be suprised to
find much of it comes back to the government. Note, I do not hate the
government nor do I think that it is evil incarnate. I do feel it has
become bloated, inefficient, and is now in a position where it often does
more harm than good - even if its intentions are good. I suggest before
you continue making assumptions about us, you listen and learn what we are
really saying and do so with an open mind.
** David Whitt davw...@med.unc.edu
* *
** http://www.unc.edu/~davwhitt
***
** * * People often find it easier to be a result
** ** of the past than a cause of the future.
Paul J Schmidt
Chloe Carter (qpc...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
: In article <882236844....@dejanews.com>, R...@webtv.net writes:
: > I think it would be more accurate to say that both the republicans and
: > libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both want to
: > eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
: > government. Once they do this, the corporate establishment can simply
: > exploit who ever, or what ever, it wants without the fear of having to
: > answer to an institution that's controlled by the people.
: >
: >
: > Robert
: You have to keep telling yourself:
: In the mind of a libertarian,
: 1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
Untrue.
: 2) there is no such thing as 'exploitation', only voluntary agreements,
: between consenting parties.
Untrue.
: See? In a world where there is no private coercion, and in which
: all economic relationships are free and symmetrical, we neither
: want nor need government.
One valid function of government is to administer justice -- when force
or fraud are used against honest peacefule people, government should
enforce justice. If people are good we don't need government. If
people are bad, we dare not let them have the power of government.
: The question is: do we actually live in such a world?
: - Chloe
Chloe Carter
> Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in article
> <677i7k$3eu$2...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>
> > Coercion is a mugger demanding your wallet, it is a revenoor, wanting
> > a tax. There is no difference. It is not Ford Motor Co offering a car
> > for money.
> > Coercion could be FMC demanding you buy the car. When was the last time
> > you heard of that?
> > Corporations _can_ be the source of coercion, they rarely are here in the
> > US.
It is not usually as sellers that corporations engage in coercion.
Ford doesn't have any way to *force* me to buy their car.
It is as *buyers* that corporations coerce. For example, corporations
are buyers of labor. When Ford announces that workers in a plant must
take a pay cut, or lose their jobs, it is engaging in coercion. When
Ford demands that the community that hosts a plant must give it a
tax break, this too is coercion.
And yes, I know that in demanding these things Ford is only reacting
to 'market forces'. There are, however, non-coercive ways for Ford
to achieve it's goals. Some of these have actually been used here
where I live.
We have in Rochester a plant that for many years has made fuel
systems for GM cars. As everyone knows, GM experienced some very
difficult times during the 1980s. Rather than close this plant,
they chose to spin the plant off and then offer a contract
to continue supplying these systems to GM. It was up to the management,
including worker representatives, to figure out how to meet the
price offered by GM and still make a profit. They did it, the
plant remained open, and few if any jobs were lost.
- Chloe
Chloe Carter
> One valid function of government is to administer justice -- when force
> or fraud are used against honest peacefule people, government should
> enforce justice. If people are good we don't need government. If
> people are bad, we dare not let them have the power of government.
Some libertarians would argue that the criminal justice system
(police, courts, prisons, etc.) could be and should be privatized.
I don't agree with this; I believe that institutions that have the
power to take away someone's freedom must be public and publicly
accountable, through the political process. There are many, though,
who disagree.
- Chloe
Chloe Carter
In article <34bde5d4....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> qpc...@frontiernet.net (Chloe Carter) wrote:
>
> >1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
>
> Really? Suppose you tell us what coercion is in the context of
> a corporation wielding it vs. a government doing so and how each
> effects the average person.
Sure. When a corporation threatens to leave a community unless
it is given a special tax preference, this is coercion. It is
not coercion that involves the pointing of guns, but it is still
coercion. People are being pressured to act against their interest,
against their will.
> >2) there is no such thing as 'exploitation', only voluntary agreements,
> > between consenting parties.
>
> There is indeed such a thing as exploitation, but that isn't present
> in voluntary agreement between consenting parties. But again, for
> someone so knowledgable about libertarianism, I'd have thought you
> knew that.
Help me out then. What is the libertarian understanding of
'exploitation'?
> Not at all. Instead government's institutions aren't needed
> because their functions can be accomplished PRIVATELY.
Many governmental functions can undoubtedly be accomplished
privately.
> But hell, why botherl...you've got your own private set of
> "libertarian" characteristics which I'm sure <chuckle> you've poured
> immense time and thought into formulating. It's, quite evident
> in the absolutes you've presented here.
>
> McQ
Libertarians frequently use the technique of the straw man
and the cheap shot to attack doctrines with which they disagree.
I feel that I have the right to do the same, but in the opposite
direction.
I know perfectly well what libertarianism is; I've read all the
cited works. That doesn't mean that I can't distort it once in
a while just for fun.
- Chloe
Curt Howland
Chloe Carter wrote:
> It is not usually as sellers that corporations engage in coercion.
> Ford doesn't have any way to *force* me to buy their car.
>
> It is as *buyers* that corporations coerce. For example, corporations
> are buyers of labor. When Ford announces that workers in a plant must
> take a pay cut, or lose their jobs, it is engaging in coercion.
False. They are fulfilling their side of the employment
contract.
As unions have found, that employment contract can say
anything the parties want it to.
It is just as valid to say that an employee forces the
company to pay them.
> When
> Ford demands that the community that hosts a plant must give it a
> tax break, this too is coercion.
Nope, it's negotiation.
> And yes, I know that in demanding these things Ford is only reacting
> to 'market forces'. There are, however, non-coercive ways for Ford
> to achieve it's goals. Some of these have actually been used here
> where I live.
Each and every thing that you note Ford doing is non-
coersive. Your definition of coersion is wrong.
If you think you are being coersed, why don't you defend
yourself?
> - Chloe
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
_not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
--L. Neil Smith
--
---
Curt Howland How...@Priss.com http://www.Priss.com
"The Probability Broach" by L. Neil Smith
ISBN:0-812-53875-7 Available from Laissez Faire Books
http://www.lfb.org/ 1.800.326.0996
Curt Howland
Chloe Carter wrote:
> Some libertarians would argue that the criminal justice system
> (police, courts, prisons, etc.) could be and should be privatized.
Most, if not all, "Libertarians" see no reason to force
people not to engage in "police, courts, prisons, etc"
as private businesses.
> I don't agree with this; I believe that institutions that have the
> power to take away someone's freedom must be public and publicly
> accountable,
I agree completely. That is why I believe they should be
run like any private business: Accountable for their
actions.
> ... through the political process.
I find it astounding that you think politicians are
held accountable for their actions. Where is the conviction,
or even trial, for the 80 murders in Texas?
> There are many, though,
> who disagree.
Which is why forcing one system on people, even if you
agree with it, is abhorant.
> - Chloe
Curt-
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
_not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
--
McQ
>Chloe Carter wrote:
>>McQ writes:
>> >Chloe Carter wrote:
>>
>> >1) corporations cannot be a source of coercion, only governments can;
>>
>> Really? Suppose you tell us what coercion is in the context of
>> a corporation wielding it vs. a government doing so and how each
>> effects the average person.
>
>Sure. When a corporation threatens to leave a community unless
>it is given a special tax preference, this is coercion. It is
>not coercion that involves the pointing of guns, but it is still
>coercion. People are being pressured to act against their interest,
>against their will.
Huh...what do you know? You didn't answer my question. Once
again, from the top, tell us what coercion is in the context of a
corporation wielding it vs. a government doing so and how each effects
the average person.
If you'll notice, I didn't ask you what corporate coercion WAS but
how it differs from governmental coercion and how each would effect
you and I.
>> >2) there is no such thing as 'exploitation', only voluntary agreements,
>> > between consenting parties.
>>
>> There is indeed such a thing as exploitation, but that isn't present
>> in voluntary agreement between consenting parties. But again, for
>> someone so knowledgable about libertarianism, I'd have thought you
>> knew that.
>
>Help me out then. What is the libertarian understanding of
>'exploitation'?
I wouldn't presume to speak for libertarians as you have. I would,
however, be glad to give you my explanation of exploitation though.
Taking _unjust_ advantage of another for one's own benefit or
advantage.
>> Not at all. Instead government's institutions aren't needed
>> because their functions can be accomplished PRIVATELY.
>
>Many governmental functions can undoubtedly be accomplished
>privately.
Yes?
>> But hell, why botherl...you've got your own private set of
>> "libertarian" characteristics which I'm sure <chuckle> you've poured
>> immense time and thought into formulating. It's, quite evident
>> in the absolutes you've presented here.
>Libertarians frequently use the technique of the straw man
>and the cheap shot to attack doctrines with which they disagree.
Usually against those who employ straw men, or in your case,
those who employ the technique of describing others by "glittering
generalities". Do you actually believe your generalities are
reflective of libertarian thought?
>I feel that I have the right to do the same, but in the opposite
>direction.
You have the right to do whatever you wish...just plan on being
called on it.
>I know perfectly well what libertarianism is; I've read all the
>cited works. That doesn't mean that I can't distort it once in
>a while just for fun.
Fair enough. I guess that means I'm free to make fun of
your distortions.
_________________________
McQ
chris.holt
McQ wrote:
> >>McQ writes:
> >> There is indeed such a thing as exploitation, but that isn't present
> >> in voluntary agreement between consenting parties.
...
> I wouldn't presume to speak for libertarians as you have. I would,
> however, be glad to give you my explanation of exploitation though.
> Taking _unjust_ advantage of another for one's own benefit or
> advantage.
Given that definition of exploitation, why do you say it can't
be present in voluntary agreement between consenting parties?
--
Jason Christian
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, chris.holt wrote:
> McQ wrote:
> > >>McQ writes:
>
> > >> There is indeed such a thing as exploitation, but that isn't present
> > >> in voluntary agreement between consenting parties.
> ...
> > I wouldn't presume to speak for libertarians as you have. I would,
> > however, be glad to give you my explanation of exploitation though.
>
> > Taking _unjust_ advantage of another for one's own benefit or
> > advantage.
>
> Given that definition of exploitation, why do you say it can't
> be present in voluntary agreement between consenting parties?
I am reminded of the statement that I have always attributed, perhaps
incorrectly, to Joan Robinson. Robinson, btw, was one of John Maynard
Keynes' great students and friends, and a prominent advisor to Britain's
Labour Party. Paraphrasing, no doubt inaccurately:
The exploitation of man by man is one of the great sins that takes place
under Capitalism. It is, indeed, probably Capitalism's second greatest
sin, surpassed only when the Wicked Capitalists refuse to exploit the
worker.
}d-Q for the humo(u)r-impaired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian University of California, Davis
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu Agricultural and Resource Economics
Office:(530)752-1357 FAX:(530)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
Mark Roddy
On 17 Dec 1997 12:40:07 GMT, "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>
>BUSINESSES, whether incorporated or not, can be a source of
>coercion, for example, POLLUTION. People can sometimes be tempted
>to engage in activities that result in damage to the property of others.
>These others would then make claims against the polluters. A rational
>system of law would provide for a method of resolving these claims.
>
>In most cases, however, corporations or other businesses attempting to
>gain unfair advantage get the government to DO THE COERCING FOR
>THEM. Examples include monopoly privileges and public subsidies.
>
>Eliminating the government's power to dispense such favours would
>effectively end these business practices.
>
>
Well if by "these practices" you mean " get the government to DO THE
COERCING FOR THEM." Then you have made a very uninteresting
definitional argument. But why on earth (as in reality) would
corporations give up their profitable advantages if government were to
suddenly vanish tomorrow? Wouldn't they instead seek other means to
achieve the same ends? Wouldn't they simply take on the burden of
doing the coercing themselves?
Oh I forgot, corporations and the market only do good things,
government only bad. My fault. Never mind.
Mark Roddy
Lepore
McQ:
...
> again, from the top, tell us what coercion is in the context of a
> corporation wielding it vs. a government doing so and how each effects
> the average person.
Order-giving and order-taking social roles determine behavior,
and it doesn't matter how they come about, e.g., it doesn't
matter that employees have the theoretical right to quit their
jobs every twenty minutes and find new ones. What matters
is the power relationship. As Bob Black wrote in one of
his essays, an employer gives employees more "or else"
orders in one week than a police officer gives people in a
decade. Despite employment being theoretically voluntary,
the results of the power gap are more severe at workplaces.
For example, I know the 'Libertarians' believe that
censorship is only censorship if the government does it,
nevertheless, for every one person who feels inhibited
from self-expression for fear of being fined or arrested,
there are probably ten thousand people who feel inhibited
from self-expression for fear of penalized at the
workplace. No one gets arrested for having a union label
on a lunchbox, but people do get fired for it. The
government doesn't impose dress codes, but I have had
employers order me to put my suit jacket back on.
The 'Libertarians' are so focused on government as the
source of bad things that they don't recognize the
de facto effects of "voluntary" wage-slavery.
Tim Starr
Earlier this year, I worked at the place where "Dilbert" was created,
Pacific Bell in San Ramon, CA. Even working in a public utility that was
way over-managed & bureaucratic, I was treated better there then I have been
in ANY government institution I've ever been in, from schools to the Post
Office or the DMV.
And I've never been in trouble with the law over anything more than driving a
car without insurance. If I'd ever been in prison...
The worst thing that any private employer can do to me is make me go find
another job. I've just had to turn down more offers than I could handle after
my last job ended.
The worst thing the government can do to me is rob, enslave, & murder me.
I'm beginning to think James Donald's right about the likes of you, Lepore.
You have no objection to robbery, slavery, & murder, so long as you think
you're the one who'll be doing it in your own cause, instead of someone else
doing it to you in their cause.
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
They couldn't afford it without being able to externalize their costs onto the
taxvictims.
Just Wondering
In <ELCI6...@world.std.com> psch...@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt)
writes:
>Chloe Carter (qpc...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
>: In article <882236844....@dejanews.com>, R...@webtv.net
writes:
>
>: > I think it would be more accurate to say that both the republicans
and
>: > libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both
want to
>: > eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
>: > government.
The GOP wants to *eliminate the government*?
What a wonderful institution the Usenet is, where
else one could hear things like that...
Matthew Cromer
In article <349af...@news.osr.com> Mark Roddy, ma...@osr.com writes:
>Well if by "these practices" you mean " get the government to DO THE
>COERCING FOR THEM." Then you have made a very uninteresting
>definitional argument. But why on earth (as in reality) would
>corporations give up their profitable advantages if government were to
>suddenly vanish tomorrow? Wouldn't they instead seek other means to
>achieve the same ends? Wouldn't they simply take on the burden of
>doing the coercing themselves?
An institution with a monopoly of force can coerce. Without government
there would be no monopoly of force.
Matthew Cromer
Matthew Cromer
In article <349B03...@mxhv.net> Lepore, lep...@mxhv.net writes:
>an employer gives employees more "or else"
>orders in one week than a police officer gives people in a
>decade.
The police officer will kill you or bash your head in if you try to
resist him.
In my industry, the employers kiss the butt of the employees and toady to
their whims. Day before yesterday, one of the contractors at my job
called and complained about treatment by a regular full-time employee.
Two managers rushed over, trying to find her, frantically wanting to talk
to her. When they finally got to talk to her, they fell all over each
other apologizing for the rudeness of the RFT employee and implored her
to remain in her position. Yesterday she smiled and told me she had
another position making the same money, and asked me if she should accept
the position. If the bosses hadn't kissed her ass royally, she would
have taken the position doing Windows 95/NT administration with another
group and our group would have been eating the shit sandwich.
Despite employment being theoretically voluntary,
>the results of the power gap are more severe at workplaces.
At my workplace, the power gap is that the competetent technical people
are so prized that they can curse out their managers and still keep their
jobs. And they often do it.
>For example, I know the 'Libertarians' believe that
>censorship is only censorship if the government does it,
>nevertheless, for every one person who feels inhibited
>from self-expression for fear of being fined or arrested,
>there are probably ten thousand people who feel inhibited
>from self-expression for fear of penalized at the
>workplace.
You obviously aren't a black man, and don't know any very well. Ask a
black person whether he fears the cops more, or getting fired.
No one gets arrested for having a union label
>on a lunchbox, but people do get fired for it. The
>government doesn't impose dress codes, but I have had
>employers order me to put my suit jacket back on.
Take some advice. First off, move to an area with a dynamic economy like
the Bay Area. Get some valuable and useful skill, develop it, and watch
the employers break down your door with job offers. You will have to
beat off the head hunters and employers with a broom handle. And the
employers will let you commit murder, as long as you keep doing that
valuable skill for them instead of someone else. Your head will swell up
the size of a beach ball.
>The 'Libertarians' are so focused on government as the
>source of bad things that they don't recognize the
>de facto effects of "voluntary" wage-slavery.
I find it very hard to consider myself a slave when I have people flying
across the country to _beg_ me to join their team as a software
developer, and lie to their own company to get extra wages for me so I
will come on board. This particular woman, over fourty, with a doctorate
degree, was so _desperate_ to hire me that she overruled her own H/R
department and said I could have _as long as I wanted_ to decide on her
offer, only to please not sign on with someone else. I turned her down
because I want to move to the Bay Area in the next year or so (which will
only increase my opportunity by leaps and bounds) and not move up to
Connecticut. God, that's a feeling of power, having an employer want you
in the same desperate, yearning, hopeless way a horny, scrawny,
unattractive teen boy wants the most beautiful girl in school. I felt
such power, knowing that my decision not to work for her and her company
would make a big difference, knowing that she knew it and that I knew it,
and that she was absolutely powerless to make me work for her. And that
she would have to settle for the second-rate, because her position did
not deserve the top-rate.
. . .And because I just got another offer with a 45% increase in wages
over my present position. In the last year and a half since I decided to
quit a dead-end sales position, and to pursue a computer career, my
salary has gone up nearly three times, and I expect to double my salary
again over the next two years. My current employers beg me to stay (I am
about to give notice again, once the purchase order goes through for my
new job) because I have skills they do not nor ever will have. I have
gone from data entry clerk to desktop technician to database programmer
in the last year and a half, and my new job is a full-time database
development job. Oh, and this is all as a contractor. (some of you have
been decrying contract work as "exploitation", where for me it has meant
unequalled opportunity to advance quickly.).
So I guess I am a poor, helpless wage-slave. And I am loving it more and
more, the more I increase my marginal productivity and develop my skill
set. Just knowing that my bosses are in constant danger of losing their
jobs, and that I am not, and that their skills are easily replacable, and
that mine are not, and that soon I will be working for businesses that,
if they fire me, will lose millions of dollars from that decision and
will know that and will treat me as if I were a multi million-dollar
investment in their company--which I will be. Ahh, I recommend the life
of being a wage-slave to everyone.
BTW, I have a BS in geology and don't even have any kind of degree in
Computer Science, although I am taking classes for a programmers
certificate. I would urge in the strongest terms that anyone who feels
stuck in a dead-end position at least consider the computer field.
Matthew Cromer
Michael Jubb
Matthew Cromer wrote:
>
> In article <349B03...@mxhv.net> Lepore, lep...@mxhv.net writes:
> >an employer gives employees more "or else"
> >orders in one week than a police officer gives people in a
> >decade.
>
> The police officer will kill you or bash your head in if you try to
> resist him.
>
For once I can't resist a personal kind of reply. Matt, honestly have you ever resisted
a police officer? Did he bash you? Did he kill you?
Do you break the law regularly? Do you come into contact with the police regularly other
than a nod and a smile when they walk past? Or do you wait till they pass then stick you
finger up and mouth 'fascist' to yourself? Perhaps saying 'I smell bacon' to your
friends is more your style?
Are you black? Are you Mexican? Have you ever been unfairly treated by a police officer
because of your skin colour?
Who do you call when your property has been violated? Mommmy?
Etherman
R...@webtv.net wrote in article <882236844....@dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bd097f$d34430c0$10d6...@etherman.mdc.net>,
> "Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net> wrote:
> > Is that envy I detect? Don't worry, some day you might happen to be
right
> > about something.
> >
> Is this the ad hominum I detect?
You're very perceptive.
> > I don't see how alleged exploitation is equal to initiation of force?
> > Workers
> > are free to leave their jobs and find work elsewhere, start their own
> > businesses,
> > or not work at all.
>
> Not work at all? As I said: They believe, and it's magically correct.
>
> Would you say that no passenger on the Titanic really had to die because
> of the fact that, if somebody couldn't get on one life boat, he could
> always find another? Here you post in this thread to tell me that the
> libertarian party is not based on dogma. Then, by your faulty logic, you
> prove the exact opposite.
Your analogy is flawed. First of all, it is possible to survive without
working. People do it all the time. Second, people aboard the Titanic
couldn't build their own life rafts. Contrast this to the real world where
you can start your own business.
> >Also, in a capitalistic system it's very difficult to
> > create
> > monopolies without the help of government.
> >
>
> As I said in another post: The libertarian party believes that government
> is all bad and private enterprise is all good. The dogma never ends in
> the libertarian party.
Hardly. I, for one, don't believe private enterprise will solve all the
world's
problems. Of course, I don't believe anything can, especially government.
I also have doubts about free trade, contrary to mainstream libertarian
thought.
> > It's important to point out that, in order for a government to keep up
with
> > changing needs and changing circumstances, it has to have a set of
> > principles to base policy on. Unlike the Demopulbican party, the
> > Libertarian
> > party has such principles.
>
> Agreed. But I believe that our government should have dynamic principles,
> not dogmatic inflexible notions. If the libertarian party doesn't agree
> with this, then the libertarian party is no better than the communist
> party of the former Soviet Union. And potentially just as dangerous.
Let's assume, for the moment, that our government is controlled by
libertarians at all levels. Give me your worst case scenario.
> The government is not your mommy and it's
> > not your social net. It's not your cornucopia of "free" goods and
> > services.
> > And it's not a tool for social change. At least good government isn't.
> >
> More dogma.
Apparently we disagree about what constitutes good government (if
there is such a thing).
> I don't consider the government to be my mommy, and I certainly don't
> consider the corporate establishment to be a god.
I don't consider it to be a god either. Perhaps if you explained where you
are coming from I could understand your position better.
> > Why, because Libertarians don't think government is to be used as a
> > crutch?
>
> Apparently, you seem to think that anyone who is not a libertarian
> believes that government should be a crutch.
You sound like you do.
> I think it would be more accurate to say that both the republicans and
> libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both want to
> eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
> government. Once they do this, the corporate establishment can simply
> exploit who ever, or what ever, it wants without the fear of having to
> answer to an institution that's controlled by the people.
How does government empower the "people?" Government gives power
to a few people over the many. I'd be happy to see you give just a single
counter-example.
The free market is pretty good at empowering the people. You get to buy
goods
that you want (not just goods that the government thinks you should be able
to have). You get to buy goods cheaply (governments always increase the
cost of goods through taxation, regulations, fees, etc.). You get to
exchange
information without government interference. The list goes on and on.
> > Freedom of the individual to lead his own life, so long as he doesn't
> > harm another person or take his property.
> >
>
> This freedom would be short lived once the corporate establishment
> replaced the government.
Do you believe in some kind of conspiracy among all corporations?
That certainly sounds like what you're saying. You seem to forget that
in a free market companies compete against each other.
> > --
> > Etherman
> >
> > The Internet's sole purpose is to get porn and
> > bomb making plans into the hands of children.
>
> If you like libertarianism so much, why don't you move to sub-saharan
> Africa or some other tropical country.
>
> Robert
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
First of all, why should _I_ move? Second, what's so libertarian about
sub-saharan Africa?
--
Etherman
The Internet's sole purpose is to get porn and
bomb making plans into the hands of children.
Victor Levis
Mark Roddy <ma...@osr.com> wrote in article <349af...@news.osr.com>...
> On 17 Dec 1997 12:40:07 GMT, "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>
> >BUSINESSES, whether incorporated or not, can be a source of
> >coercion, for example, POLLUTION. People can sometimes be tempted
> >to engage in activities that result in damage to the property of
others.
> >These others would then make claims against the polluters. A rational
> >system of law would provide for a method of resolving these claims.
> >
> >In most cases, however, corporations or other businesses attempting to
> >gain unfair advantage get the government to DO THE COERCING FOR
> >THEM. Examples include monopoly privileges and public subsidies.
> >
> >Eliminating the government's power to dispense such favours would
> >effectively end these business practices.
>
> But why on earth (as in reality) would
> corporations give up their profitable advantages if government were to
> suddenly vanish tomorrow? Wouldn't they instead seek other means to
> achieve the same ends? Wouldn't they simply take on the burden of
> doing the coercing themselves?
I doubt it. People do not stand easily for coercion when done by
one person to another, even by one group to another. Only by
corrupting government to enter the redistribution game is it possible
to get people's grudging acceptance.
Rather than calling for government to vanish tomorrow, I would start
immediately implementing reforms that increase choice, remove
imposed obligations and so forth.
--
Lepore
Tim Starr wrote:
> The worst thing that any private employer can do to me is make me go find
> another job. I've just had to turn down more offers than I could handle after
> my last job ended.
You and I are both lucky. Between my wife and I we have
six college degrees and decades of experience in several
fields, so there's not a care in the world, right? But
what makes a person become a socialist is the tendency to
understand that *other* people have different impedances
in front of them. A homeless guy sleeping under a
newspaper can't just hop up and decide to work as a
senior engineer. I'm lucky and I know it. Defenders of
capitalism, however, attribute their comfort to the system
being so fair that they deserved reward and received it.
> The worst thing the government can do to me is rob, enslave, & murder me.
That's an argument for having a document like the Bill of
Rights, a political system with checks and balances, etc.
That has nothing to do with the issue of whether a
factory should have a profit charter or a nonprofit
charter.
> I'm beginning to think James Donald's right about the likes of you, Lepore.
> You have no objection to robbery, slavery, & murder, so long as you think
> you're the one who'll be doing it in your own cause, instead of someone else
> doing it to you in their cause.
As for the robbery part, we have already discussed at length
the fact that socialists don't propose "taking" anything in
the literal sense. The workers already operate the industries,
so socialism merely means workers deciding to recognize
worker-elected management as the official management.
The means of production would not be "taken" somewhere, but
the stockholders would stop receiving dividend checks.
Some call that robbery, but we get nowhere when we dwell
on how the dictionary should be written.
As for the "slavery" part, we have discussed how socialists
propose a system which guarantees all individual liberties
except for one, the ability to acquire ownership of the
means of life, on which other people depend for essential
jobs and goods.
As for the "murder" part, you've got the wrong person.
I'm the one who is frequently criticized by my fellow
socialists because I'm a pacifist and they tell me that
I shouldn't be.
As for the "my cause" and "their cause" thing, socialists
only advocate socialism if and when the day comes that
the majority of the population come to agree with the
suggestion, so the "my" and "their" dichotomy is false.
Tim Starr
In article <349BE7...@mxhv.net>, Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>Tim Starr wrote:
>
>>The worst thing that any private employer can do to me is make me go find
>>another job. I've just had to turn down more offers than I could handle after
>>my last job ended.
>
>You and I are both lucky. Between my wife and I we have
>six college degrees and decades of experience in several
>fields, so there's not a care in the world, right? But
>what makes a person become a socialist is the tendency to
>understand that *other* people have different impedances
>in front of them. A homeless guy sleeping under a
>newspaper can't just hop up and decide to work as a
>senior engineer.
Have you ever tried to hire homeless people? I've worked with people who
have. They couldn't label envelopes. They couldn't show up for work more
than one day in a row. They couldn't stay sober. They couldn't keep from
stealing from us. I used to work as a street vendor on Telegraph Ave. in
Berkeley, too. There are no "homeless" people there, only bums who don't
wanna work & don't wanna obey the rules homeless shelters have - like "No
Drinking, Fighting, or Stealing."
>I'm lucky and I know it. Defenders of
>capitalism, however, attribute their comfort to the system
>being so fair that they deserved reward and received it.
No, it's unfair. I deserve much better.
>>The worst thing the government can do to me is rob, enslave, & murder me.
>
>That's an argument for having a document like the Bill of
>Rights...
Parchment barriers to tyranny.
>a political system with checks and balances, etc.
You mean like separation of economy & state?
>That has nothing to do with the issue of whether a
>factory should have a profit charter or a nonprofit
>charter.
It has everything to do with whether all profit charters should be banned.
Etherman
Chloe Carter <qpc...@frontiernet.net> wrote in article
<67bv74$pic$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
> It is not usually as sellers that corporations engage in coercion.
> Ford doesn't have any way to *force* me to buy their car.
>
> It is as *buyers* that corporations coerce. For example, corporations
> are buyers of labor. When Ford announces that workers in a plant must
> take a pay cut, or lose their jobs, it is engaging in coercion. When
> Ford demands that the community that hosts a plant must give it a
> tax break, this too is coercion.
Whoa, slow down here. You're saying, in essence, that refusal to
buy a product is coercion. In this case the product is labor. Apparently
we have a basic disagreement on what coercion is.
> And yes, I know that in demanding these things Ford is only reacting
> to 'market forces'. There are, however, non-coercive ways for Ford
> to achieve it's goals. Some of these have actually been used here
> where I live.
You're probably right. I saw a special a few months ago, and it was
pointed
out that companies don't really benefit from downsizing. I don't see it
as having anything to do with coercion, though.
Bill Koehler
Ultimately Mr. Lepore can't stand the reality that capitalism represents
the system that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
It's
only fault lies in the fact that it only rewards the productive.
Socialism
on the other hand tries to reward the undeserving and always fails.
Consumer advocate
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation the first things
to be bought and sold, will be legislators.
vicl...@ican.net
Etherman <ethe...@mdc.net> wrote in article
<01bd0d25$5bde7aa0$04d2...@etherman.mdc.net>...
> R...@webtv.net wrote in article <882236844....@dejanews.com>...
>
>> In article <01bd097f$d34430c0$10d6...@etherman.mdc.net>,
>> "Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see how alleged exploitation is equal to initiation of force?
>>> Workers are free to leave their jobs and find work elsewhere, start
>>> their own businesses, or not work at all.
>>>
>>> Also, in a capitalistic system it's very difficult to
>>> create monopolies without the help of government.
>>
>> As I said in another post: The libertarian party believes that government
>> is all bad and private enterprise is all good. The dogma never ends in
>> the libertarian party.
>
> Hardly. I, for one, don't believe private enterprise will solve all the world's
> problems. Of course, I don't believe anything can, especially government.
> I also have doubts about free trade, contrary to mainstream libertarian thought.
Free trade: the voluntary exchange of goods and services, without
interference from third parties.
What doubts do you have?
>>> It's important to point out that, in order for a government to keep up with
>>> changing needs and changing circumstances, it has to have a set of
>>> principles to base policy on. Unlike the Demopulbican party, the
>>> Libertarian party has such principles.
Like the principle of voluntary exchange and consensual relations?
>>> The government is not your mommy and it's not your
>>> social net. It's not your cornucopia of "free" goods and services.
>>> And it's not a tool for social change. At least good government isn't.
>>>
>> More dogma.
>
> Apparently we disagree about what constitutes good government (if
> there is such a thing).
I hope it's not to interfere with voluntary exchanges.
>> I think it would be more accurate to say that both the republicans and
>> libertarians are very much the same in the sense that they both want to
>> eliminate the only institution that can empower the people - the
>> government. Once they do this, the corporate establishment can simply
>> exploit who ever, or what ever, it wants without the fear of having to
>> answer to an institution that's controlled by the people.
>
> How does government empower the "people?" Government gives power
> to a few people over the many. I'd be happy to see you give just a single
> counter-example.
>
> The free market is pretty good at empowering the people. You get to buy
> goods that you want (not just goods that the government thinks you should be
> able to have). You get to buy goods cheaply (governments always increase
> the cost of goods through taxation, regulations, fees, etc.). You get to
> exchange information without government interference. The list goes on and
> on.
I'm totally lost. Wasn't it YOU who said he was doubtful about free
trade? Now, you just listed the benefits of free trade.
>>> Freedom of the individual to lead his own life, so long as he doesn't
>>> harm another person or take his property.
Yes, and that includes trading freely.
>> This freedom would be short lived once the corporate establishment
>> replaced the government.
>
> Do you believe in some kind of conspiracy among all corporations?
> That certainly sounds like what you're saying. You seem to forget that
> in a free market companies compete against each other.
Good answer.
Now what about this trade thing?
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
McQ
qpc...@frontiernet.net (Chloe Carter) wrote:
>In article <ELCI6...@world.std.com>, psch...@world.std.com writes:
>
>> One valid function of government is to administer justice -- when force
>> or fraud are used against honest peacefule people, government should
>> enforce justice. If people are good we don't need government. If
>> people are bad, we dare not let them have the power of government.
>
>Some libertarians would argue that the criminal justice system
>(police, courts, prisons, etc.) could be and should be privatized.
>I don't agree with this; I believe that institutions that have the
>power to take away someone's freedom must be public and publicly
>accountable, through the political process. There are many, though,
>who disagree.
If your concern is accountability, what would cause private firms,
systems to be unaccountable. Afterall, you're a subscriber as are
others. You have the ultimate vote with your dollar.
I'm certainly not convinced there's any degree of accountability
I'm satisfied with today in the system we now have, are you?
_________________________
McQ
McQ
"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>McQ wrote:
>> >> There is indeed such a thing as exploitation, but that isn't present
>> >> in voluntary agreement between consenting parties.
>...
>> I wouldn't presume to speak for libertarians as you have. I would,
>> however, be glad to give you my explanation of exploitation though.
>
>> Taking _unjust_ advantage of another for one's own benefit or
>> advantage.
>
>Given that definition of exploitation, why do you say it can't
>be present in voluntary agreement between consenting parties?
Alright, Chris...you got me. I'm sure we can both come up with
an example which, although not ordinary, would refute the absolute
I've rendered above.
Let's say it's unlikely that those entering an agreement voluntarily
and consenting to the agreement are going to agree to one which
takes _unjust_ (in their opinion) advantage of them. And yes, this
assumes they have a choice.
And I might add, exploitation COULD develop in that sort of
relationship eventually, but wouldn't be likely to be present
in the terms of the agreement as they agreed to execute it
(unless one of the parties is just dumber than a box of rocks).
_________________________
McQ
Caesar
> Ultimately Mr. Lepore can't stand the reality that capitalism represents
> the system that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
> It's
> only fault lies in the fact that it only rewards the productive.
You say that capitalism only rewards the "productive". However, many
of the people who gain great wealth from capitalism themselves
produce little. After all, a wealthy man with $10 million-worth
of stocks and shares may get $500,000 of dividends every year. He
doesn't need to be productive to get that money. He needs the
workers for those firms to be good at earning profits for their
employer.
Also, why would you say (for example) that basketball players and
pop stars (who earn millions) are thousands of times more productive
than ordinary office workers?
> Socialism
> on the other hand tries to reward the undeserving and always fails.
Depends how you define undeserving.
If you define anyone who doesn't have a job as 'undeserving' then any
welfare state which gives benefits to the unemployed, the disabled,
pensioners and children will be seen as a bad idea by you. However, I
don't see it that way. I see a welfare state as an attempt to distribute
the fruits of material abundance which exist in modern developed
nations to the disadvantaged in society, as well as to the rich and
the middle-class.
If by socialism you mean 'the control and owership of the means of
production by the state or by workers' then it is difficult to see
how that rewards the undeserving. The idea behind state ownership,
nationalisation and workers' co-operatives is that the state or
workers at a particular workplace can run businesses better
than capitalists can.
> Consumer advocate
>
> When buying and selling are controlled by legislation the first things
> to be bought and sold, will be legislators.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Email address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk
"A full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty
stomach" - Franklin D. Roosevelt
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey N Woodford
On 20 Dec 97 08:54:47 GMT Etherman (ethe...@mdc.net) wrote:
: Let's assume, for the moment, that our government is controlled by
: libertarians at all levels. Give me your worst case scenario.
We will see a replay of late 19th-century abuses, when government
vigorously went against union violence, but were strangely silent when
it came to prosecuting corporate violence.
-Jeff
--
Jeffrey N. Woodford jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu photon.unl.edu/jeff/home.html
"...the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the
ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers." - Street v. New York
McQ
>Lepore wrote:
>>McQ:
>
>> again, from the top, tell us what coercion is in the context of a
>> corporation wielding it vs. a government doing so and how each effects
>> the average person.
>
>Order-giving and order-taking social roles determine behavior,
>and it doesn't matter how they come about, e.g., it doesn't
>matter that employees have the theoretical right to quit their
>jobs every twenty minutes and find new ones. What matters
>is the power relationship.
All relationships, ALL RELATIONSHIPS, involve power
in one way or the other. Can you think of a single one
that doesn't?
> As Bob Black wrote in one of
>his essays, an employer gives employees more "or else"
>orders in one week than a police officer gives people in a
>decade.
Which has what to do with anything? That is the NATURE
of that relationship. You know that when you sign on. You also
know that, unless you have a financial stake in the company,
you are only risking your immediate labor. So in terms of the
amount invested, the relationship makes sense. Those with
the greatest investment SHOULD be making the rules and
giving the orders, since THEY have the most to lose.
> Despite employment being theoretically voluntary,
>the results of the power gap are more severe at workplaces.
More severe than what?
>For example, I know the 'Libertarians' believe that
>censorship is only censorship if the government does it,
>nevertheless, for every one person who feels inhibited
>from self-expression for fear of being fined or arrested,
>there are probably ten thousand people who feel inhibited
>from self-expression for fear of penalized at the
>workplace.
Ah, but again, they have a choice to make, don't they, whether
you agree with the validity of the choice involved or not. With
government censorship you DON'T have a choice because
you're never offered one. That choice is made ABOVE you.
If you walk into a bookstore and see a book you find abhorrent,
you don't have to buy it. But that doesn't keep others that DO want
it from buying it. That's not censorship.
If the bookstore in question finds the book in question abhorrent,
they can make the choice to not buy or stock it. But that doesn't keep
other bookstores from buying or stocking it. THAT's not censorship.
If the government finds a book abhorrent and won't allow it
to be published, you're SOL, buddy.
>No one gets arrested for having a union label
>on a lunchbox, but people do get fired for it.
Who owns the company, Mike? And what do those rights
of ownership entail?
>The government doesn't impose dress codes, but I have
>had employers order me to put my suit jacket back on.
It's THEIR company, Mike...THEY get to make the rules.
Move on if you don't like it, or petition to have that changed,
or shrug it off as really not important and concentrate on doing
your job. Maybe what you should have done, though, was
check it all out before you said "yes" when they offered
you that job.
>The 'Libertarians' are so focused on government as the
>source of bad things that they don't recognize the
>de facto effects of "voluntary" wage-slavery.
Nothing is slavery when the "slave" has a choice as to
whether to remain one.
_________________________
McQ
McQ
>Jason Christian wrote:
<snip>
>The exploitation of man by man is one of the great sins that takes place
>under Capitalism. It is, indeed, probably Capitalism's second greatest
>sin, surpassed only when the Wicked Capitalists refuse to exploit the
>worker.
There's one I can remember, but I'm afraid I can't tell you to whom
it should be attributed. No matter, it goes something like this:
"Capitalism is man exploiting man. Socialism is the reverse."
_________________________
McQ
Mark VanTassel
On Mon, 22 Dec 97 03:06:20 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
wrote:
>You say that capitalism only rewards the "productive". However, many
>of the people who gain great wealth from capitalism themselves
>produce little. After all, a wealthy man with $10 million-worth
>of stocks and shares may get $500,000 of dividends every year. He
>doesn't need to be productive to get that money. He needs the
>workers for those firms to be good at earning profits for their
>employer.
I'd say that a man with $10 Million has already BEEN quite productive.
If he seems to be slacking now, I think he's EARNED the right to slack
off. You wanna slack off, you go earn $10 million yourself.
>Also, why would you say (for example) that basketball players and
>pop stars (who earn millions) are thousands of times more productive
>than ordinary office workers?
Obviously they *ARE* thousands of times more productive! I'm serious,
though it may requiring expanding your idea of "productivity". You
see, in our society, people are willing and able to pay BIG BUCKS for
entertainment. Watching ordinary office workers push paper would get
boring real quick. What we need is something really entertaining...
something that will keep thousands, maybe millions, of people
entertained for hours at a time, day in and day out, for year after
year... in my book, anyone who can accomplish THAT is being VERY
productive indeed.
But more importantly, WHY DO YOU CARE? Has a basketball player ever
forcibly extracted money from you? If not, how can his wealth affect
you, aside from petty jealousy?
>If by socialism you mean 'the control and owership of the means of
>production by the state or by workers' then it is difficult to see
>how that rewards the undeserving. The idea behind state ownership,
>nationalisation and workers' co-operatives is that the state or
>workers at a particular workplace can run businesses better
>than capitalists can.
If there was a better (more efficient, more productive, more
customer-satisfying) way to run the business, you can bet that those
darn capitalists would be running it that way pretty soon. And if they
didn't, they'd be pushed out of business by someone who could.
State-run enterprises, on the other hand, have an abysmal track
record.
Terry Reedy
In article <349af...@news.osr.com>, ma...@osr.com says...
>But why on earth (as in reality) would
>corporations give up their profitable advantages if government were to
>suddenly vanish tomorrow?
First, lets remember that 'governments' and 'corporations' are unreal
abstractions standing in for multiple real individuals that do the real
acting.
> Wouldn't they instead seek other means to
> achieve the same ends? Wouldn't they simply take on the burden of
> doing the coercing themselves?
The 'they' who might do such are corporate leaders, not 'corporations'.
What you are asking is whether they would revert to the behaviour of a
few such people in the 19th century who hired private goons to bang the
heads of workers. Why did those few nearly entirely quit such
practices, and why are those inclined to succeed thru force so anxious
to hide behind the skirts of 'legitimate' government? 1) Workers fought
back. 2) Other people, including customers, did not and would not
approve. Such disapproval has and can lead to fatal boycotts, if not
support of counterviolence. Corporate people inclined to coercion
desparately NEED the fig leaf to government frontmen to succeed.
Many of today's corporate executives would LOVE to be free of the need
to pay protection money to the Washington gangsters. It is probably no
coincidence that the largest corporation to mostly ignore them and not
'play ball' is being assiduously pursued by their enforcers. Bill Gates
may yet wish that he had had Microsoft pony up a million each for the
duopolist parties, as AT&T and others did in 96.
What I wonder is why some anti-libertarians, supposedly anti-corporation
, are so anxious to provide 'government' skirts for various private
persons, including some corporation leaders, to exploit and hide behind.
Terry J. Reedy
Terry Reedy
In article <67mkki$o...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu
says...>: Let's assume, for the moment, that our government is controlled by
>: libertarians at all levels. Give me your worst case scenario.
>
>vigorously went against union violence, but were strangely silent when
>it came to prosecuting corporate violence.
All libertarians condem such policy. So why do you think that
libertarians would re-institute them?
Terry J. Reedy
Terry Reedy
In article <349B03...@mxhv.net>, lep...@mxhv.net says...
>The 'Libertarians' are so focused on government as the
>source of bad things that they don't recognize the
>de facto effects of "voluntary" wage-slavery.
I am one libertarian who very well does recognize such effects, which is
why I prefer freedom to wage-slavery, even though it currently pays less
well. (Anyone need some custom programming? Data analysis?) I know
that I am not at all unique.
However, I see Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor as all
supportive of each other. Government people want and need large
corporations to train people to be docile and easily taxed, governed,
and kept track of. In return, they give out maybe 100 billion in
corporate welfare.
Are you willing to recognize the de facto effects of involuntary
tax-and-regulation slavery?
Terry J. Reedy
Terry Reedy
In article <882759...@augur.demon.co.uk>, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk
says...
>Also, why would you say (for example) that basketball players and
>pop stars (who earn millions) are thousands of times more productive
>than ordinary office workers?
I am jealous too. But let's face it. Highly paid stars are highly paid
because (thru modern media) they produce enjoyment for millions of
people who are willing to pay such stars (via intermediaries) for such
enjoyment. If this bugs you enough, you can effect change with
either guns or persuasion. By the latter, I mean persuade enough people
not to watch and enjoy such people.
Ordinary office workers usually affect only a few people. A star making
1000 times as much may easily bring joy to a 1000 times as many people.
This is quite aside from the rarity factor.
Terry J. Reedy
R...@webtv.net
In article <882834511....@dejanews.com>,
R...@webtv.net wrote:
In article <01bd0d25$5bde7aa0$04d2...@etherman.mdc.net>,
"Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net> wrote:
>
>
> R...@webtv.net wrote in article <882236844....@dejanews.com>...
> > In article <01bd097f$d34430c0$10d6...@etherman.mdc.net>,
> > "Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net> wrote:
> > > Is that envy I detect? Don't worry, some day you might happen to be
> right
> > > about something.
> > >
> > Is this the ad hominum I detect?
>
> You're very perceptive.
>
Why thank you.
> > > I don't see how alleged exploitation is equal to initiation of
force? > > > Workers > > > are free to leave their jobs and find work
elsewhere, start their own > > > businesses, > > > or not work at all.
> > > > Not work at all? As I said: They believe, and it's magically
correct. > > > > Would you say that no passenger on the Titanic really
had to die because > > of the fact that, if somebody couldn't get on one
life boat, he could > > always find another? Here you post in this
thread to tell me that the > > libertarian party is not based on dogma.
Then, by your faulty logic, you > > prove the exact opposite. > > Your
analogy is flawed. First of all, it is possible to survive without >
working. People do it all the time.
In a welfare state it's possible to live without working. Of course, if
Libertarians had their way, this avenue of escape would be closed.
>Second, people aboard the Titanic > couldn't build their own life
rafts. Contrast this to the real world where > you can start your own
business. >
Where would you get the money to start your own business? By not
working???
> > >Also, in a capitalistic system it's very difficult to > > > create
> > > monopolies without the help of government. > > > > > > > As I
said in another post: The libertarian party believes that government > >
is all bad and private enterprise is all good. The dogma never ends in >
> the libertarian party. > > Hardly. I, for one, don't believe private
enterprise will solve all the > world's > problems. Of course, I don't
believe anything can, especially government.
I don't expect the government to try to solve all our problems, but I do
believe that the government should be obligated to make sure that
opportunity is always open to ALL people. Not just to those who are lucky
enough to have money to begin with. Unfortunately, this philosophy is
definitely contrary to popular libertarian opinion. If Libertarians had
their way, money would be the only prerequisite for success.
> I also have doubts about free trade, contrary to mainstream libertarian
> thought.
>
So do I.
> > > It's important to point out that, in order for a government to
keep up > with > > > changing needs and changing circumstances, it has
to have a set of > > > principles to base policy on. Unlike the
Demopulbican party, the > > > Libertarian > > > party has such
principles. > > > > Agreed. But I believe that our government should
have dynamic principles, > > not dogmatic inflexible notions. If the
libertarian party doesn't agree > > with this, then the libertarian
party is no better than the communist > > party of the former Soviet
Union. And potentially just as dangerous. > > Let's assume, for the
moment, that our government is controlled by > libertarians at all
levels. Give me your worst case scenario. >
What if a company like Wal-mart continued to grow until it became the
only retail business in the country? If it did, Wal-mart would then be in
a position where it could dictate prices and quality to the customer.
Imagine paying $150.00 for a toaster that doesn't work. If you were a
customer, you would either have to pay this or do without. Many
Libertarians would probably argue that, if people were paying $150.00 for
toasters, somebody would simply start his/her own business and sell
cheaper toasters. Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Don't forget
that, under a Libertarian government, few contractual agreements would be
illegal. This means that, if a company became wealthy enough, it could
buy out all competing businesses and keep it's monopoly. In fact,
according to my Popular science magazine, this is exactly why DBS
satellite television came about 7 years late in this country. The cable
television companies bought out the original DBS companies with the
intention of destroying them. That way, the local corporate monopoly
wouldn't have had to compete with anybody else.
Any business that refused to sale out could be driven out of business by
Wal-mart selling their own merchandise at below market prices.
Another problem that a small retailer would face, in a Wal-mart dominated
world, is finding somebody to sell him/her wholesale merchandise. Why?
Because Wal-mart would also be in a position to stop all business
dealings with any wholesaler who contracted with any other retailer.
If a wealthy business and a not so wealthy business were pitted against
each other, in the manners that I described above, the wealthy business
would always win.
Under a Libertarian government, the noncapitalist would not only have to
bow down and kiss the feet of his employer, he would also have to bow
down and kiss the feet his retailer. And all noncapitalists would be
little more than slaves at the mercy of the corporate establishment.
> > The government is not your mommy and it's > > > not your social
net. It's not your cornucopia of "free" goods and > > > services. > >
> And it's not a tool for social change. At least good government isn't.
> > > > > More dogma. > > Apparently we disagree about what
constitutes good government (if > there is such a thing). > > > I
don't consider the government to be my mommy, and I certainly don't > >
consider the corporate establishment to be a god. > > I don't consider
it to be a god either. Perhaps if you explained where you > > are
coming from I could understand your position better. >
Anything that you choose to exalt above the level of reason could only be
a god.
> > > Why, because Libertarians don't think government is to be used as
a > > > crutch? > > > > Apparently, you seem to think that anyone who
is not a libertarian > > believes that government should be a crutch. >
> You sound like you do. > > > I think it would be more accurate to
say that both the republicans and > > libertarians are very much the
same in the sense that they both want to > > eliminate the only
institution that can empower the people - the > > government. Once they
do this, the corporate establishment can simply > > exploit who ever, or
what ever, it wants without the fear of having to > > answer to an
institution that's controlled by the people. > > How does government
empower the "people?"
DEMOCRACY. Any questions?
>Government gives power > to a few people over the many. I'd be happy
to see you give just a single > counter-example.
You seem to think that a true democracy is impossible. I wouldn't be
surprised if you believe that any kind of collective will is
totalitarian.
Robert
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usene
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
ttttttttttttt...@etherman.mdc.net>,
> > > "Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net> wrote:
> > > > Is
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
R...@webtv.net
In article <882842719....@dejanews.com>,
R...@webtv.net wrote:
In article <882743797....@dejanews.com>, vicl...@ican.net
wrote: > > Etherman <ethe...@mdc.net> wrote in article >
<01bd0d25$5bde7aa0$04d2...@etherman.mdc.net>... > > > R...@webtv.net
wrote in article <882236844....@dejanews.com>... > > > >> In
article <01bd097f$d34430c0$10d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, > >> "Etherman"
<ethe...@mdc.net> wrote: > >> > >>> I don't see how alleged
exploitation is equal to initiation of force? > >>> Workers are free to
leave their jobs and find work elsewhere, start > >>> their own
businesses, or not work at all. > >>> > >>> Also, in a capitalistic
system it's very difficult to > >>> create monopolies without the help
of government. > >> > >> As I said in another post: The libertarian
party believes that government > >> is all bad and private enterprise is
all good. The dogma never ends in > >> the libertarian party. > > > >
Hardly. I, for one, don't believe private enterprise will solve all the
world's > > problems. Of course, I don't believe anything can,
especially government. > > I also have doubts about free trade, contrary
to mainstream libertarian thought. > > Free trade: the voluntary
exchange of goods and services, without > interference from third
parties. > > What doubts do you have? > > >>> It's important to point
out that, in order for a government to keep up with > >>> changing needs
and changing circumstances, it has to have a set of > >>> principles to
base policy on. Unlike the Demopulbican party, the > >>> Libertarian
party has such principles. > > Like the principle of voluntary exchange
and consensual relations? > > >>> The government is not your mommy and
it's not your > >>> social net. It's not your cornucopia of "free"
goods and services. > >>> And it's not a tool for social change. At
least good government isn't. > >>> > >> More dogma. > > > >
Apparently we disagree about what constitutes good government (if > >
there is such a thing). > > I hope it's not to interfere with voluntary
exchanges. > > >> I think it would be more accurate to say that both
the republicans and > >> libertarians are very much the same in the
sense that they both want to > >> eliminate the only institution that
can empower the people - the > >> government. Once they do this, the
corporate establishment can simply > >> exploit who ever, or what ever,
it wants without the fear of having to > >> answer to an institution
that's controlled by the people. > > > > How does government empower
the "people?" Government gives power > > to a few people over the many.
I'd be happy to see you give just a single > > counter-example. > > >
> The free market is pretty good at empowering the people. You get to buy
> > goods that you want (not just goods that the government thinks you
should be > > able to have). You get to buy goods cheaply (governments
always increase > > the cost of goods through taxation, regulations,
fees, etc.). You get to > > exchange information without government
interference. The list goes on and > > on. > > I'm totally lost.
Wasn't it YOU who said he was doubtful about free > trade? Now, you
just listed the benefits of free trade. > > >>> Freedom of the
individual to lead his own life, so long as he doesn't > >>> harm
another person or take his property. > > Yes, and that includes trading
freely. > > >> This freedom would be short lived once the corporate
establishment > >> replaced the government. > > > > Do you believe in
some kind of conspiracy among all corporations? > > That certainly
sounds like what you're saying. You seem to forget that > > in a free
market companies compete against each other. > > Good answer. > > Now
what about this trade thing? > > Victor Levis > > Freedom of
Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others >
It would seem that Libertarianism is a religion after all. Even the
slightest descent from Libertarian dogma is considered to be evidence of
devil possession.
Robert
-------------------==== Posted via Deja
News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenetom>,
vicl...@ican.net wrote:
>
> Etherman <e
Danette & Murray Root
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:01:04 -0600, R...@webtv.net wrote in
talk.politics.libertarian:
=> In a welfare state it's possible to live without working. Of course, if
=> Libertarians had their way, this avenue of escape would be closed.
Do you have a problem with this?
=> Where would you get the money to start your own business? By not
=> working???
No, by working at something you don't like for a while and saving. Or by
convincing someone who has money that you have a marketable idea.
=> I don't expect the government to try to solve all our problems, but I do
=> believe that the government should be obligated to make sure that
=> opportunity is always open to ALL people. Not just to those who are lucky
=> enough to have money to begin with. Unfortunately, this philosophy is
=> definitely contrary to popular libertarian opinion. If Libertarians had
=> their way, money would be the only prerequisite for success.
Nope. Willingness to work for what you want is the only prerequisite. I
started with debt, worked hard, received NO assistance, and I support my
family very well. It took ten years and a lot of work.
=>
=> > I also have doubts about free trade, contrary to mainstream libertarian
=> > thought.
=> >
=> So do I.
Why?
=> What if a company like Wal-mart continued to grow until it became the
=> only retail business in the country?
You are starting from an assumption that can only happen with government
interference.
=> If it did, Wal-mart would then be in
=> a position where it could dictate prices and quality to the customer.
=> Imagine paying $150.00 for a toaster that doesn't work. If you were a
=> customer, you would either have to pay this or do without. Many
=> Libertarians would probably argue that, if people were paying $150.00 for
=> toasters, somebody would simply start his/her own business and sell
=> cheaper toasters. Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Don't forget
=> that, under a Libertarian government, few contractual agreements would be
=> illegal. This means that, if a company became wealthy enough, it could
=> buy out all competing businesses and keep it's monopoly.
In that case they would have to buy out so many people they would go broke.
Something like integrated circuits, which require a huge investment just to
get started, maybe. Simple things, no way.
=> In fact,
=> according to my Popular science magazine, this is exactly why DBS
=> satellite television came about 7 years late in this country. The cable
=> television companies bought out the original DBS companies with the
=> intention of destroying them. That way, the local corporate monopoly
=> wouldn't have had to compete with anybody else.
A few years ago they said the same thing about electric cars. I don't credit
PS as a reliable source.
=> Any business that refused to sale out could be driven out of business by
=> Wal-mart selling their own merchandise at below market prices.
But, as I stated earlier, this requires Wal-mart to have an unfair advantage
AT THE BEGINNING.
---- snip more of the 'if Wal-mart were king' ----
=> Under a Libertarian government, the noncapitalist would not only have to
=> bow down and kiss the feet of his employer, he would also have to bow
=> down and kiss the feet his retailer. And all noncapitalists would be
=> little more than slaves at the mercy of the corporate establishment.
This is pure <expletive deleted>. Why would a noncapitalist have to bow down
to his employer? Currently, as an independent consultant, *I* set my rates,
and I only work for major corporations.
=>
=> DEMOCRACY. Any questions?
Yes, what makes you think that the people, who, over 50% on the latest polls,
believe that an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell, are smart enough as a
group to determine what is best for *you*?
=> You seem to think that a true democracy is impossible.
I don't. I merely believe it is undesirable,
=> I wouldn't be
=> surprised if you believe that any kind of collective will is
=> totalitarian.
No, it's disgusting. I am me. I am NOT merely a part of a machine.
__________________________________________________________________
Copyright 1997, Murray J. Root
I do not admit to saying, posting, or writing anything.
You may copy, reprint, repost, or otherwise disseminate
any of this information in any format you desire, as long
as you do not attempt to attach any blame to me.
__________________________________________________________________
Charles Cawley
Danette & Murray Root wrote in message
<349f64cc....@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:01:04 -0600, R...@webtv.net wrote in
>talk.politics.libertarian:
>
Large Deletion
>
>This is pure <expletive deleted>. Why would a noncapitalist have to bow
down
>to his employer? Currently, as an independent consultant, *I* set my rates,
>and I only work for major corporations.
>
>=>
>=> DEMOCRACY. Any questions?
>
>Yes, what makes you think that the people, who, over 50% on the latest
polls,
>believe that an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell, are smart enough as a
>group to determine what is best for *you*?
>
>=> You seem to think that a true democracy is impossible.
>
>I don't. I merely believe it is undesirable,
>
>=> I wouldn't be
>=> surprised if you believe that any kind of collective will is
>=> totalitarian.
>
>No, it's disgusting. I am me. I am NOT merely a part of a machine.
>
Here we go again. Democracy is not a simple balancing act where the most
votes have the say so. Even in ancient Greece the device was carefully
designed to avoid the absurdities noted above. The members of the assembly
were only selected from a very narrow group, excluding slaves, women and a
vast proportion of the population. To a certain exent that happens today.
The Greeks also used the ornate system of selection by lot for some posts.
(Yes, Democracy is quite complex).
I find it very strange that the simplistic view of Democracy should prevail
when it appears in highly complex and vast variety in many countries
practised better of worse depending on your choice of example.
For instance, in the US the constitution to an extent acts to protect the
prerequisites for communication, and rights talk also centres around these
basic requirements, without which Democracy would self destruct in the
simple way mentioned above. If you cannot communicate, then voting or
representation becomes a hollow affair.
For a system to be coherent, it cannot be self defeating. Democracy must
have foundations, and so simplistic remarks such as those above only
illustrate just how much we have been let down by the Universities and
colleges which have shamefully failed to come up with any coherent powerful
theories about Democracy which would see off such destructive shallow
analysis. (This pathetic failure could be put at the door of the
relativists, but I will not ride that hobby horse here).
Such negativity appears very strange as many have a view of the America as
being the land of positive, "can do" people. Democracy appears to be a
better way of doing things than alternatives, why on earth do you persist is
5th grade knock down simplistic arguments which do nothing to improve and
much to destroy?
"Collective will" v "Me" are not the only choices.
In the first case, "will" requires consciousness and consciousness requires
presence. Collective will must therefore imply collective conscious and
collective action. It implies a social mind and treats individuals as atoms
of its body. It is of course wrong, because atoms in reality have no
consciousness, where as we do. The collective will, if it could or does
exist, would be subject to its atoms willfulness and tendency to act in non
logical or illogical ways. Real atoms behave by different rules, although
some hair splitters may quote the Shrodinger equation (I am not certain how
to spell his name) to undermine this proposition.
Thus the corporate body of the collective will is not made up of analagous
items as the body of a person. The frontis piece of Hobbes 'Leviathan' with
the Sovereign's body made up of bishops, soldiers etc, is an early example
of this confusion. The first page of this book is available free on the
internet revealing the error. (Under: 'Political Theory on the Internet')
"Will" requires focus and reflective consciousness which in turn requires
self reflection, there is no self reflection in a group of people as a
group.
In the second case of "Me" another problem arises. Without presuming to
understand how others think when we speak, we could not communicate without
stating an entire cosmology and a master philosophy whenever we attempted to
communicate. Indeed all communication leaves out at least 95% of the
material required to come to an understanding.
"Me" depends on presumptions about us. Whether "Me" likes it or not, I am
an I. There is commonality in individuality. Although not part of a
machine, there is a part of me in every one else, that has to be so to be
able to communicate, and not to be drawn into a solipisist nightmare.
The process of recognising who are the "Mes" and what are unconscious things
is essential for any political system as it has to identify who are the
citizens. Democracy has a duty to do this: (another complexity of
Democracy). Likewise, co-operation depends utterly on Mes accepting they
share common features with others, all communication rests on this. "Do you
speak English," asked the tourist?
These matters are complex and interesting, please, please desist from
destructive one liners about Democracy and try to look at it in a more
sophisticated way. It can be made to work, and appears to be doing rather
well across the world, albeit in partial forms. The interesting question
is, if it is so weak, why is it spreading across the world, if only as a
cloak in some cases, rather than systems such a Monarchy or Nazi
dictatorships?
If it is libertarian to knock Democracy, count me out. I might quite like
the "Libert" part but the rest could smack of something else.
Regards,
Charles Cawley Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
Caesar
In article <349ef6c0...@news.mindspring.com>
ma...@techie.com___fool.the.robots "Mark VanTassel" writes:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 97 03:06:20 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
> wrote:
>
> >You say that capitalism only rewards the "productive". However, many
> >of the people who gain great wealth from capitalism themselves
> >produce little. After all, a wealthy man with $10 million-worth
> >of stocks and shares may get $500,000 of dividends every year. He
> >doesn't need to be productive to get that money. He needs the
> >workers for those firms to be good at earning profits for their
> >employer.
>
> I'd say that a man with $10 Million has already BEEN quite productive.
> If he seems to be slacking now, I think he's EARNED the right to slack
> off. You wanna slack off, you go earn $10 million yourself.
So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
>
> >Also, why would you say (for example) that basketball players and
> >pop stars (who earn millions) are thousands of times more productive
> >than ordinary office workers?
>
> Obviously they *ARE* thousands of times more productive! I'm serious,
> though it may requiring expanding your idea of "productivity". You
> see, in our society, people are willing and able to pay BIG BUCKS for
> entertainment.
People paying money to somebody doesn't mean that person is productive.
If so, then giving money to charities would mean that charity is
"productive".
> Watching ordinary office workers push paper would get
> boring real quick. What we need is something really entertaining...
> something that will keep thousands, maybe millions, of people
> entertained for hours at a time, day in and day out, for year after
> year... in my book, anyone who can accomplish THAT is being VERY
> productive indeed.
>
> But more importantly, WHY DO YOU CARE? Has a basketball player ever
> forcibly extracted money from you? If not, how can his wealth affect
> you, aside from petty jealousy?
>
> >If by socialism you mean 'the control and owership of the means of
> >production by the state or by workers' then it is difficult to see
> >how that rewards the undeserving. The idea behind state ownership,
> >nationalisation and workers' co-operatives is that the state or
> >workers at a particular workplace can run businesses better
> >than capitalists can.
>
> If there was a better (more efficient, more productive, more
> customer-satisfying) way to run the business, you can bet that those
> darn capitalists would be running it that way pretty soon. And if they
> didn't, they'd be pushed out of business by someone who could.
>
> State-run enterprises, on the other hand, have an abysmal track
> record.
I agree that state-run compnaies are not known for their profitability.
But that is partially because they don't see profitability as a goal
in itself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Real e-mail address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk
Etherman
Mark VanTassel <ma...@techie.com___fool.the.robots> wrote in article
<349ef6c0...@news.mindspring.com>...
> >Also, why would you say (for example) that basketball players and
> >pop stars (who earn millions) are thousands of times more productive
> >than ordinary office workers?
>
> Obviously they *ARE* thousands of times more productive! I'm serious,
> though it may requiring expanding your idea of "productivity". You
> see, in our society, people are willing and able to pay BIG BUCKS for
> entertainment. Watching ordinary office workers push paper would get
> boring real quick. What we need is something really entertaining...
> something that will keep thousands, maybe millions, of people
> entertained for hours at a time, day in and day out, for year after
> year... in my book, anyone who can accomplish THAT is being VERY
> productive indeed.
There's another reason why they are productive, at least indirectly. A
simple fact of psychology is that people need to relax occasionally. If
they don't then they become stressed and inefficient. That means that
they're not as productive. Some people find watching basketball to be
relaxing (even if they're jumping up and down yelling at the screen
because of bad plays, bad ref. decisions, etc.). Entertainers help keep
other people productive too.
Etherman
Jeffrey N Woodford <jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu> wrote in article
<67mkki$o...@crcnis3.unl.edu>...
> On 20 Dec 97 08:54:47 GMT Etherman (ethe...@mdc.net) wrote:
> : Let's assume, for the moment, that our government is controlled by
> : libertarians at all levels. Give me your worst case scenario.
>
> We will see a replay of late 19th-century abuses, when government
> vigorously went against union violence, but were strangely silent when
> it came to prosecuting corporate violence.
>
> -Jeff
> --
> Jeffrey N. Woodford jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu
photon.unl.edu/jeff/home.html
> "...the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because
the
> ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers." - Street v. New
York
Would it be better if the government vigorously went against corporate
violence, but was strangely silent when it came to union violence? If your
answer is no, then congratulations, you're one step closer to
Libertarianism.
In a Libertarian society both are illegal.
Terry Reedy
In response to
> Give me your worst case scenario [if libertarians took over]
R...@webtv.net said
> What if a company like Wal-mart continued to grow until it became the
> only retail business in the country?
etc.
Interesting. What you have described is part of what did happen in the
Soviet Union when anti-libertarian authoritarians took over. Few
Americans realize the extent to which the Soviet 'state' (as a front for
the criminal 'nomenclatura' leadership) owned all land, all factories,
all
production equipment, all stores, much housing, and was officially the
ONLY employer. In particular, all official retail sales in buildings
were
the provence of one empire-wide crude-mart agency (which did sell shoddy
merchandise for take-it-or leave-it prices, as you projected WalMartUSA
might).
It took 10s of millions of murders to establish this system and spies
literally in every housing unit connected with a Siberian gulag to
maintain it. I am puzzled why some people think that an opposite system
-- of freedom -- would result in the same outcome. WalMartUSA is much
more likely in the current Mobocrat/Publican system in which the leaders
of large corporation can buy both billions in subsidies for a kickback
of
about 1% and g-man-gun-backed roadblocks for individual contractors and
entrepreneurs and small businesspeople.
> Under a Libertarian government, the noncapitalist would not only have
to
> bow down and kiss the feet of his employer, he would also have to bow
> down and kiss the feet his retailer. And all noncapitalists would be
> little more than slaves at the mercy of the corporate establishment.
You describe WalMartUSA as some sort of incorporeal monster. But the
reality would still be people -- people with mortal bodies, subject to
being injured and killed, and with a desire not to be seen as monsters
by
their neighbors. In a country with free speech, nasty corporate
executives would not be nearly as successful in hypnotizing the populace
as the Soviet leadership was - for a while.
As for coerced contracts: I would not consider the general public in a
libertarian society to have any obligation to enforce such. The
untimate
enforcer of contracts in a free market in reputation and ostracism, not
force. The executives of WalMartUSA would get little sympathy from
anybody.
As for 'slavishness': a libertarian society will only come about when a
majority of people give up their current voluntary slavishness. In such
a
society, demands for foot-kissing will occasionally be answered with
head-bashing and other mayhem (consider the occasional outbursts of
postal workers). It is neither fair nor coherent to postulate both a
population that is both libertarian enough to establish a free society
and
sheepish enough to tolerate crude personal abuse.
Terry J. Reedy
R...@webtv.net
In article <349f64cc....@news.mindspring.com>,
Murra...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:01:04 -0600, R...@webtv.net wrote in
> talk.politics.libertarian:
>
> => Libertarians had their way, this avenue of escape would be closed.
>
> Do you have a problem with this?
>
I can't help but notice how most Libertarians prefer the emotional
interpretation over the rational interpretation. What I was saying here
is that, in the absence of a welfare state, choosing not to work is less
of an option.
> => Where would you get the money to start your own business? By not
> => working???
>
> No, by working at something you don't like for a while and saving. Or by
> convincing someone who has money that you have a marketable idea.
>
> => I don't expect the government to try to solve all our problems, but I do
> => believe that the government should be obligated to make sure that
> => opportunity is always open to ALL people. Not just to those who are lucky
> => enough to have money to begin with. Unfortunately, this philosophy is
> => definitely contrary to popular libertarian opinion. If Libertarians had
> => their way, money would be the only prerequisite for success.
>
> Nope. Willingness to work for what you want is the only prerequisite. I
> started with debt, worked hard, received NO assistance, and I support my
> family very well. It took ten years and a lot of work.
>
It's interesting that you say: "Willingness to work IS the only
prerequisite". The question here is: WOULD people be able to work their
way up the economic ladder if we lived under a Libertarian government?
Personally, I doubt it.
> =>
> => > I also have doubts about free trade, contrary to mainstream libertarian
> => > thought.
> => >
> => So do I.
>
> Why?
>
Do you think that using slave labor in a foreign country is any less
objectionable than using slave labor here in the United States? Oh, I
forgot. Libertarians believe that slave labor is ok as long as it
benefits the corporate establishment.
> => What if a company like Wal-mart continued to grow until it became the
> => only retail business in the country?
>
> You are starting from an assumption that can only happen with government
> interference.
>
> => If it did, Wal-mart would then be in
> => a position where it could dictate prices and quality to the customer.
> => Imagine paying $150.00 for a toaster that doesn't work. If you were a
> => customer, you would either have to pay this or do without. Many
> => Libertarians would probably argue that, if people were paying $150.00 for
> => toasters, somebody would simply start his/her own business and sell
> => cheaper toasters. Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Don't forget
> => that, under a Libertarian government, few contractual agreements would be
> => illegal. This means that, if a company became wealthy enough, it could
> => buy out all competing businesses and keep it's monopoly.
>
> In that case they would have to buy out so many people they would go broke.
> Something like integrated circuits, which require a huge investment just to
> get started, maybe. Simple things, no way.
>
You seem to be forgetting that hardly anything is simple anymore. In
fact, this is the main reason why the Libertarian government, that we had
200 years ago, ceased to function. Back in the old days, a man with a
shovel could easily get a job as a ditch digger. Since capital costs were
low, he didn't have to depend on a large corporate establishment for his
livelihood. Today, a man with a shovel would have a hard time competing
with a man with a backhoe. And, unfortunately, a backhoe is quite a bit
more expensive than a shovel. This means that most ditch diggers, today,
can no longer afford to work for themselves. Now, they have to throw
themselves at the mercy of someone who can afford the capital costs. This
ditch digger analogy is typical of modern economies. As much as
Libertarians may hate to hear it, it is true. Libertarianism is obsolete.
> => In fact,
> => according to my Popular science magazine, this is exactly why DBS
> => satellite television came about 7 years late in this country. The cable
> => television companies bought out the original DBS companies with the
> => intention of destroying them. That way, the local corporate monopoly
> => wouldn't have had to compete with anybody else.
>
> A few years ago they said the same thing about electric cars. I don't credit
> PS as a reliable source.
>
Why? Because it comes into conflict with Libertarian party dogma?
> => Any business that refused to sale out could be driven out of business by
> => Wal-mart selling their own merchandise at below market prices.
>
> But, as I stated earlier, this requires Wal-mart to have an unfair advantage
> AT THE BEGINNING.
>
How does this stand to reason?
> ---- snip more of the 'if Wal-mart were king' ----
>
> => Under a Libertarian government, the noncapitalist would not only have to
> => bow down and kiss the feet of his employer, he would also have to bow
> => down and kiss the feet his retailer. And all noncapitalists would be
> => little more than slaves at the mercy of the corporate establishment.
>
> This is pure <expletive deleted>. Why would a noncapitalist have to bow down
> to his employer? Currently, as an independent consultant, *I* set my rates,
> and I only work for major corporations.
>
You don't yet live in a Libertarian society either.
> =>
> => DEMOCRACY. Any questions?
>
> Yes, what makes you think that the people, who, over 50% on the latest polls,
> believe that an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell, are smart enough as a
> group to determine what is best for *you*?
>
You seem to think that the only choices we have are Communism or
Libertarianism. Personally, I would like to live under a government that
is as unobtrusive as possible but one that also recognizes the need to
set the ground rules so that everybody has a chance at success. If our
government doesn't do this, then our society can only degrade to the
level of a corportely controlled dictatorship thats based on caste
instead of merit.
> => You seem to think that a true democracy is impossible.
>
> I don't. I merely believe it is undesirable,
>
Whats the alternative? A corporate dictatorship?
> => I wouldn't be
> => surprised if you believe that any kind of collective will is
> => totalitarian.
>
> No, it's disgusting. I am me. I am NOT merely a part of a machine.
>
Under a corporate dictatorship, you would never be treated as anything
other than a machine. Unless, of course, you're lucky enough to be part
of the corporate establishment.
David Whitt
In article <349BE7...@mxhv.net>, Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>Tim Starr wrote:
>As for the robbery part, we have already discussed at length
>the fact that socialists don't propose "taking" anything in
>the literal sense. The workers already operate the industries,
>so socialism merely means workers deciding to recognize
>worker-elected management as the official management.
>The means of production would not be "taken" somewhere, but
>the stockholders would stop receiving dividend checks.
>Some call that robbery, but we get nowhere when we dwell
>on how the dictionary should be written.
>
I have one question in regards to the dividend checks. If you stop
payments on divident checks, haven't you taken the money which they've
invested in your company and stolen it? If so, what makes you think
investors would ever invest in your company again (or any other for that
matter)? One method which I like, which works well at my place of
employement, is employee purchasing of company stock. I work at MCI and
we can buy stock at a discount. Not only does this make us employees but
also part-owners (not to mention customers since we also use MCI for our
long-distance carrier). Someone who is an employee-owner-customer has an
interest in making sure their business is succeeding. I believe this
method works far better than that which you favor.
-David Whitt
Danette & Murray Root
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:11:08 -0600, R...@webtv.net wrote in
talk.politics.libertarian:
=> In article <349f64cc....@news.mindspring.com>,
=> Murra...@mindspring.com wrote:
=> >
=> > On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:01:04 -0600, R...@webtv.net wrote in
=> > talk.politics.libertarian:
=> >
=> > => In a welfare state it's possible to live without working. Of course, if
=> > => Libertarians had their way, this avenue of escape would be closed.
=> >
=> > Do you have a problem with this?
=> >
=>
=> I can't help but notice how most Libertarians prefer the emotional
=> interpretation over the rational interpretation.
I don't know what definition you're using for libertarian, but judging from
the capital L it is NOT the one most of the posters on this ng use.
=>What I was saying here
=> is that, in the absence of a welfare state, choosing not to work is less
=> of an option.
I still don't see the problem. Why should anyone be able to 'choose not to
work'? How are they going to earn their daily bread? Even the socialists I've
read do not advocate welfare for those who 'choose not to work'.
=> > => Where would you get the money to start your own business? By not
=> > => working???
=> >
=> > No, by working at something you don't like for a while and saving. Or by
=> > convincing someone who has money that you have a marketable idea.
=> >
=> > => I don't expect the government to try to solve all our problems, but I do
=> > => believe that the government should be obligated to make sure that
=> > => opportunity is always open to ALL people. Not just to those who are lucky
=> > => enough to have money to begin with. Unfortunately, this philosophy is
=> > => definitely contrary to popular libertarian opinion. If Libertarians had
=> > => their way, money would be the only prerequisite for success.
=> >
=> > Nope. Willingness to work for what you want is the only prerequisite. I
=> > started with debt, worked hard, received NO assistance, and I support my
=> > family very well. It took ten years and a lot of work.
=> >
=>
=> It's interesting that you say: "Willingness to work IS the only
=> prerequisite". The question here is: WOULD people be able to work their
=> way up the economic ladder if we lived under a Libertarian government?
What do you perceive as a Libertarian government? Many of the people on this
ng advocate NO government. Some, such as me, advocate a minimal government
(army, police, courts, roads). The more I read here, though, the more I lean
toward NO government.
=> Personally, I doubt it.
Why?
=> > => > I also have doubts about free trade, contrary to mainstream libertarian
=> > => > thought.
=> > => >
=> > => So do I.
=> >
=> > Why?
=> >
=>
=> Do you think that using slave labor in a foreign country is any less
=> objectionable than using slave labor here in the United States? Oh, I
=> forgot. Libertarians believe that slave labor is ok as long as it
=> benefits the corporate establishment.
No, slave labor is prohibited by the main point - no initiation of force.
Anyone who advocates forcing people to work is NOT a libertarian by any
reasonable definition.
=> > => What if a company like Wal-mart continued to grow until it became the
=> > => only retail business in the country?
=> >
=> > You are starting from an assumption that can only happen with government
=> > interference.
=> >
=> > => If it did, Wal-mart would then be in
=> > => a position where it could dictate prices and quality to the customer.
=> > => Imagine paying $150.00 for a toaster that doesn't work. If you were a
=> > => customer, you would either have to pay this or do without. Many
=> > => Libertarians would probably argue that, if people were paying $150.00 for
=> > => toasters, somebody would simply start his/her own business and sell
=> > => cheaper toasters. Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Don't forget
=> > => that, under a Libertarian government, few contractual agreements would be
=> > => illegal. This means that, if a company became wealthy enough, it could
=> > => buy out all competing businesses and keep it's monopoly.
=> >
=> > In that case they would have to buy out so many people they would go broke.
=> > Something like integrated circuits, which require a huge investment just to
=> > get started, maybe. Simple things, no way.
=> >
=>
=> You seem to be forgetting that hardly anything is simple anymore. In
=> fact, this is the main reason why the Libertarian government, that we had
=> 200 years ago, ceased to function. Back in the old days, a man with a
=> shovel could easily get a job as a ditch digger. Since capital costs were
=> low, he didn't have to depend on a large corporate establishment for his
=> livelihood. Today, a man with a shovel would have a hard time competing
=> with a man with a backhoe.
For major jobs, yes. I, personally, would hire the man with the shovel to fix
up my front yard. A backhoe would be overkill. Enough of these little jobs,
and a decent plan, the man with a shovel can now buy a backhoe.
=> And, unfortunately, a backhoe is quite a bit
=> more expensive than a shovel. This means that most ditch diggers, today,
=> can no longer afford to work for themselves. Now, they have to throw
=> themselves at the mercy of someone who can afford the capital costs. This
=> ditch digger analogy is typical of modern economies. As much as
=> Libertarians may hate to hear it, it is true. Libertarianism is obsolete.
Only for those who don't wish to start at the bottom.
=> > => In fact,
=> > => according to my Popular science magazine, this is exactly why DBS
=> > => satellite television came about 7 years late in this country. The cable
=> > => television companies bought out the original DBS companies with the
=> > => intention of destroying them. That way, the local corporate monopoly
=> > => wouldn't have had to compete with anybody else.
=> >
=> > A few years ago they said the same thing about electric cars. I don't credit
=> > PS as a reliable source.
=> >
=> Why? Because it comes into conflict with Libertarian party dogma?
No. Because it frequently comes into conflict with reality.
=> > => Any business that refused to sale out could be driven out of business by
=> > => Wal-mart selling their own merchandise at below market prices.
=> >
=> > But, as I stated earlier, this requires Wal-mart to have an unfair advantage
=> > AT THE BEGINNING.
=> >
=> How does this stand to reason?
The only way Wal-mart could afford to undercut all competitors without going
broke would be for it to have a government subsidized monopoly from the
beginning.
=>
=> > ---- snip more of the 'if Wal-mart were king' ----
=> >
=> > => Under a Libertarian government, the noncapitalist would not only have to
=> > => bow down and kiss the feet of his employer, he would also have to bow
=> > => down and kiss the feet his retailer. And all noncapitalists would be
=> > => little more than slaves at the mercy of the corporate establishment.
=> >
=> > This is pure <expletive deleted>. Why would a noncapitalist have to bow down
=> > to his employer? Currently, as an independent consultant, *I* set my rates,
=> > and I only work for major corporations.
=> >
=> You don't yet live in a Libertarian society either.
It's closer to libertarian than to any of the alternatives. It's biggest flaw
is too much protection of big business and people who 'choose not to work'.
=> > =>
=> > => DEMOCRACY. Any questions?
=> >
=> > Yes, what makes you think that the people, who, over 50% on the latest polls,
=> > believe that an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell, are smart enough as a
=> > group to determine what is best for *you*?
=> >
=>
=> You seem to think that the only choices we have are Communism or
=> Libertarianism. Personally, I would like to live under a government that
=> is as unobtrusive as possible but one that also recognizes the need to
=> set the ground rules so that everybody has a chance at success. If our
=> government doesn't do this, then our society can only degrade to the
=> level of a corportely controlled dictatorship thats based on caste
=> instead of merit.
So you're confusing libertarianism with <darn, what's the word?> government by
big business.
=> > => You seem to think that a true democracy is impossible.
=> >
=> > I don't. I merely believe it is undesirable,
=> >
=> Whats the alternative? A corporate dictatorship?
An extremely limited democracy, or anarchy.
=> > => I wouldn't be
=> > => surprised if you believe that any kind of collective will is
=> > => totalitarian.
=> >
=> > No, it's disgusting. I am me. I am NOT merely a part of a machine.
=> >
=>
=> Under a corporate dictatorship, you would never be treated as anything
=> other than a machine. Unless, of course, you're lucky enough to be part
=> of the corporate establishment.
I agree. That's why I do NOT support 'corporate dictatorship'. I'm a
libertarian, not a nut.
You might want to ask Tim Starr to point out some useful web sites and books
so you can find out what a libertarian is. Trust me, it'll surprise you (it
did me, just a few weeks ago). You may still disagree with it, but at least
you'll know what you're arguing against.
__________________________________________________________________
Copyright 1997, Murray J. Root
I do not admit to saying, posting, or writing anything.
You may copy, reprint, repost, or otherwise disseminate
any of this information in any format you desire, as long
as you do not attempt to attach any blame to me.
__________________________________________________________________
David Whitt
In article <882759...@augur.demon.co.uk>,
Caesar <Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <349D33...@flash.net> nc...@flash.net "Bill Koehler" writes:
>
>> Ultimately Mr. Lepore can't stand the reality that capitalism represents
>> the system that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
>> It's
>> only fault lies in the fact that it only rewards the productive.
>
>of the people who gain great wealth from capitalism themselves
>produce little. After all, a wealthy man with $10 million-worth
>of stocks and shares may get $500,000 of dividends every year. He
>doesn't need to be productive to get that money. He needs the
>workers for those firms to be good at earning profits for their
>employer.
>
>pop stars (who earn millions) are thousands of times more productive
>than ordinary office workers?
>
>
>> on the other hand tries to reward the undeserving and always fails.
>
>Depends how you define undeserving.
>
>If you define anyone who doesn't have a job as 'undeserving' then any
>welfare state which gives benefits to the unemployed, the disabled,
>pensioners and children will be seen as a bad idea by you. However, I
>don't see it that way. I see a welfare state as an attempt to distribute
>the fruits of material abundance which exist in modern developed
>nations to the disadvantaged in society, as well as to the rich and
>the middle-class.
>
>production by the state or by workers' then it is difficult to see
>how that rewards the undeserving. The idea behind state ownership,
>nationalisation and workers' co-operatives is that the state or
>workers at a particular workplace can run businesses better
>than capitalists can.
>
>>
>> When buying and selling are controlled by legislation the first things
>> to be bought and sold, will be legislators.
>>
>>
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------
>"A full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty
>stomach" - Franklin D. Roosevelt
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
The problem I found from my many years of working for the state, was that
those in authority within state facilities did not see themselves as
servants of the people but rather as owners of said facilities. The
hospital where I worked (UNC Hospitals) was "managed" by a man who was
corrupt as well as lazy. Even though the hospital was state-owned, it
operated as a private hospital raking in huge profits for further
expansion and generous benefits to administrators (whereas those working
for the hospital got little or nothing - I myself got a little pocketknife
for over 5 years of service (it was either that or luggage tags)).
Socialism might work in an ideal society, but this is not an ideal
society. I currently work in a corporation and the differences are
dramatic. The pay is much better, the morale is much higher, the benefits
are far more substantial, and the service is far superior. Show me a
socialist system which has worked and I may reconsider but so far history
is not on your side.
-David Whitt
Paul
> So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
> of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
> What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
> I agree that state-run compnaies are not known for their profitability.
> But that is partially because they don't see profitability as a goal
> in itself.
Ha ha ha ha.
No they are known for a guaranteed rate of return, bloated bureacracies and
crappy service.
Victor Levis
R...@webtv.net wrote in article <882941940...@dejanews.com>...
> You seem to think that the only choices we have are Communism or
> Libertarianism. Personally, I would like to live under a government that
> is as unobtrusive as possible but one that also recognizes the need to
> set the ground rules so that everybody has a chance at success. If our
> government doesn't do this, then our society can only degrade to the
> level of a corportely controlled dictatorship thats based on caste
> instead of merit.
Most criticisms I've seen of allowing business owners to make bargains
with others without government interference involve a dislike for the fact
that business works TOO MUCH by merit, and is not 'compassionate' enough
towards those who are less meritorious.
RHC, on the other hand, thinks that businesses will intentionally eschew
merit in favour of caste. But last I heard, it was GOVERNMENT that was
busy trying to categorize people by caste: i.e. whites vs. blacks vs.
browns vs. yellows, women vs. men, young vs. old, Natives vs. non-natives,
etc.
Imagine two companies in the DBS business. One only hires White,
Protestant Males under 45 years of age. The other hires based on merit.
Which one is more likely to succeed, in the absence of government
favouritism?
Mark VanTassel
On Tue, 23 Dec 97 09:19:18 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
wrote:
>> I'd say that a man with $10 Million has already BEEN quite productive.
>> If he seems to be slacking now, I think he's EARNED the right to slack
>> off. You wanna slack off, you go earn $10 million yourself.
>
>So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
>of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
>What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
First off, what if it *is* his own? Not all wealth is inherited!
Second off, his father would have had to have made over $20M to have
$10M get past inheritance taxes. And his grandfather would have had to
have made over $40M! And what's wrong with inherited wealth, anyway?
Do you have kids? What would their lives be like if they didn't have
you to help them out? Wandering outside in the bushes, naked,
scrounging for berries wouldn't be very nice. So you provide for them
as best you can. Now you realize that there *are* people in the world
whose life is little better that the afore-mentioned scrounging... but
this doesn't make it immoral to help you own children, does it? Does
it? Well, how is helping them after you die so much worse than helping
them before you die?
>> Obviously they *ARE* thousands of times more productive! I'm serious,
>> though it may requiring expanding your idea of "productivity". You
>> see, in our society, people are willing and able to pay BIG BUCKS for
>> entertainment.
>
>People paying money to somebody doesn't mean that person is productive.
It means that what you receive from them is worth at least as much as,
if not more than, what you pay them. (else you'd have kept your money)
Athletes evidently provide millions of dollars worth of entertainment,
else people wouldn't give them millions of dollars to be entertained!
Besides, what EXACTLY do you propose to DO about these athletes? Put
them out of business? That'll hurt a LOT of people (coaches, vendors,
construction workers, John 3:16 sign-makers, etc, etc, etc)... not all
of these people are paid all that well, but none of them know of any
better-paying job that they are qualified to do (else they'd be doing
that job instead!). So are you going to force them into lower paying
jobs? Are you?
>> State-run enterprises, on the other hand, have an abysmal track
>> record.
>
>I agree that state-run compnaies are not known for their profitability.
>But that is partially because they don't see profitability as a goal
>in itself.
It's not so much their lack of profitablilty per se that bothers me -
it's the lack of efficiency. (that is, the waste of time and money
that could have been spent more wisely)
Terry Reedy
In article <882941940...@dejanews.com>, R...@webtv.net says...
> WOULD people be able to work their way up the economic ladder
> if we lived under a Libertarian government?
> Personally, I doubt it.
People would be much more able to work their way into prosperity than
they are under the current system. How can you possibly doubt this?
Here are two examples of how disadvantaged darker-skinned Americans are
trying to do so but are being squashed by those with the privilege of
commanding government gunmen.
1. The only capital equipment needed to do African-style hair braiding
is a place to sit and some beads and other minor items. In many cities,
women who have tried to get off welfare and start their own business by
offering this service have been ARRESTED! They are told that they need
to pay a toll ($$$) to the state ('license' to work) and many $thousands
to cosmetology schools for irrelevant 'training'.
2. One piece of capital equipment that many lower-wealth people have is
a car or even a van. Many areas of the country, especially city areas
with darker-skinned residents, are underserved in terms of purchasable
transportation. There are people ABLE and WILLING to provide such
services at prices that people are willing to pay. Who is stopping such
people from getting together and engaging in a mutually beneficial
transaction? Not libertarians, but nasty people with badges and guns,
acting on behalf and behest of those with government-granted monopolies
and the politicians who collect kickbacks from those they have granted
the monopolies to.
In both of the above cases, a LIBERTARIAN organization (the Institute of
Justice, I believe) is battling government, with some nascent success,
on behalf of people who want to work their way up the economic ladder.
Who is NOT working for economic freedom for low income people is the
government-funded Legal Services Corp, which is supposed to use my
tax money to help such people, but refuses to, at least in this area.
>Do you think that using slave labor in a foreign country is any less
>objectionable than using slave labor here in the United States?
NO! Of course not. Libertarianism is a universal philosophy that
recognizes the fundamental freedom-rights of ALL humans.
> Oh, I forgot. Libertarians believe that slave labor is ok as long as
> it benefits the corporate establishment.
Garbage.
> unfortunately, a backhoe is quite a bit more expensive than a shovel.
> This means that most ditch diggers, today, can no longer afford to >
work for themselves.
See my examples above about how people trying to work for themselves are
being hindered by anti-libertarian government. Let us add licenses,
permits, fees, inspections, taxes, employment regulations, workplace
regulations, etcetera, and we have enough for a book. Then there are
zoning regulations (enforced) making it illegal to work in the shelter
one has already paid to live in. This adds even more to startup costs.
There are ways to for people to get started by pooling borrowing money.
Government-sponsored family breakups hinder this process.
> Now, they have to throw themselves at the mercy of someone
> who can afford the capital costs.
Largely because of anti-libertarian special interests who have hired
government people as the enforcers to make this be so.
> This ditch digger analogy is typical of modern economies. ...
> Libertarianism is obsolete.
Do you favor or oppose given people more freedom to start and operate
their own businesses so that they can attempt to climb up the economic
ladder?
'Yes' is the libertarian position.
'No' is the statist position.
Terry J. Reedy
Tim Starr
In article <34a1f2c5...@news.mindspring.com>,
Danette & Murray Root <Murra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 05:31:05 GMT, postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree
>Tale'sedrin) wrote in talk.politics.libertarian:
>
>=>Danette & Murray Root wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>=>
>=>
>=>>What do you perceive as a Libertarian government? Many of the people on this
>=>>ng advocate NO government. Some, such as me, advocate a minimal government
>=>>(army, police, courts, roads). The more I read here, though, the more I lean
>=>>toward NO government.
>=>
>=>IMHO, the best argument I have ever seen for converting a minarchist
>=>to an anarchist is an argument by example.
>=>
>=>The example being the socialists, welfare statists, and other
>=>advocates of big government on the Internet.
>
>They are the ones convincing me. While I am a fundamentalist Christian, I
>really detest the idea of legislating morals. Charity, compassion, and
>tolerance are moral issues.
>
>=> Do you want people like them to have ANY chance of having legal power
>=> over you?
>
>I think I'd rather visit Tim Starr for some weapons training.
LOL! You'd be welcome, anytime.
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Caesar
In article <67q9cr$dlt$1...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>
davw...@med.unc.edu "David Whitt" writes:
> The problem I found from my many years of working for the state, was that
> those in authority within state facilities did not see themselves as
> servants of the people but rather as owners of said facilities. The
> hospital where I worked (UNC Hospitals) was "managed" by a man who was
> corrupt as well as lazy. Even though the hospital was state-owned, it
> operated as a private hospital raking in huge profits for further
> expansion and generous benefits to administrators (whereas those working
> for the hospital got little or nothing - I myself got a little pocketknife
> for over 5 years of service (it was either that or luggage tags)).
> Socialism might work in an ideal society, but this is not an ideal
> society. I currently work in a corporation and the differences are
> dramatic. The pay is much better, the morale is much higher, the benefits
> are far more substantial, and the service is far superior. Show me a
> socialist system which has worked and I may reconsider but so far history
> is not on your side.
It is true that inefficiencies exist in many state-run institutions. However,
IMO many of these problems exist in private-sector monopolies too.
>
> -David Whitt
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Real e-mail address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk
Caesar
> > So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
> > of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
> > What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
>
> Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
down the generations.
>
> > I agree that state-run compnaies are not known for their profitability.
> > But that is partially because they don't see profitability as a goal
> > in itself.
>
> Ha ha ha ha.
>
> No they are known for a guaranteed rate of return, bloated bureacracies and
> crappy service.
Personally, I think the Post Office here in Britain is pretty good.
Caesar
In article <34a1480b...@news.mindspring.com>
ma...@techie.com___fool.the.robots "Mark VanTassel" writes:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 97 09:19:18 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
> wrote:
>
> >> I'd say that a man with $10 Million has already BEEN quite productive.
> >> If he seems to be slacking now, I think he's EARNED the right to slack
> >> off. You wanna slack off, you go earn $10 million yourself.
> >
> >So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
> >of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
> >What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
>
> First off, what if it *is* his own? Not all wealth is inherited!
If the man with $10m made that $10m as a result of working hard and saving
much of the money he was paid, then it seems reasonable that he should
be able to rest on his laurels and invest that $10m to provide income
for the rest of his life.
However, very few employees are paid enough to enable them to save $10m.
It is open to question whether an employee who *is* paid enough to
save $10m iss actually worth the large amount he is being paid. Is a
man earning $1m about 100 times more worthy than a man earning 1%
of that figure? What makes him 100 times better?
>
> Second off, his father would have had to have made over $20M to have
> $10M get past inheritance taxes. And his grandfather would have had to
> have made over $40M!
You are assuming that their capital does not appreciate. In reality,
many people's assets grow at a rate of 5-10% a year.
>And what's wrong with inherited wealth, anyway?
I don't like the idea of inequalities of wealth cascading down the
generations. It is the idea that the aristocracy is based on. They maintained
a disproportionate amount of wealth and status for much of British history -
not on the basis of what they'd done but on the basis of who their
father was.
Caesar
In article <01bd1062$d9fe4100$92ac9a8e@viclevis>
vicl...@ican.net "Victor Levis" writes:
> R...@webtv.net wrote in article <882941940...@dejanews.com>...
>
> > You seem to think that the only choices we have are Communism or
> > Libertarianism. Personally, I would like to live under a government that
> > is as unobtrusive as possible but one that also recognizes the need to
> > set the ground rules so that everybody has a chance at success. If our
> > government doesn't do this, then our society can only degrade to the
> > level of a corportely controlled dictatorship thats based on caste
> > instead of merit.
>
> Most criticisms I've seen of allowing business owners to make bargains
> with others without government interference involve a dislike for the fact
> that business works TOO MUCH by merit, and is not 'compassionate' enough
> towards those who are less meritorious.
Depends what is considered worthy of merit. A business executive might
get a bonus for reducing a company's waste disposal costs by ordering
its rubbish dumped in the nearest river. Is that worthy of merit?
Caesar
> Imagine two companies in the DBS business. One only hires White,
> Protestant Males under 45 years of age. The other hires based on merit.
> Which one is more likely to succeed, in the absence of government
> favouritism?
It seems obvious at first sight that the firm which hires on merit
will do best. But, firms do still discriminate against some minority
groups. These firms have not collapsed. They have continued and prospered.
Victor Levis
Caesar <Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<883146...@augur.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bd1062$d9fe4100$92ac9a8e@viclevis>
> vicl...@ican.net "Victor Levis" writes:
>
> > R...@webtv.net wrote in article <882941940...@dejanews.com>...
> >
> > > You seem to think that the only choices we have are Communism or
> > > Libertarianism. Personally, I would like to live under a government
that
> > > is as unobtrusive as possible but one that also recognizes the need
to
> > > set the ground rules so that everybody has a chance at success. If
our
> > > government doesn't do this, then our society can only degrade to
the
> > > level of a corportely controlled dictatorship thats based on caste
> > > instead of merit.
> >
> > Most criticisms I've seen of allowing business owners to make
bargains
> > with others without government interference involve a dislike for the
fact
> > that business works TOO MUCH by merit, and is not 'compassionate'
enough
> > towards those who are less meritorious.
>
> Depends what is considered worthy of merit. A business executive might
> get a bonus for reducing a company's waste disposal costs by ordering
> its rubbish dumped in the nearest river. Is that worthy of merit?
No, it is not. And if the company (properly, I would add) were forced
by a court to clean up its mess, I rather doubt that the shareholders
would vote the man a bonus for his brilliant decision. I certainly
wouldn't; would you?
However, you have changed the subject. The point I was addressing was
about whether corporations would make decisions (such as hiring) based on
caste instead of on merit. I see no reason for society to generally go in
that direction under unobtrusive government, as RHC thought inevitable.
Victor Levis
> In article <01bd1062$d9fe4100$92ac9a8e@viclevis>
> vicl...@ican.net "Victor Levis" writes:
>
> > Imagine two companies in the DBS business. One only hires White,
> > Protestant Males under 45 years of age. The other hires based on
merit.
> > Which one is more likely to succeed, in the absence of government
> > favouritism?
>
> It seems obvious at first sight that the firm which hires on merit
> will do best. But, firms do still discriminate against some minority
> groups. These firms have not collapsed. They have continued and
> prospered.
I question the implication that companies that do not hire on merit can
prosper, unless they are protected from the workings of competion.
I further question the conclusion that 'firms discriminate AGAINST
minority groups'. That is too general a statement. Undoubtedly some
firms do, but I would think that the larger the firm, the more there is to
lose by this kind of short-sighted and biased thinking. A small Chinese
restaurant can afford to discriminate against non-Chinese (indeed having
Chinese waiters might be a plus!), but a big company like McDonald's is
constantly looking for the best people available, period.
Now, I won't deny that there are some bigoted Human Resources executives;
what I deny is that the logic of the free market supports them. Instead,
I maintain, that the free-market logic works to eliminate irrational
distinctions not based on economic performance, i.e. merit. If only
governmental institutions had a similar built-in bias toward efficiency
and fairness.
--
Matthew Cromer
Caesar wrote: It is true that inefficiencies exist in many state-run
institutions. However,
> IMO many of these problems exist in private-sector monopolies too.
Except that private-sector monopolies are state-granted, or they are not
monopolies.
Matthew Cromer
Caesar wrote:
> In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul" writes:
>
>
> > Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
>
> I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
> down the generations.
So when the grandfather stands before your revolutionary mob, shotgun in hand,
and tells them to leave his property alone, what will you and the other
revolutionaries do? Drive a tank over his body?
--
Matthew Cromer
Matthew Cromer
Caesar wrote: >>And what's wrong with inherited wealth, anyway?
> I don't like the idea of inequalities of wealth cascading down the
> generations. It is the idea that the aristocracy is based on. They maintained
> a disproportionate amount of wealth and status for much of British history -
> not on the basis of what they'd done but on the basis of who their
> father was.
Except that individual wealth is not a threat to anyone, whereas
institutionalized force, whether monarchy or democracy, is a threat to
everyone's freedom. The rich businessman in Dallas cannot interfere with the
lives of those who do not choose to deal with him. The politician in Washinton
can restrict the liberties of hundreds of millions with the stroke of a pen.
--
Matthew Cromer
Mark VanTassel
On Fri, 26 Dec 97 14:20:51 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
wrote:
>If the man with $10m made that $10m as a result of working hard and saving
>much of the money he was paid, then it seems reasonable that he should
>be able to rest on his laurels and invest that $10m to provide income
>for the rest of his life.
>
>However, very few employees are paid enough to enable them to save $10m.
>It is open to question whether an employee who *is* paid enough to
>save $10m iss actually worth the large amount he is being paid.
Who knows? Obviously his employer thinks so - else he wouldn't be
paying him that much. But why does this bother you? Do you think this
guy is stashing money in his mattress? My guess is he buys stuff with
it (providing jobs for others) or saves it (providing capital to lend
to others) or invests it (helping others to build their businesses).>
>>And what's wrong with inherited wealth, anyway?
>
>I don't like the idea of inequalities of wealth cascading down the
>generations.
First off: be honest - you're just pissed because your ancestors
didn't leave you a pile of cash. Well, mine didn't either.
But what exactly do you propose to do? 100% inheritance taxes?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul" writes:
>
>> > So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
>> > of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
>> > What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
>>
>> Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
>
>I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
>down the generations.
The question is not why it should, but by what possible moral right
you could ban it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>It is true that inefficiencies exist in many state-run institutions. However,
>IMO many of these problems exist in private-sector monopolies too.
Which is why we don't want the government creating and protecting
private-sector monopolies either.
And the history of private-sector monopolies coming into existence and
persisting *without* government creation and protection, is rather
sparse. So sparse that the advocates of big-government protection
against monopolies, have to make up their facts.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>Depends what is considered worthy of merit. A business executive might
>get a bonus for reducing a company's waste disposal costs by ordering
>its rubbish dumped in the nearest river. Is that worthy of merit?
That depends. Has the cost of water pollution been internalized, or
does the government still protect the company's right to do this
against previous common-law judgements that it is an unlawful
trespass?
If the cost of pollution is internalized, and dumping the rubbish in
the river is still cheaper than alternative methods of disposal, what
this means is that the alternatives are economically and ecologically
even worse.
Paul
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
<34a413c9...@news.blarg.net>...
>Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>>In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul"
writes:
>>
>>> > So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
>>> > of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
>>> > What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
>>>
>>> Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
>>
>>I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
>>down the generations.
>
>The question is not why it should, but by what possible moral right
>you could ban it.
Exactly.
Envy is virtuous. Hard work is evil. This is rational to the socialist.
Paul
Victor Levis wrote in message <01bd1210$9c12dae0$a2ac9a8e@viclevis>...
Right.
This is what often confuses the matter. Bureacracies of large profitable
companies can and do shield themselves the bottom-line in whole or in part
in the short term. The market cannot IMMEDIATELY correct this behaviour.
For example, IBM goofed big on the PC. That's obvious. But, it took a
decade and 3 CEOs before the necessary restructuring took place.
Eventually, however, the consumer one big. Real big. The PC market is one
of the most competitive in the World.
Cordially,
Paul
Lepore
> The rich businessman in Dallas cannot interfere with the
> lives of those who do not choose to deal with him.
Tell that to a poor mother whose kids have no shoes to
wear to school.
The overall effect of having wealth extremely concentrated
in the hands of a few is "interference."
Caesar
In article <01bd1210$9c12dae0$a2ac9a8e@viclevis>
vicl...@ican.net "Victor Levis" writes:
> Caesar <Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <883146...@augur.demon.co.uk>...
>
> > In article <01bd1062$d9fe4100$92ac9a8e@viclevis>
> > vicl...@ican.net "Victor Levis" writes:
> >
> > > Imagine two companies in the DBS business. One only hires White,
> > > Protestant Males under 45 years of age. The other hires based on
> merit.
> > > Which one is more likely to succeed, in the absence of government
> > > favouritism?
> >
> > It seems obvious at first sight that the firm which hires on merit
> > will do best. But, firms do still discriminate against some minority
> > groups. These firms have not collapsed. They have continued and
> > prospered.
>
> I question the implication that companies that do not hire on merit can
> prosper, unless they are protected from the workings of competion.
I made that observation because AFAIK (judging by the fact that a lot
of sex/race discrimination cases come before tribunals here in
the UK) there still seem to be a lot of firms which make hiring decisions
which are seen as discriminatory. These firms have not gone bankrupt,
which is what you assume would take place. Instead, they continue
trading.
> I further question the conclusion that 'firms discriminate AGAINST
> minority groups'. That is too general a statement. Undoubtedly some
> firms do, but I would think that the larger the firm, the more there is to
> lose by this kind of short-sighted and biased thinking. A small Chinese
> restaurant can afford to discriminate against non-Chinese (indeed having
> Chinese waiters might be a plus!), but a big company like McDonald's is
> constantly looking for the best people available, period.
>
> Now, I won't deny that there are some bigoted Human Resources executives;
> what I deny is that the logic of the free market supports them. Instead,
> I maintain, that the free-market logic works to eliminate irrational
> distinctions not based on economic performance, i.e. merit. If only
> governmental institutions had a similar built-in bias toward efficiency
> and fairness.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Real email address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk
Caesar
In article <34A39C6E...@iname.com>
matthew...@iname.com "Matthew Cromer" writes:
>
>
> Caesar wrote: It is true that inefficiencies exist in many state-run
> institutions. However,
>
> > IMO many of these problems exist in private-sector monopolies too.
>
> Except that private-sector monopolies are state-granted, or they are not
> monopolies.
>
>
We're back to the old monopolies debate again (note to Matthew Cromer, out
of curiousity,: were you on Usenet and reading this group when this issue
last came up?)
I would agree with you in that many monopolies are state-granted. However,
a monopoly can arise for other reasons as well. Some services (like
underground railways) are 'natural monopolies'. This is because it
would be an unnecessary duplication of effort for a second firm to
build a second set of underground railway lines. Therefore, the firm
that starts building the underground first will have a monopoly
in it.
Caesar
In article <34A39E58...@iname.com>
matthew...@iname.com "Matthew Cromer" writes:
>
>
> Caesar wrote:
>
> > In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul" writes:
> >
> >
> > > Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
> >
> > I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
> > down the generations.
>
> So when the grandfather stands before your revolutionary mob, shotgun in hand,
> and tells them to leave his property alone, what will you and the other
> revolutionaries do? Drive a tank over his body?
The first thing to say is: I'm not in favour of revolution, at least
not in modern Britain.
But, assuming that this situation is given, I suppose that the 'revolutionary
mob' would have to back off (assuming they are unarmed and that they
don't want to be shot by the grandfather).
OTOH if the mob don't mind sustaining some casualties, they could advance
towards the grandfather and once he 'initiates force' by shooting at
them, they could all lunge towards him and attempt to beat him to death. They
could then try and justify this as 'retaliatory force'.
>
> --
> Matthew Cromer
>
> matthew...@iname.com
Caesar
In article <34A3A038...@iname.com>
matthew...@iname.com "Matthew Cromer" writes:
>
>
> Caesar wrote: >>And what's wrong with inherited wealth, anyway?
>
> > I don't like the idea of inequalities of wealth cascading down the
> > generations. It is the idea that the aristocracy is based on. They maintained
> > a disproportionate amount of wealth and status for much of British history -
> > not on the basis of what they'd done but on the basis of who their
> > father was.
>
> Except that individual wealth is not a threat to anyone, whereas
> institutionalized force, whether monarchy or democracy, is a threat to
> everyone's freedom. The rich businessman in Dallas cannot interfere with the
> lives of those who do not choose to deal with him. The politician in Washinton
> can restrict the liberties of hundreds of millions with the stroke of a pen.
However, the more and more resources that one businessman or aristocrat
controls, the more difficult it is to avoid dealing with him.
Caesar
In article <34a3d64c...@news.mindspring.com>
ma...@techie.com___fool.the.robots "Mark VanTassel" writes:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 97 14:20:51 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
> wrote:
>
> >If the man with $10m made that $10m as a result of working hard and saving
> >much of the money he was paid, then it seems reasonable that he should
> >be able to rest on his laurels and invest that $10m to provide income
> >for the rest of his life.
> >
> >However, very few employees are paid enough to enable them to save $10m.
> >It is open to question whether an employee who *is* paid enough to
> >save $10m iss actually worth the large amount he is being paid.
>
> Who knows? Obviously his employer thinks so - else he wouldn't be
> paying him that much. But why does this bother you? Do you think this
> guy is stashing money in his mattress? My guess is he buys stuff with
> it (providing jobs for others) or saves it (providing capital to lend
> to others) or invests it (helping others to build their businesses).>
It is true that capital is very useful because it can be used to
finance new business start-ups and expansions. But I don't see
why the maldistribution of capital (the richest 10% of the UK population
own about 60% of the nation's total personal wealth and the poorest 50% have
only 6% of the personal wealth) is essensial. Capital for investment can
be provided by (say) lots of small shareholders rather than by one
ultra-rich individual.
>
> >>And what's wrong with inherited wealth, anyway?
> >
> >I don't like the idea of inequalities of wealth cascading down the
> >generations.
>
> First off: be honest - you're just pissed because your ancestors
> didn't leave you a pile of cash.
I would undoubtedly have been pleased if I had been able to inherit
millions from distant ancestors. But I haven't.
However, even if I personally was rich by virtue of inheritance, that
would not change the arguements that can be used against inherited
wealth. It remains IMO inherently unjust, unfair and arbitary.
>Well, mine didn't either.
>
> But what exactly do you propose to do? 100% inheritance taxes?
IMO a 100% inheritance tax would not be that effective. People would just
give their assets away to their children before they died or they
would emigrate. The tax avoidance industry would boom further.
I am giving an arguement against inheritance because I disagree with
the libertarians' view that inheritance should be taxed at 0%.
I see no reason why inheritance shouldn't be taxed at 40%, like it is
in Britain today. Removing a few of the loopholes in the tax would
also be a good idea.
Caesar
In article <34a413c9...@news.blarg.net>
wa...@blarg.net "Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin" writes:
> Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul" writes:
> >
> >> > So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
> >> > of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
> >> > What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
> >>
> >> Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
> >
> >I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
> >down the generations.
>
> The question is not why it should, but by what possible moral right
> you could ban it.
A justification for taxing inherited wealth more harshly than
income is that it is unearned. As it was a 'windfall' gain for
the person fortunate enough to have a rich grandfather, the windfall
should also be distributed to the state in the form of taxation
so that it can be spent on public services which will benefit the
rest of us (who do not have rich grandfathers).
Also, it could be added that the wealth of the rich grandfather (if
he was a stockmarket investor) comes from the work of the employees
of the firms which he owned shares in. WHy should their grandchildren
not benefit from their work as well, rather than just the grandchildren
of the investor?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
> any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
> is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
> US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
>
--
Caesar
> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
> <34a413c9...@news.blarg.net>...
> >Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
> >
> >>In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul"
> writes:
> >>
> >>> > So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
> >>> > of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
> >>> > What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
> >>>
> >>> Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
> >>
> >>I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
> >>down the generations.
> >
> >The question is not why it should, but by what possible moral right
> >you could ban it.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Envy is virtuous. Hard work is evil. This is rational to the socialist.
I would put my rationale a different way:
Greed is wrong. Hard work by ordinary workers should be rewarded, rather
than the fruits of their labour going to rich CEOs and stockholders.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>It is true that capital is very useful because it can be used to
>finance new business start-ups and expansions. But I don't see
>why the maldistribution of capital (the richest 10% of the UK population
>own about 60% of the nation's total personal wealth and the poorest 50% have
>only 6% of the personal wealth) is essensial.
What you consider a "maldistribution" is not essential.
However, except to the extent that it was created (or is protected
from market mechanisms) by force, the current distribution is NOT a
maldistribution, and nobody has any right to use force to change it.
An arrangement is not an inherently bad or harmful arrangement simply
because you happen to not like it.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> The rich businessman in Dallas cannot interfere with the
>> lives of those who do not choose to deal with him.
>
>Tell that to a poor mother whose kids have no shoes to
>wear to school.
>
>The overall effect of having wealth extremely concentrated
>in the hands of a few is "interference."
Please explain the interference mechanism.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>In article <34A39E58...@iname.com>
> matthew...@iname.com "Matthew Cromer" writes:
>
>>
>>
>> Caesar wrote:
>>
>> > In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul" writes:
>> >
>> >
>> > > Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
>> >
>> > I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
>> > down the generations.
>>
>> So when the grandfather stands before your revolutionary mob, shotgun in hand,
>> and tells them to leave his property alone, what will you and the other
>> revolutionaries do? Drive a tank over his body?
>
>The first thing to say is: I'm not in favour of revolution, at least
>not in modern Britain.
>
>But, assuming that this situation is given, I suppose that the 'revolutionary
>mob' would have to back off (assuming they are unarmed and that they
>don't want to be shot by the grandfather).
>
>OTOH if the mob don't mind sustaining some casualties, they could advance
>towards the grandfather and once he 'initiates force' by shooting at
>them, they could all lunge towards him and attempt to beat him to death. They
>could then try and justify this as 'retaliatory force'.
The presence of the confiscatory mob, advancing against him, is the
initiation of force.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>In article <681puc$2h9$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul" writes:
>
>> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
>> <34a413c9...@news.blarg.net>...
>> >Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> >
>> >>In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul"
>> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> > So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
>> >>> > of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
>> >>> > What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
>> >>>
>> >>> Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
>> >>
>> >>I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
>> >>down the generations.
>> >
>> >The question is not why it should, but by what possible moral right
>> >you could ban it.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Envy is virtuous. Hard work is evil. This is rational to the socialist.
>
>I would put my rationale a different way:
>
>Greed is wrong. Hard work by ordinary workers should be rewarded, rather
>than the fruits of their labour going to rich CEOs and stockholders.
Why do those ordinary workers work hard?
Answer: greed.
But you say greed is wrong.
I say that greed is among the higher virtues.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>In article <34a413c9...@news.blarg.net>
> wa...@blarg.net "Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin" writes:
>
>> Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>
>> >In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul" writes:
>> >
>> >> > So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
>> >> > of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
>> >> > What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
>> >>
>> >> Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
>> >
>> >I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
>> >down the generations.
>>
>> The question is not why it should, but by what possible moral right
>> you could ban it.
>
>A justification for taxing inherited wealth more harshly than
>income is that it is unearned.
The guy who originally amassed the fortune earned it. Why should a
portion of his earned wealth be taken away from him *without* his
consent based on who it is given to *with* his consent?
Mark VanTassel
On Sat, 27 Dec 97 13:41:39 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
wrote:
>I would put my rationale a different way:
>
>Greed is wrong. Hard work by ordinary workers should be rewarded, rather
>than the fruits of their labour going to rich CEOs and stockholders.
Right or wrong is irrelevent - the emotion you term "greed" (perhaps
more properly termed "ambition") is a NORMAL, HUMAN, reaction. You can
either CONSTRUCT an economic system designed to thwart this (which is
of course doomed to fail, or be held together with blood and guns), or
you can simply back off and let an economic system develop, all by
itself, in which this ambition indirectly and unavoidably benefits
many others.
Mark VanTassel
On Sat, 27 Dec 97 13:34:39 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
wrote:
>> Who knows? Obviously his employer thinks so - else he wouldn't be
>> paying him that much. But why does this bother you? Do you think this
>> guy is stashing money in his mattress? My guess is he buys stuff with
>> it (providing jobs for others) or saves it (providing capital to lend
>> to others) or invests it (helping others to build their businesses).>
>
>It is true that capital is very useful because it can be used to
>finance new business start-ups and expansions. But I don't see
>why the maldistribution of capital (the richest 10% of the UK population
>own about 60% of the nation's total personal wealth and the poorest 50% have
>only 6% of the personal wealth) is essensial. Capital for investment can
>be provided by (say) lots of small shareholders rather than by one
>ultra-rich individual.
What's your point? If you steal money from the person who earned it
and distribute it to those who didn't, it's still the same amount?
That is indeed a profound bit of economic analysis.
>However, even if I personally was rich by virtue of inheritance, that
>would not change the arguements that can be used against inherited
>wealth. It remains IMO inherently unjust, unfair and arbitary.
Whereas robbing caskets would be just and fair?
Mark VanTassel
On Sat, 27 Dec 97 13:21:27 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
wrote:
>I would agree with you in that many monopolies are state-granted. However,
>a monopoly can arise for other reasons as well. Some services (like
>underground railways) are 'natural monopolies'. This is because it
>would be an unnecessary duplication of effort for a second firm to
>build a second set of underground railway lines. Therefore, the firm
>that starts building the underground first will have a monopoly
>in it.
Yes, this would explain why New York City had several privately-owned
subways, before the city took over.
and I suppose a similar argument would argue for having one phone
company. We had just one over here, back when the gov't prohibited
competition, but now we have several. And they fall all over
themselves trying to offer lower prices and better service than each
other.
Victor Levis
> In article <34A3A038...@iname.com>
> matthew...@iname.com "Matthew Cromer" writes:
>
>>>>And what's wrong with inherited wealth, anyway?
>>
>> Caesar wrote:
>>
>>> I don't like the idea of inequalities of wealth cascading down the
>>> generations. It is the idea that the aristocracy is based on. They
>>> maintained a disproportionate amount of wealth and status for much of
>>> British history - not on the basis of what they'd done but on the
>>> basis of who their father was.
>
>> Except that individual wealth is not a threat to anyone, whereas
>> institutionalized force, whether monarchy or democracy, is a threat to
>> everyone's freedom. The rich businessman in Dallas cannot interfere
with the
>> lives of those who do not choose to deal with him. The politician in
Washinton
>> can restrict the liberties of hundreds of millions with the stroke of
a pen.
>
> However, the more and more resources that one businessman or aristocrat
> controls, the more difficult it is to avoid dealing with him.
It's interesting that you put things that way. One way of looking at
liberty is that it is the right NOT to deal with people. Modern liberals
are
not usually high on this kind of liberty. Witness anti-scab legislation,
affirmative action programs, forced retirement plans, and so forth.
But surely if one is worried about how to avoid dealing with a businessman
with wide interests, imagine how important it must be to limit
government's power in the marketplace, in that it is virtually impossible
not to have to deal with government.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Victor Levis
> In article <34A39C6E...@iname.com>
>>> institutions. However, IMO many of these problems exist in
>>> private-sector monopolies too.
>>
>> Except that private-sector monopolies are state-granted, or they are
>> not monopolies.
>
>
However,
> a monopoly can arise for other reasons as well. Some services (like
> underground railways) are 'natural monopolies'. This is because it
> would be an unnecessary duplication of effort for a second firm to
> build a second set of underground railway lines. Therefore, the firm
> that starts building the underground first will have a monopoly
> in it.
I'm afraid I don't agree. The first firm has to amortize its fixed
investment, just like a second firm would have to do. No difference.
What might be in the interests of BOTH parties is to have the second firm
buy or lease part or all of the first firm's infrastructure (especially
where there is excess capacity), and still compete on service and product
offerings. But even if this does not happen, I see no reason why the
second firm is disadvantaged by having to make the same investment the
first firm did.
After all, Coke and Pepsi both have to have an infrastructure, yet they
have each set one up and now compete.
In Canada, Sprint leases some of its lines from Bell, while ACC leases
some from AT&T Unitel.
Now, it is true that some fields are so unprofitable that only one seller
is viable, say a shoemaker in a small town. You could call him a
'monopoly', but I don't find that term very useful here.
It's where there are GOVERNMENTAL rules that PREVENT competition or force
people to deal with a specific company that you can start calling the
arrangement 'monopoly'. Cable companies, especially in Canada, are
monopolies, protected by legal restricitons on actual and potential
competitors.
John Boston
On Sat, 27 Dec 97 13:41:39 GMT, Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk (Caesar)
wrote:
>In article <681puc$2h9$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul" writes:
>
>> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in message
>> <34a413c9...@news.blarg.net>...
>> >Caesar wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> >
>> >>In article <67qfnt$8ur$1...@excalibur.flash.net> pa...@flash.net "Paul"
>> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> > So, you are arguing that he earnt the right to get dividends because
>> >>> > of past productivity. What if the past productivity is not his own?
>> >>> > What if he inherited his $10m from his father or grandfather?
>> >>>
>> >>> Was his grandfather entitled to give his money to his grandson?
>> >>
>> >>I don't see why inequalities of wealth should be perpetuated
>> >>down the generations.
>> >
>> >The question is not why it should, but by what possible moral right
>> >you could ban it.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Envy is virtuous. Hard work is evil. This is rational to the socialist.
>
>I would put my rationale a different way:
>
>Greed is wrong. Hard work by ordinary workers should be rewarded, rather
>than the fruits of their labour going to rich CEOs and stockholders.
If it is wrong for the rich to benefit from my sacrifices, then it
must be also true that it would be wrong for the poor to benefit from
my sacrifices.
You seem to be preaching contradictions.
-------------------------------------------
John Boston
maxx at exis net
"Man must live by his own rational perception of reality."
---------------------------
There is no difference between communism and socialism,
except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end:
communism proposes to enslave men by force,
socialism--by vote.
It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.