libertarianism is self-refuting
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:07:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  libertarianism is self-refuting
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: libertarianism is self-refuting  (Read 18196 times)
Albus Dumbledore
Havelock Vetinari
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,917
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the


Political Matrix
E: -0.71, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 06, 2008, 07:38:46 PM »

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2008, 07:50:53 PM »

The question is - who would you rather be initiating force - an impersonal conglomerating corporation, or an impersonal democratically elected governing authority?

A libertarian would be quick to say that neither should be forcing anyone to do anything in a capitalist society, because we can simply choose another company. If the government is not regulating commerce to avoid monopolies, how is any one conglomeration of business going to avoid being a de-facto government?

Disclaimer: sooo drunk right now lol
Logged
Albus Dumbledore
Havelock Vetinari
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,917
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the


Political Matrix
E: -0.71, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2008, 08:04:36 PM »

Would prefer neither but trust corps less than the state due to the government being at least in theory semi-accountable.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2008, 11:32:14 PM »

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   

I would challenge you to show ONE libertarian say that private groups/individuals are free to force others. Libertarianism advocates the non-agression principle, stating that no individual or group can initiate force against another individual or group, and we consistantly apply this to government as well. Explain to me the consistency of your theory in thinking that theft, murder, and slavery are illegal for individuals but legal for a monopolistic organization?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2008, 03:56:08 AM »

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.  
What are some ways companies use force against the population?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2008, 04:34:52 AM »

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2008, 08:57:40 AM »

All ideologies are.
Logged
Albus Dumbledore
Havelock Vetinari
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,917
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the


Political Matrix
E: -0.71, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2008, 09:00:01 AM »

A fact ideologues tend to ignore.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2008, 10:50:29 AM »


Especially that one.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2008, 11:29:17 AM »

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2008, 12:28:48 PM »

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.  
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it: 
If this is the best answer I get I won't be surprised.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2008, 12:41:08 PM »

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:
If this is the best answer I get I won't be surprised.

I can't speak for the original posters but for me it depends on what one means by 'force'. If we're talking about hard power then I would say that companies rarely exercise that - on occasions but these are rare - but if it is a question of soft power then undoubtedly companies can exercise a great degree of force.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2008, 12:47:47 PM »

What the funk does that mean?  Again, what are some ways companies use force against the population?  Soft or hard?
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2008, 12:53:56 PM »

Apologies, by hard and soft power I did not mean them in the way Joseph Nye did when he originally coined the term 'soft power'. What I meant was, companies rarely use physical or military force against the population but they will often use their economic clout. So for instance take a natural monopoly such as the provision of an electricity grid or water grid. Given their statuses as natural monopolies, it is easy for a company to assert its economic might by raising prices and the population has no choice but to acquiesce to the price rises because most would have difficulty functioning without running water or electricity. They have a choice in the matter still, but it is one that is limited by the economic power of the company.

Of course, one could also talk about banks foreclosing on people which would technically involve the application of force but is brought about as a result of breaching contract.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2008, 02:46:18 PM »

Right, the only time companies have any power over the population is when the state allows it (or forces it).  As normal, the free'r the market, the better.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2008, 03:02:33 PM »

Right, the only time companies have any power over the population is when the state allows it (or forces it).  As normal, the free'r the market, the better.

I wouldn't say that. I don't believe that natural monopolies are necessarily government created. Certainly in many cases they have been, but I don't think the two go hand in hand automatically.

Of course I could argue that the application of what Nye meant by soft power - the ability to attract and persuade - allowed companies also to assert some degree of force by helping to define fashionability through advertising and branding, but that would be a far more complex issue and would involve a different form of force.

Of course, companies always have some degree of power over those who work for them.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2008, 10:05:19 PM »

Certainly corporations and individuals, when not prevented from doing so by government, can be just as tyrranical as government can. That is a definite flaw in pure libertarian logic, though obviously most libertarians don't support anarchy, and there are more shades of gray than the Libertarian party would like us to believe within the ideology.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2008, 03:54:24 AM »

I'm more of a social libertarian than an economic one, but riddle me this:

) Aren't even the most extreme of libertarians, like Ayn Rand, supportive of a judiciary system and an army?
) Don't most economic libertarians support government regulations against corporate abuses, monpolies, price-rigging, and so on?

I think most libertarians are not guilty of anything crazier than most Republicans and Democrats already believe, although accepting part of each ideology and rejecting the rest.  Few libertarians, if any, believe that corporations are inherently benevolent institutions that should be granted as much power as possible.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2008, 08:05:25 AM »

Certainly corporations and individuals, when not prevented from doing so by government, can be just as tyrranical as government can.
Of course.  That should be one of the govts few duties, keeping us protected from each other.  How do you think libertarians plan on protecting our Freedoms, everybody having a bigger gun than his neighbor?  I thought only ignorant people thought that of libertarians.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No, it's a flaw in how libertarian logic is percieved.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I don't think a libertarian has ever assumed every libertarian is the same.  Hell, it's the probably one of the biggest things holding us down right now.  It's the non-libertarians that are always trying to paint us all the same shade of yellow (and it's never the shade of yellow most libertarians agree with, it's always the brightest, most anoying yellow.).
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2008, 10:55:37 AM »

I'm more of a social libertarian than an economic one, but riddle me this:

) Aren't even the most extreme of libertarians, like Ayn Rand, supportive of a judiciary system and an army?

Being an extreme libertarian myself, there are the anarcho-capitalists like myself who support privatization of all government services, or at the very least allowing individuals to secede from the government. Many people at the Mises Institute follow this line of thinking.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is a good place to look. Corporate abuses wold be rare in a true free-market economy, as any corparate wrongdoing would lose customers. Monopolies would be near non-existant in a free-market economy as well, since people would be free to open competing businesses. Only the iron fist of government coercion can keep a monopoly existant. Price-rigging couldn't happen either, since any natural monopoly overcharging would face competition.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2008, 12:23:23 PM »

Monopolies would be near non-existant in a free-market economy as well, since people would be free to open competing businesses.

Not true. Local monopolies would be plentiful, just as they are now, because with local monopolies the services they provide can't be provided by multiple companies in the same area for logistical reasons. Larger monopolies can still exist as well and can use their influence to prevent start-ups from succeeding. There's also the matter of cartels.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2008, 12:24:06 PM »

Here is a good place to look. Corporate abuses wold be rare in a true free-market economy, as any corparate wrongdoing would lose customers. Monopolies would be near non-existant in a free-market economy as well, since people would be free to open competing businesses. Only the iron fist of government coercion can keep a monopoly existant. Price-rigging couldn't happen either, since any natural monopoly overcharging would face competition.

Corporate abuses would be rare in a perfect free-market economy but perfect competition is a complete pipe-dream; it requires perfect knowledge on the part of both producer and consumer which is simply impossible to achieve. Given this problem, it is entirely sensible that government should exist to regulate the market and ensure that corporations do not abuse their power.

It's also naive to suggest that monopolies wouldn't exist in a perfect free market because people could open rivals because your point completely ignores prohibitive entry costs into certain industries. As I have frequently pointed out, things like road networks and water piping are natural monopolies because the entry-barriers to competition are prohibitively high. The fact that there would eventually be a price ceiling hardly prevents price rigging as that ceiling would be almost astronomical.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2008, 02:37:11 PM »

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2008, 06:29:01 PM »

Here is a good place to look. Corporate abuses wold be rare in a true free-market economy, as any corparate wrongdoing would lose customers. Monopolies would be near non-existant in a free-market economy as well, since people would be free to open competing businesses. Only the iron fist of government coercion can keep a monopoly existant. Price-rigging couldn't happen either, since any natural monopoly overcharging would face competition.

Corporate abuses would be rare in a perfect free-market economy but perfect competition is a complete pipe-dream; it requires perfect knowledge on the part of both producer and consumer which is simply impossible to achieve. Given this problem, it is entirely sensible that government should exist to regulate the market and ensure that corporations do not abuse their power.

It's also naive to suggest that monopolies wouldn't exist in a perfect free market because people could open rivals because your point completely ignores prohibitive entry costs into certain industries. As I have frequently pointed out, things like road networks and water piping are natural monopolies because the entry-barriers to competition are prohibitively high. The fact that there would eventually be a price ceiling hardly prevents price rigging as that ceiling would be almost astronomical.

Because of the lack of perfect knowledge on the part of producer and consumer, consumer reporters would act as middle-men to help give consumers the facts they need. Also, it would be completely hypocritical for a coercive monopoly to be regulating to make sure monopolies don't form.

Because of those entry costs, natural monopolies aren't going to charge any more than the entry cost for a new business would be. For example, if the bottled water company is a natural monopoly (we'll call it Company A), and bottling water costs $1/bottle, but entry costs are $5, the prices for bottled water will not reach $6, because at that point, it would become profitable for a competitor to enter the bottled water business. Even then, it would be profitable for a competitor if they were to look into the long-term. If Company A currently charges $4/bottle, then even though it will cost a competitor $6 to enter initially, , he would gain enough customers to ofset that by selling bottled water at $3.50/bottle. Thus, natural monopolies cannot be exploitive for purely economic reasons.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2008, 06:32:04 PM »


Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 12 queries.