Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

J'accuse le libertarians

1…457910…19

Comments

  • #182
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    20Cent wrote: »
    You seem to get the wrong end of the stick with each example. The point made was that a private company in charge of something like water or electricity supply is in a position to charge as much as possible for it. As seen in California Enron created false power cuts and supplies in order to extort more money from the state and the people there.

    ESB says hi :cool:

    Anyways as per Hayek, some small amounts of regulation is required to prevent monopolies from forming, on the other hand the state has a tendency to create monopolies which the state then can use as another method of extracting money for its lavish existence.

    20Cent wrote: »
    You think a small store can compete with something like Walmart? Walmart is a good example of a large company using its size to get rid of competition.

    After returning from the states, there are plenty of small shops being able to compete with Walmart or they just simply target a different demographic, the people shopping in Walmart where quite happy getting cheap goods, and so was I for that matter. Anyways not like Walmart has no competition among other big stores.
    edit: and competition is key


  • #183
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ESB says hi :cool:

    Anyways as per Hayek, some small amounts of regulation is required to prevent monopolies from forming, on the other hand the state has a tendency to create monopolies which the state then can use as another method of extracting money for its lavish existence.

    What monopolies have the state created?
    The roll out of electricity in Ireland would never have happened or would have taken decades if it was just left up to private industry to do it.

    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    After returning from the states, there are plenty of small shops being able to compete with Walmart or they just simply target a different demographic, the people shopping in Walmart where quite happy getting cheap goods, and so was I for that matter. Anyways not like Walmart has no competition among other big stores.
    edit: and competition is key

    You still can't deny that Walmart use their size against competition. I never said it cut out all competition. When trying to picture libertarian land all I see are large corporations dominating industries and keeping others out.

    Maybe you could help as per the op I asked for a description of what a libertarian country would be like. What happens say to someone born into a poor family education health etc.


  • #184
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #185
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    RussellTuring wrote: »
    For the reason I said:

    No, you are implying that a business that has better security would not accept a decison by a private court. Why would they not?


    Using the answer: because the government is the ultimate monopoly, has nothing to do with the qestion. If you want to back up your implied claim then you have to explain why exactly a business would rather engage in violence than accept a court ruling?


  • #186
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    20Cent wrote: »
    What monopolies have the state created?
    The roll out of electricity in Ireland would never have happened or would have taken decades if it was just left up to private industry to do it.

    case in hand: UPC vs Eircom and ****up that broadband roll-out has been in Ireland due to state interference and monopoly of telecoms. It took private companies to sidestep eircon and finally provide some real broadband to people.

    20Cent wrote: »
    You still can't deny that Walmart use their size against competition. I never said it cut out all competition. When trying to picture libertarian land all I see are large corporations dominating industries and keeping others out.

    Maybe you could help as per the op I asked for a description of what a libertarian country would be like. What happens say to someone born into a poor family education health etc.

    If Walmart are a monopoly then they will get broken down (or fall apart themselves). Monopolies are dangerous to an economy and the likes of Hayek acknowledged this a long time ago. BTW I had the privilege of working in a state monopoly the culture was rotten, I got to experience it first hand from the inside. Providing a good service and value was a long way down on the list after various entitlements and union led schemes. The state had to step in (after some prodding from the EU) to break up the cozy ESB cartel.

    20Cent wrote: »
    Maybe you could help as per the op I asked for a description of what a libertarian country would be like. What happens say to someone born into a poor family education health etc.

    Take a trip to Switzerland, thats the closest example of a country today I can think of, real wealth + industries and real neutrality.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    It's hilarious how wound up people become over these almost hallucinagenic situations were a business might grab a monopoly in the future, yet defend and worship the most violent monopoly on the planet.


  • #188
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    No, you are implying that a business that has better security would not accept a decison by a private court. Why would they not?


    Using the answer: because the government is the ultimate monopoly, has nothing to do with the qestion. If you want to back up your implied claim then you have to explain why exactly a business would rather engage in violence than accept a court ruling?

    Because they wouldn't have to. The reason people and businesses pay fines currently is that they would be imprisoned or have other measures taken against them if they refused. Do you believe it is for some other reason?

    And I never said anything about having a monopoly. That was you.


  • #189
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Because they wouldn't have to. The reason people and businesses pay fines currently is that they would be imprisoned or have other measures taken against them if they refused. Do you believe it is for some other reason?

    And I never said anything about having a monopoly. That was you.

    Why wouldn't there be measures taken against them? By them I mean the ceo or the individual that refused to pay. We are not dealing with corporations in a free society, only individuals.


  • #190
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Why wouldn't there be measures taken against them? By them I mean the ceo or the individual that refused to pay. We are not dealing with corporations in a free society, only individuals.

    Taken by whom?


  • #191
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Taken by whom?

    The individual or community that the business is damaging. The individual in the business that tried to evade the order could even be arrested by his own security. The security gets their payment voluntarily from the community through the community purchasing their products. It would be in their own self interest to go after the criminal in their own business since not doing it would mean they stop getting paid and also become criminals if they try to violently defend him.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    The individual or community that the business is damaging. The individual in the business that tried to evade the order could even be arrested by his own security. The security gets their payment voluntarily from the community through the community purchasing their products. It would be in their own self interest to go after the criminal in their own business since not doing it would mean they stop getting paid and also become criminals if they try to violently defend him.

    Ah I see. But would it not be in the interest of the security to defend the wrong-doers since bringing them to justice would jeopardise their own future?


  • #193
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Ah I see. But would it not be in the interest of the security to defend the wrong-doers since bringing them to justice would jeopardise their own future?


    No, because like I said there are no corporations. They are not defending a corporation. If you remove the ceo does the whole business colapse?

    If the business is small and there is only one employer paying the wages then the security will be minimal.

    So the security guard will have a choice: Defend his master at a huge possible cost or arrest him and gain a reputation for being a moral, trustworthy person which will have a huge value in a non governmental society.


  • #194
    whatstherush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    No, because like I said there are no corporations.

    Can you elaborate more on this, how do large business entities organize themselves in a libertarian world?


  • #195
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    whatstherush wrote: »
    Can you elaborate more on this, how do large business entities organize themselves in a libertarian world?
    Bear in mind you're talking to an anarchist now. A corporation is a legal entity; by definition, in a society without laws, a legal entity can't exist, hence the focus on individuals.

    I am curious about your question, nonetheless. In the absence of a corporate personality, with whom does an employee of (say) Microsoft have a contract of employment? Steve Ballmer?


  • #196
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    whatstherush wrote: »
    Can you elaborate more on this, how do large business entities organize themselves in a libertarian world?

    Governments give large entities limited liability and allow the repercussions of causing harm to others or the environment to fall on the legal fiction known as the corporation.

    For example, in an individualistic society if a business like Shell caused destruction to people or property each employee that engaged in the actions would be held criminally and fully liable for all the damage caused and not the legal entity Shell. This change alone would avert so many disasters. Take Japan for another example, there is no conceivable way in hell that those nuclear melt downs would of occured if Japan was a free society becasue nuclear plants would never be built without government insurance and subsidies.


  • #197
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Governments give large entities limited liability and allow the repercussions of causing harm to others or the environment to fall on the legal fiction known as the corporation.

    For example, in an individualistic society if a business like Shell caused destruction to people or property each employee that engaged in the actions would be held criminally and fully liable for all the damage caused and not the legal entity Shell. This change alone would avert so many disasters. Take Japan for another example, there is no conceivable way in hell that those nuclear melt downs would of occured if Japan was a free society becasue nuclear plants would never be built without government insurance and subsidies.
    On the flip-side, in the society you aspire to, nothing on any sort of scale would ever be built at all, including the computer you're using to discuss this topic.


  • #198
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Bear in mind you're talking to an anarchist now. A corporation is a legal entity; by definition, in a society without laws, a legal entity can't exist, hence the focus on individuals.

    I am curious about your question, nonetheless. In the absence of a corporate personality, with whom does an employee of (say) Microsoft have a contract of employment? Steve Ballmer?

    I'm sure there could be fictions, they just wouldn't act as sheilds.


  • #199
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    On the flip-side, in the society you aspire to, nothing on any sort of scale would ever be built at all, including the computer you're using to discuss this topic.

    What? Why not?


  • #200
    whatstherush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    simplistic2 wrote: »

    What? Why not?
    Would there not be a overriding adverse to risk in any large scale project. From your previous post it can be taken no nuclear power would exist in that world.


  • #201
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    IMHO there is nothing wrong with companies or corporate entities in a libertarian setting, or any group of people coming together for whatever reason
    the main issue of discussion should be "how big is big" basically at what stage does an entity become too big and kills competition and the minimal state/regulator has to set in, since as per Hayek competition is the main driver of economies.


    Some people point at the externalities problem, and say because of X Y can not work, while ignoring that in the current way of doing things many externalities are not addressed either.
    Unlike Socialism, Libertarianism does not promised to solve all of the worlds problems and lead us into some utopian workers paradise :P having a country modelled after the likes of Switzerland would be good enough for me


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    whatstherush wrote: »
    Would there not be a overriding adverse to risk in any large scale project. From your previous post it can be taken no nuclear power would exist in that world.

    Yes I think there would be a much deeper analysis of risk done before a project is undertakent. But there is a huge difference between a business finding insurance for a chip manufacturing plant than a nuclear plant. The latter produces radio active waste that stays dangerous for thousands of years. Who would insure that? Contracts are rarely for more than a couple of years.


  • #203
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    I'm sure there could be fictions, they just wouldn't act as sheilds.
    That's not an answer (surprise, surprise). Would it be possible to enter into a contract with a "fiction"?
    simplistic2 wrote: »
    What? Why not?
    Because individuals are not sufficiently organised to invest the vast sums of money required for the R&D and manufacturing of such things. It's conceivable that an individual could single-handedly finance the construction and running of a large factory, but it's a lot more likely that he'd have to raise funds from other people. He can't sell parts of himself (a fundamental tenet of libertarian and anarchist philosophy alike), so he has to have a separate legal entity in which other individuals can buy shares.

    Such a legal entity is a "fiction" in your philosophy, and (I assume, pending a reply to the above question) incapable of entering into contracts; therefore it's not a useful vehicle for such fundraising, and the factories remain unbuilt.


  • #204
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Unlike Socialism, Libertarianism does not promised to solve all of the worlds problems and lead us into some utopian workers paradise
    Not in as many words, no. But advocates of libertarianism would have us believe that everything - everything - would be better in a libertarian society. I haven't seen too many of them suggest that some things would be better and some worse, but that on balance the tradeoff would be worth it.


  • #205
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    IMHO there is nothing wrong with companies or corporate entities in a libertarian setting, or any group of people coming together for whatever reason
    the main issue of discussion should be "how big is big" basically at what stage does an entity become too big and kills competition and the minimal state/regulator has to set in, since as per Hayek competition is the main driver of economies.

    Why does it matter how big a business gets? and how could the ever incomptent state decide what killing compitition is?


  • #206
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's not an answer (surprise, surprise). Would it be possible to enter into a contract with a "fiction"?

    Because individuals are not sufficiently organised to invest the vast sums of money required for the R&D and manufacturing of such things. It's conceivable that an individual could single-handedly finance the construction and running of a large factory, but it's a lot more likely that he'd have to raise funds from other people. He can't sell parts of himself (a fundamental tenet of libertarian and anarchist philosophy alike), so he has to have a separate legal entity in which other individuals can buy shares.

    Such a legal entity is a "fiction" in your philosophy, and (I assume, pending a reply to the above question) incapable of entering into contracts; therefore it's not a useful vehicle for such fundraising, and the factories remain unbuilt.


    You do realise that your name is a fiction also. Just you don't get limited liability from it. Unless of course your name ends with Ahern, Cowen etc or starts with Garda...


  • #207
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    You do realise that your name is a fiction also. Just you don't get limited liability from it. Unless of course your name ends with Ahern, Cowen etc
    That's not an answer. Surprise, surprise.


  • #208
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not in as many words, no. But advocates of libertarianism would have us believe that everything - everything - would be better in a libertarian society. I haven't seen too many of them suggest that some things would be better and some worse, but that on balance the tradeoff would be worth it.

    When people live in communites that respect the non - aggression priciple and property rights, yes, everything will be better. Just like everything is better now that women can vote and blacks are no longer held as slaves.

    Every moral advance makes life better.


  • #209
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's not an answer. Surprise, surprise.

    Sorry I thought it was an answer.

    Yes of course there will be fictions.


  • #210
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Since Ireland has always had a gov of some type unless you want to go back to ancient times then I suppose one could argue that the state created monopolies. Its an easy argument for the libertarian to make considering there has never been a libertarian society to compare with.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Yes of course there will be fictions.
    Will they be able to enter into contracts?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement