A Question for Libertarians

[edgray]

I've been thinking recently about Libertarianism and have a question for the libertarians/govt minimalists here:

In a libertarian world who's economic model is capitalism, how do you guarantee liberty when there's the potential for capitalism to create concentrations of unelected power (private/corporate tyranny)?

 

[Accountable]

OOooooommmmmmmmmmm ..... in all things, balance is key, young Grasshopper. Corporate tyranny is a fiction in today's modern world, requiring people of a socialist bent to stretch the term to include silly comparisons to the actual, but monopolies are certainly a potential reality. A realistic, absolutely minimal amount of government coercement to prevent such abuses is necessary. Trustbusting, for example, has been around for generations.

Interesting that you'd ask such things when anarchy holds no guarantees whatsoever.

 

[JanieDough]

I have a friend who is Communist.
I have a friend who is Anarchist.

They hate each other.
I told them they should get along since they both believe in a fictional political system....


I think Monopolies may come and go, but the demand for things change, and there's always something new and shiny on the horizon.

Let people buy into what they want to buy. It's like the whole drinking age in America v. Europe argument....

 

[Peter Parka]

I have a friend who is Communist.
I have a friend who is Anarchist.

They hate each other.
I told them they should get along since they both believe in a fictional political system....


I think Monopolies may come and go, but the demand for things change, and there's always something new and shiny on the horizon.

Let people buy into what they want to buy. It's like the whole drinking age in America v. Europe argument....

You dont think Communism is a real political system? I'm confused.:confused

 

[Accountable]

My kneejerk reaction was to explain how monopolies use unfair trade practices to prevent competition from gaining a foothold, and that that little bit of government control is necessary to keep competition fair. Then I realized that large companies simply buy the same protection from politicians by making ornerous rules that prevent new competition from even getting started.

So we may as well allow monopolies because it would be easier to compete against another capitalist than to fight City Hall or Washington.

 

[MoonOwl]

I think if we could do away with a corporation being viewed as a 'person' (when did that change anyways??) things would smooth back out?

When a "Corporation" has the same rights as a "Person"... Well, we can see what's happened.....

I hope I explained that clearly

 

[JanieDough]

You dont think Communism is a real political system? I'm confused.:confused

as in it will never truly exist. not the way my friend sees it.

 

[Peter Parka]

as in it will never truly exist. not the way my friend sees it.

Erm...Russia, China, Cuba ect ect, it has existed and continues to exist in a very large and real way.:confused

 

[porterjack]

Erm...Russia, China, Cuba ect ect, it has existed and continues to exist in a very large and real way.:confused

and vermont dont forget vermont

 

[Accountable]

Erm...Russia, China, Cuba ect ect, it has existed and continues to exist in a very large and real way.:confused

What they had and the ideal that Marx described are only similar in name, aren't they?

 

[Peter Parka]

What they had and the ideal that Marx described are only similar in name, aren't they?

Pretty much the same as most systems of government and how they started then.

 

[Accountable]

I think if we could do away with a corporation being viewed as a 'person' (when did that change anyways??) things would smooth back out?

When a "Corporation" has the same rights as a "Person"... Well, we can see what's happened.....

I hope I explained that clearly

It's revenues that did it, I think. We need taxes & don't want to piss off Joe Citizen by charging too much. So we tax corporations hoping ol' Joe won't notice the indirect hit to his pocketbook. But we can't force corporations to pay taxes without allowing them to participate in the political system, can we? If not by actual votes, then at least by campaign contributions.

I agree that the distinction needs to go. Sure, to shield an investor from personal loss encourages the risk-taking necessary for some of the venture capitalism that propelled us to the top of the innovation pile, but some use that same shield to gain more influence over government than single voters should rightfully have.

 

[Accountable]

Pretty much the same as most systems of government and how they started then.

Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear. The ideal of communism that Marx described is not the government system we know as communism today.

Marxist communism does not and cannot exist.

 

[JanieDough]

Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear. The ideal of communism that Marx described is not the government system we know as communism today.

Marxist communism does not and cannot exist.

Thank you Accountable

 

[Peter Parka]

Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear. The ideal of communism that Marx described is not the government system we know as communism today.

Marxist communism does not and cannot exist.

Just because it's developed, dosen't mean it's not Communism, Janie never said her friend was a Marxist.

 

[JanieDough]

Just because it's developed, dosen't mean it's not Communism, Janie never said her friend was a Marxist.

He's a Marxist.

 

[MoonOwl]

It's revenues that did it, I think. We need taxes & don't want to piss off Joe Citizen by charging too much. So we tax corporations hoping ol' Joe won't notice the indirect hit to his pocketbook. But we can't force corporations to pay taxes without allowing them to participate in the political system, can we? If not by actual votes, then at least by campaign contributions.

I agree that the distinction needs to go. Sure, to shield an investor from personal loss encourages the risk-taking necessary for some of the venture capitalism that propelled us to the top of the innovation pile, but some use that same shield to gain more influence over government than single voters should rightfully have.

I'm glad you knew what I meant. :nod: I'm not the most articulate at times...

It's a big problem for sure.

 

[Accountable]

Damn, two for two! I'm definitely too sober.

 

[MoonOwl]

Damn, two for two! I'm definitely too sober.

:24:runk_emoticon:alcoholic:runk_emoticon:banana2::usa::usa::usa:

 

[Zorak]

Monopolies can be a bit of a problem.

But then, the biggest monopoly in the world is microsoft. And it got there by being the best, just like how Mac got to be the monopoly in graphic design.
Sometimes it looks like monopolies will never go, imagine telling IBM in the 80's that one day it would all come crashing down around them...

The monopoly I have a problem with is BT. Why should a private company be solely responsible for the countries communication infrastructure, the fact that any competitors have to be pay a line rental to BT (that gets passed on to the customers) on lines that tax payers paid for is wrong.