[Permabear]

Originally Posted by Memnoch

They ignore the reason for the corruption. That elites, the corporate and the wealthy corrupt government from its purposes in order to further their own agenda at the expense of the electorate who voted for the government.

So, you believe in some Edenic notion of pure, uncorrupted government that existed prior to the malignant influence of corporations?

[SupaNova]

Originally Posted by Memnoch

The libertarian paradox:

Corrupt government is allowing monopolies to exist and create an unfair society. State = corruption. Eliminate the state and you reduce corruption.

They ignore the reason for the corruption. That elites, the corporate and the wealthy corrupt government from its purposes in order to further their own agenda at the expense of the electorate who voted for the government.

Well this usually gets covered in the umpteen threads on libertarianism. Assuming wealthy corporate elites all work together at the expense of the electorate is simplistic and wrong. As certain industries and corporations gain through the corruption of government others lose out.

Somehow, these people who have enormous wealth and power, will somehow be LESS able to exploit or take advantage of others if government was 'limited.'

Another fairly simple idea that gets covered in libertarian threads, a government without the ability to grant favorable taxes or subsidize certain industries would be far more limiting than one being an institution of favor granting as it is now.

I've had numerous debates with libertarians on these forums and have come to the conclusion that they are fundamentally dishonest when discussing their ideology.

In these numerous debates with libertarians you must not have read their responses, or perhaps you did and are being fundamentally dishonest yourself.

[Memnoch]

Originally Posted by Permabear

So, you believe in some Edenic notion of pure, uncorrupted government that existed prior to the malignant influence of corporations?

No.

But I would rather work at increasing accountability and reducing corruption.

The REASON there is corruption is because the wealthy want to supplant the regulations that are there in place to prevent them from exploiting others.

Limiting government won't reduce corruption, it will only make it redundant since now there is no need to corrupt government officials to turn regulations in your favor, you can simply eliminate the regulations in the first place.

So really what Libertarianism is arguing for to cut out the middle man and allow those who are corrupting the government to achieve their goals more easily.

I would rather live in a democracy than an Oligarchy.

[Memnoch]

Originally Posted by SupaNova

Well this usually gets covered in the umpteen threads on libertarianism. Assuming wealthy corporate elites all work together at the expense of the electorate is simplistic and wrong. As certain industries and corporations gain through the corruption of government others lose out.

Strawman. I make no such assumption. I'm not interested in which corporations are gaining or losing out. What I am interested in is that the ELECTORATE, we the people are losing out either way.

Another fairly simple idea that gets covered in libertarian threads, a government without the ability to grant favorable taxes or subsidize certain industries would be far more limiting than one being an institution of favor granting as it is now.

Someone must have created the universe. Therefore God exists. This is the kind of logic you are employing by picking an arbitary beginning/end point. I'm not going to repeat what I already said, you can read it in my post above in reply to permabear.

In these numerous debates with libertarians you must not have read their responses, or perhaps you did and are being fundamentally dishonest yourself.

I've read them, and what I've found is repeated strawmanning and pedantry.

[Channel Zero]

Originally Posted by SeanW

If you ever watch RP in action, he's usually going after the Federal Reserve or the crazy international spending. He'd like to dismantle Social Security and whatnot eventually, but he does not focus on them.

I wonder why.

Similarly, if an Irish Libertarian party were to start with the socially liberal aspect (taxing and decriminalising cannibis for example), highlight how a Libertarian would never have spent so much money on the banks, and focus financially only on the need to balance the budget, prefering cuts in spending, then the rest of the policy could come at a later date.

So you're basically saying that an Irish Libertarian party should "focus" on the popular aspects like legalising drugs, hypothetically letting banks fail, and the need to balance the budget and "the rest of the policy would come at a later date." I see.

The rest of the policy i presume being the far less palatable libertarian policies like eliminating social welfare, shutting down public healthcare, completely de-regulating finance, slashing taxes for the wealthy, scrapping the minimum wage and abolishing child labour laws.

What a very charming and transparent strategy.

[SupaNova]

Originally Posted by Memnoch

Strawman. I make no such assumption. I'm not interested in which corporations are gaining or losing out. What I am interested in is that the ELECTORATE, we the people are losing out either way.

Can you clarify, are you saying that corporations merely existing are causing people to lose out even without using the government at the expense of each other?

Someone must have created the universe. Therefore God exists. This is the kind of logic you are employing by picking an arbitary beginning/end point. I'm not going to repeat what I already said, you can read it in my post above in reply to permabear.

Interesting that you dodge quite a simple point with irrelevant rambling whilst criticizing libertarians for dishonest debating. Just answer the question, is a government that cannot grant favorable tax and subsidies not less corruptible than one that can and does?

[EchoO]

Originally Posted by Permabear

In the age of social democracy, the ballot box has become a mechanism by which people can vote themselves an entitlement to umpteen billions of euros' worth of "free" benefits and services, generally paid for by others. It has an almost irresistible pull.

That doesn't really make sense. The "others" who you say are generally paying for everything vote in far greater numbers than those that don't i.e, the employed vote in far greater numbers than the unemployed, those from more middle class areas vote in far greater numbers than those from more deprived areas...etc. And there is the old political adage raising taxes costs votes, cuts don't.

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by Memnoch

The REASON there is corruption is because the wealthy want to supplant the regulations that are there in place to prevent them from exploiting others.

Someone not so blinded by this Occupy-esque "corporations are evil exploiters of the people!" mantra might see that companies spend billions on lobbying not because they want to re-create the world of 19th-century Manchester (impoverished, exploited consumers are not good for business, after all) but because they want to protect the many government-sponsored, market-distorting schemes that benefit them. Corporations love their subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, import restrictions, favorable tax breaks, you name it. They court politicians because they know that it takes the power of government to tilt the playing field in their favor. Likewise, politicians are huge fans of the corporations who finance their reelection campaigns. Just check out Obama with his Wall Street fundraisers.

The question of whether corporations corrupted government or government corrupted corporations would seem to be a question of, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

So really what Libertarianism is arguing for to cut out the middle man and allow those who are corrupting the government to achieve their goals more easily.

If you believe that corporations have corrupted the government, you must surely be able to identify an era of pre-corporate, uncorrupted government. So, when was it?

[Sound of Silence]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness":

- J K Galbraith

[blindjustice]

More freedom would be great. A party with a libertarian slant rather than a full libertarian agenda would be good.

Easier planning permission - in New South Wales you can get planning in 10 days. In alot of US states they dont tell you how you should build you house.

More direct democracy. Would we have bailed out the banks if we have a referendum?
Would we have nationalised Anglo Irish Bank?

More individual responsibility would be a good move away from this nanny/welfare state mentality. Ask not what the state can do for you but what you can do for your goddamned self. How about them apples

[Memnoch]

Originally Posted by SupaNova

Can you clarify, are you saying that corporations merely existing are causing people to lose out even without using the government at the expense of each other?

I'm saying that there are individuals (a lot of them) in society who are greedy and who will do anything to achieve what they want through the exploitation of others. I'm saying that limiting government is not going to stop these individuals from continuing to do everything they can to amass material wealth at the expense of everyone else.

I'm saying that the for those of us without the power and wealth of these individuals, the only chance we have to not be exploited and be able to be free is to band together for the collective good. Where every individual has equal say regardless of their wealth/power/influence. This is called democracy.

Interesting that you dodge quite a simple point with irrelevant rambling whilst criticizing libertarians for dishonest debating. Just answer the question, is a government that cannot grant favorable tax and subsidies not less corruptible than one that can and does?

I thought I already answered this in reply to permabear. There is no such thing as no government. If you create a power vacuum it WILL be filled. Those who want to exploit will only find it EASIER in the absence of the regulations they are currently corrupting to subvert.

For example. You are saying that limited government will not grant favorable tax to corporations.

But that is exactly what limiting government will do. That's exactly what libertarians are arguing for. Less taxes on corporations.

Maybe I'm confused. Are you saying that a libertarian government will tax corporations more fairly? Just how will this work? And how will such a limited government enforce these fairer taxes?

[Manco]

[Memnoch]

Originally Posted by Permabear

Someone not so blinded by this Occupy-esque "corporations are evil exploiters of the people!" mantra might see that companies spend billions on lobbying not because they want to re-create the world of 19th-century Manchester (impoverished, exploited consumers are not good for business, after all) but because they want to protect the many government-sponsored, market-distorting schemes that benefit them. Corporations love their subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, import restrictions, favorable tax breaks, you name it. They court politicians because they know that it takes the power of government to tilt the playing field in their favor. Likewise, politicians are huge fans of the corporations who finance their reelection campaigns. Just check out Obama with his Wall Street fundraisers.

Except there is no such thing as no government. There is no such thing as a power vacuum where everyone can live free from the influence of those around them.

You can either have a situation where people are as free as their wealth or power allows them to be, and this includes the freedom to exploit others, and this is what libertarianism will result in.

Or where people are free through a collective understanding and respect of each other's rights, enforced by the democratic principle.

The question of whether corporations corrupted government or government corrupted corporations would seem to be a question of, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"



If you believe that corporations have corrupted the government, you must surely be able to identify an era of pre-corporate, uncorrupted government. So, when was it?

It doesn't matter what came first. Corruption has always existed for the same reasons.

Society/government/whoever is in power creates a set of laws.

There are individuals who want to subvert these laws for personal gain. To achieve this they participate in corruption.

Your solution seems to be to simply remove the offending laws in the first place or remove any tools that society might have to enforce these laws. That you cannot see how paradoxical this is truly shocks me.

Caveat: I can understand society having a debate about removing pointless laws that do more harm than good. But without laws there will be exploitation.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Permabear

If you believe that corporations have corrupted the government, you must surely be able to identify an era of pre-corporate, uncorrupted government. So, when was it?

There has never been such an era because there has always been, and always will be, a tension between the role a government member is supposed to play (responsibility to the people) and the temptation to accept incentives from minority interests such as business.

The solution to this though is not to simply remove the government so that the business can do what it likes without having to even going to the trouble of bribing.

I'm quite sympathetic to the Libertarian ideals, but just like all largely untested political philosophies you can't just assume certain things won't happen. You need to work through all likely scenarios.

One likely scenario with Libertarianism is that without government regulation companies run amuck in the search for ever increasing profits at the expense of things that the electorate hold dear in the long run, such as jobs or the environment. Things like financial crashes demonstrate the folly of assuming corporations will act in their own long term best interests.

It is foolish for Libertarians not to work these scenarios through properly (a lot do, but not seeing that much of that on this thread).

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by Memnoch

Society/government/whoever is in power creates a set of laws.

There are individuals who want to subvert these laws for personal gain. To achieve this they participate in corruption.

"Corruption in Irish political life was both endemic and systemic. It affected every level of government, from some holders of top ministerial offices to some local councillors, and its existence was widely known and widely tolerated." —Mahon Report, 2012

If you read the 3200+ page Mahon Report (I am only up to page 600 myself), I think it may complicate the simple dichotomy you're propounding of virtuous government versus corrupting corporations.

Who will protect us from the corrupt corporations? Who will protect us from our corrupt government?