I wouldn't necessarily support these regulations per se, but in my book they would be okay because its Constitutional. SO IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU ARE A SOCIALIST VOTE RON PAUL BECAUSE HE IS YOUR ONLY CHANCE! Beyond being hard system to hijack it also proved several other benefits. One it makes the states political laboratorys. If a regulation works well in one state it can be adopted by another or if a regulation proves harmful to the economy it can be repealed easily and we can all learn from the mistake. If California wants to become a socialist commune and have only public property then by all means they can do that, why? BECAUSE ITS VOLUNTARY. DO I BELIEVE THAT SOCIALISM IS WORKABLE SYSTEM? NO, BUT I BELIEVE IF STATES WANT TO EXPERIMENT WITH SOCIALISM THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO AS LONG AS ITS CONSTITUTIONAL. Beyond the United States I would encourage any country which is interested in prosperity for its citizens to pursue a free market system, however its up to you, just don't expect us to bail you out! I'm looking at you Europe!
Look, you guys can rage at me for saying that corporations already control state legislatures, but it's true and it's not too much harder than controlling one national regulatory apparatus. Also, I don't get how you guys can actively support private tyrannies while being anti-authoritarian.
There aren't many actual Libertarians here. Libertarians with a small "l" maybe, but not many who are actually associated with the Libertarian Party. Environmental problems are dealt with by upholding property rights. You don't have the right to pollute anyone else's property, land, air, or water.
The private tyrannies you speak of are actually public tyrannies. You have conflated the two because it's convenient for your world view. The state is the group that uses violence. No other group (inside the regions the US controls) is allowed to deal out death and destruction (or fraud) unless the US says so. Corporations controlling state legislatures is a lot harder than say controlling the national legislatures. Decentralization is better than centralization when it comes to state power.
So when Monsanto's soybean seeds get blown over to my farm and I get fucked over because I'm infringing on their patent rights, that's not a private tyranny? If the steel plant down the street from me pollutes the creek that flows through my property, what do I do? Take a big company with loads of corporate lawyers to court and become bankrupt? That's not a private tyranny? I hear you guys tooting the horn of absolute property rights day after day, but it's such a flawed concept. Private companies easily manipulate property laws and patent laws for their benefit, and that would still happen or be worse if there was 'free-market'. And corporations only go through the state to use violence because it is the most conveniant way and the legally harmless way.
This was the conversation I had with my father the other day, and he had the exact same thought process you had. Obviously, the problem wouldn't exist without the government. My point is that you need to be evil to play any part in the usurping of the power of individuals. It is probably a pipe dream to say because we are all corruptible, but just because an opportunity arises to better your company at the expense of the people doesn't mean you should take it.
Still sounds like a a public tyrannny to me. And don't worry about most patent law its going out the window when we have a free market. A lot of patent law is just government granted monopolies, therefore it must go. Monsanto is probably also going to break up and go out of business when its not being given subsidies and protected by the government.
[quote name='"Ktmsmoker"'] Not really, you're just referring to the Marxist definition of socialism. There are hundreds of variants and offshoots of socialism, not all of them are trying to move towards a classless, stateless "dictatorship of the proleteriat" society.[/quote] That's because all economic philosophy are created by man and flawed. ONLY capitalism works because it is natural law. Every other form of economics does not account for resource allocations and how they will be properly distributed. Capitalism can lead to fascism if and only if there is a strong government which is why most free thinking individual minded people are libertarians. As far as giving a example of a totally free market system it does not exist. There is however examples of socialism and communism and it led to more deaths then even war. Most (all) socialist have zero understanding of money and how it works but what's even worst is there lack of understanding in government and there belief in it as a societal guardian. Socialist always point to large co. And big business but never acknowledge they would not existing without government coercion. Without government business can try and cartelize but the very thing that leads to this greed is the demise of it. Someone is always willing to undercut the cartels fixed pricing in a freemarket to further there own lifestyle and yet provide that product for a cheaper price to all which benefits all except cartel. So cartel looks to government for laws and codes to protect them from capitalism. For a person to argue for anything other then personal freedom and a freemarket is simply amazing to me. Those socialist thoughts were put in your head by government control it is not natural law. If you want a way of life a government or lack of one a economic system that makes sence then read anarcho-capitalism and learn. Ps. To op where did you learn all this Marxist history on your own or from school? I'm genuinely interested
How is property rights a flawed concept? Capitalism =/= Anarchy. One of the government's few roles in capitalism is to protect property rights. If corporations can trample on your property rights then that is a failure of government. Intellectual property likely wouldn't exist in a free market. Also if you think about it, giant evil companies like Monsanto probably wouldn't exist if they hadn't been able to lobby for regulation to prevent competition.
Haha, Marxism in school? I read primary sources, like actually reading the "Communist Manifesto", Capital, stuff from Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin etc. I am by far no expert of Marxism, or socialism in general (there are very few in the world) but I think I am slightly more qualified to comment on Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Anarcho-Syndicalism than people who just repeat talking points and have never read the works themselves. Furthermore, I think you're repeating Adam Smith's claims that capitalism is "natural law", but his argument was more nuanced; he claimed that people would make enlightened and humanistic decisions in the market. Obviously that's a farcical argument today, corporations spend enormous amounts of money to lead people to make irrational choices (Black Friday anyone?). Capitalism is far from natural law, the division of labor is simply unnatural. If you have studied anthropology, you'll know that most tribes had hierarchies that were similar to modern-day cooperative, worker-owned businesses (lots of hunter-gatherer tribes still do today). Not to mention, humans are destroying the natural ecological cycle under capitalism. Populations are controlled becuase each species is dependent on another for food, however humans have manipulated the food supply by raising their own food, and creating an artifical boom in population. So if you believe that everything humans create is flawed, agriculture should be the first thing you throw out. To ramble further on anarcho-capitalism: I've read some Rand and Mises and their arguments just bored me. I repeat, people definitely won't make the best choices when billions are spent on misleading them and trying to make them spend irrationally. Private tyrannies are as wicked as public ones, even worse because most corporations have an incredibly undemocratic hierarchy. In many third world countries, these big corporations have their own "security contractors" that will fuck you up if you try to strike or protest. In our society, wealth is power, and I believe power should be decentralized. So why not go after all forms of centralized power instead of just one?
Don't mind if I do. It's not agriculture anymore, it's agribusiness. Also, Socialism = Loss of Freedom Capitalism = Loss of Equality Both suck. Both have been tried and failed miserably. Today's world sucks because of the almighty dollar. $$$
Is this the heading of the Libertarian handbook? "ONLY capitalism works because it is natural law." natural law like in gravity or E= mc2. what's the actual formula? Please list a reference that states this law. Isn't "ONLY capitalism works because it is natural law." a law created by man and therefore FLAWED (by your own admission)!! "because all economic philosophy are created by man and flawed." You want to try this "revelation" again?
hahahahahahah still waiting for Santa Claus as well I suspect! "You don't have the right to pollute" That's kind of been the law for a long time but didn't stop all the polluting that was gone down is the past 100 years. They tended to put it on PUBLIC land so no one would KNOW(shhh) So we made some regulations to try and stop it! Seems to work a bit better than the "honesty is the best policy" that you libertarians think will work. this is just naive!
[quote name='"Ktmsmoker"'] Haha, Marxism in school? I read primary sources, like actually reading the "Communist Manifesto", Capital, stuff from Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin etc. I am by far no expert of Marxism, or socialism in general (there are very few in the world) but I think I am slightly more qualified to comment on Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Anarcho-Syndicalism than people who just repeat talking points and have never read the works themselves. Furthermore, I think you're repeating Adam Smith's claims that capitalism is "natural law", but his argument was more nuanced; he claimed that people would make enlightened and humanistic decisions in the market. Obviously that's a farcical argument today, corporations spend enormous amounts of money to lead people to make irrational choices (Black Friday anyone?). Capitalism is far from natural law, the division of labor is simply unnatural. If you have studied anthropology, you'll know that most tribes had hierarchies that were similar to modern-day cooperative, worker-owned businesses (lots of hunter-gatherer tribes still do today). Not to mention, humans are destroying the natural ecological cycle under capitalism. Populations are controlled becuase each species is dependent on another for food, however humans have manipulated the food supply by raising their own food, and creating an artifical boom in population. So if you believe that everything humans create is flawed, agriculture should be the first thing you throw out. To ramble further on anarcho-capitalism: I've read some Rand and Mises and their arguments just bored me. I repeat, people definitely won't make the best choices when billions are spent on misleading them and trying to make them spend irrationally. Private tyrannies are as wicked as public ones, even worse because most corporations have an incredibly undemocratic hierarchy. In many third world countries, these big corporations have their own "security contractors" that will fuck you up if you try to strike or protest. In our society, wealth is power, and I believe power should be decentralized. So why not go after all forms of centralized power instead of just one?[/quote] So your argument is that we are animals ? I too have manifesto and talk about boring. Reading Austrian economics was finding words for my thoughts. It makes as much sence as the division of labor which is a natural occurrence . it is why humans divide raising children (which led to marriage ) community share cropping and all such of things. It benefits the individual both directions. I'm not saying everything humans do should be thrown out? I'm saying centralized planning is flawed and capitalism is just another word for freemarkets and natural law. I truly believe a lot of people think America invented capitalism when its capitalism that created America. Also I would like to know how allocations of resources are handled in a economic system outside of the freemarkets that would not lead to shortages or misuse ? The only reason planned economics around the world has stayed around (even though it is miserably failing) is because it can base its production or prices or both off of freemarkets. Without money , sound money nobody knows how best to do this. I've read more about all centralized governments then I can bare and it never ever has made sence not even once. Reading Austrian economics you will get tired of nodding your head in agreement. The mises school and public forums are having to turn away participants because of over crowding. People want to learn this stuff because it empowers the individual, and its fun feels natural. All other forms of economics and philosophy for that matter are confusing if followed to logical conclusions, limits personal choices , freedoms , it just feels unnatural.
On natural law....even the most complex scientific discoveries of mankind are simple if you understand the natural order of most things out side of human behavior. If things are to confusing to understand then maybe it is unnatural? That is why you state you have read more then most on centralized planning and still don't consider yourself an expert. Guess what nobody is in centralized planning or could be EVER. That is natural law. Freemarkets are like gravity it will always exist naturally.
Exactly. Because the rule of law was not enforced due to government and big business cooperation. All you have to do is enforce property rights and the regulations aren't needed. Honesty is the best policy? I never said anything like that, but it seems straw man arguments are all you have?
Patent rights are a public tyranny. Sue them for infringing on their property rights. Unfortunately, through public tyrannies like regulations, lack of individual rights in government courts, etc. you may not win and the steel plant may be allowed to continue their pollution. Besides, the US government is the largest polluter in the world. Government court, government rules, public tyranny. Wrong. State monopolies would/could not be granted in a libertarian society.
Of course humans are animals, we are classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Additionally, I'm not really in favor of a centrally planned economy, but I think there should be more Participatory Budgeting and Community Councils/Workers' Councils like the one that are forming as a result of popular movements in South America. They are a decentralized form of power that decentralized other forms of power as well, and as a result, most of the groups that have been neglected historically have been able to gain power.
Free-Market capitalism is absolutely based in natural law. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQHCR__-FRA]Philosophy of Liberty - YouTube[/ame]
Yes the American agribusiness is pretty disgusting. Too bad it's the FDA that deems that foot edible, huh. Capitalism absolutely does not create a loss of equality. I would agree it creates a difference of wealth. In the sense that it allows people to create wealth and benefit from the fruits of their labors.