Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes it exists... what your problem is, is that you can't understand there are social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, or whatever conservatives... liberals like to generalize other people so that its easier to attack them...
Just like conservatives like to throw people in groups to attack and hate them. No side is perfect.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,758,986 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippy7fo
because I've see it talked about but never practiced even by so called "conservatives"...Does it really exist....
When you figure it out, let me know. I have not figured out that one. All I know is that they "want government out of our lives" except when it comes to telling us what kind of sex to have, who to marry, what to read, what we can watch and when we can buy beer.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
Yes it exists... what your problem is, is that you can't understand there are social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, or whatever conservatives... liberals like to generalize other people so that its easier to attack them...
When you figure it out, let me know. I have not figured out that one. All I know is that they "want government out of our lives" except when it comes to telling us what kind of sex to have, who to marry, what to read, what we can watch and when we can buy beer.
I know those of who you speak and as much as they consider themselves "Conservative", they are no more conservative than Santa is real, as you yourself have just pointed out.
Believe it or not, I actually briefly considered right libertarianism before I realized I was closer to libertarian socialism or left libertarianism, but I just couldn't get past all the blatant contradictions within the philosophy. The truth is, that free market capitalism, as defined by right libertarians, could never lead to a true libertarian state, only an impoverished and oppressed one. And that there is the greatest contradiction and failing of your political theory
Interesting indeed. You seem to at least have a foundation for your beliefs unlike many rabid socialists around here who simply spout their party's line. I do not consider myself to be a "right" libertarian, but simply libertarian. Let's see if we identify our common ground and foundational disputes.
I think that we are in agreement on a need to free people from an oppressive centralized government as it only serves to destroy freedom. That the larger said government becomes and the more consolidated the power it has the more corrupt and damaging it becomes to the individual. Also, if I am correct, we both believe that all people should have the maximum freedom that nature allows without infringing on same freedoms of others. This would mean that we are both against any group or institution which wields cooercive or aggressive force upon the individual without consent.
Our differences seem to be in how we view wealth and business. I believe that business provides to the market what the market demands. I believe that "proletariats" are tools of business by choice because they have no independent value to the market in themselves. Not that workers are useless, obviously they have a value to the employer, but they choose not to offer services to the market directly and select a "pimp" for security. I do not believe that workers are exploited any more employers than they are exploiting the ideas of those who have a business. (This is why every business attempts to replace workers with technology whenever possible because the tools, workers, are inefficient and problematic.) Our absolute biggest difference is in how we view wealth. Wealth is not some arbitrary right. Wealth is simply compensation that the market has paid to reward the actions that benefit society as a whole. People have voluntarily contributed to the reward of the richest in society in exchange for their contributions or actions within that society. To somehow define what people should have, regardless of their effect or value in the market, is nothing short of evil, theft, and extortion of the more valuable and productive people in society.
So how can I reach out to the "left" libertarians? While I find the fear of business foolish, there may be positions that I can take to subdue their fears. Since we agree to minimizing the largest and most detrimental business that exists, Government, we are already getting along there
Now I don't understand precisely why you think libertarians are corporatists, but I will try to offer reassurance to the contrary.
First, I do not believe that "corporations" are individuals. I do not believe that they are entitled to rights, protections, or subsidies in any way whatsoever. Virtually all of the "evil" that is caused by business stems from the current legal notion that business is to be treated like an individual person. "Evil" business is made possible by its collusion with evil government. Take banking for example. All of its evil practices, of usury and fractional reserve banking, are only made possible by government protection. The rapacious theft of the people by the Morgan Reserve's printing of fiat currency is only made possible by government consent. Every evil of business can be traced to artificial protections, powers, or rights given to business by government. All of the popular bashing of business and the "free"-market is misdirected completely. We have absolutely no relationship whatsoever to a free market in this country. What we do see is all of the ill effects of a government controlled market.
Second, I do not support the "corporation" as a protective shield for its owners against accountability for crimes or liabilities. A business should not be able to go "bankrupt" at the expense of everyone else while owners and investors walk away with profits. (I also don't think individuals should be able to claim "bankruptcy" either for the same reasons.) The idea that this is acceptable is criminally insane. As I alluded to earlier, businesses should be seen as the individuals who own it and not the fictional entity that they are now regarded. If a business has debt, that debt should be the owner's and not the business'. If a business commits a crime, the owners should be punished and not the business.
Third, "business" taxes should be abolished. They are nothing more than indirect taxes on the people that the droolers cannot comprehend. There is nothing more sad than to see the poor calling for more taxes to be levied upon themselves. (The same can be said of the poor souls who tax themselves by yelling "tax the rich".)
Now, how about the "injustice" of unequal distribution of wealth? Can we agree that people are unique and if equally free will produce an infinite number of different results? It should be obvious that even given an equal distribution of wealth and freedom people will naturally become richer and poorer dependent upon their actions thereafter. To deny this reality of human nature is to live in some fantasy land of lollipops and lemon drops.
Are we to perpetually reward people for destructive behavior or poor decisions? Are we to perpetually punish people for productive behavior or good decisions? This goes against everything in nature. We as a species cannot evolve with a practice like this. Actually, the welfare state, or any other such unnatural scheme, dooms us to extinction. It serves to subsidize the very worst amongst us and to ensure the continuation and perpetuation of the weakest in the gene pool. (Please keep in mind that I am talking about societal wide mandated policy and not personal behavior.)
I would imagine that libertarian socialists have some sort of "fair" equal distribution in theory. However, the very notion of someone or something defining a "fair" distribution demands the destruction of freedom to be more or less than the ideal "equality". So how can I as a libertarian reach out to the "left" libertarians in pursuit of "fairness".
First, as I mentioned earlier, the entire banking industry should be forbidden the government-created right to play their sinister shell game with people's money. No more fractional reserve banking in any way. Unless it is made clear to the droolers that they are not "saving" money but rather making a risky investment that actually pays less than the rate of inflation. The entire banking industry are nothing but shylocks that provide no more of a service than local street thugs offering "protection".
Second, their should be no laws that permit theft of one group for the benefit of another through government force. While this would eliminate the welfare state, which I would imagine libertarian socialists support, it would also eliminate the unfair subsidizing of business that profits owners personally while socializing its losses. I can not state strongly enough that what makes business "bad" is government policy that treats it as something separate from its owners. While you may disagree, the abolition of business "entities" is the biggest blow that could possibly be dealt to the real "evils" of big business. It is "theft" legislation that has lead to the great disparity of wealth distribution in this county in my humble opinion. So I see corporate welfare as simply a part of the overall welfare state that has done so much harm to the people of this nation.
Finally, I have to admit that there is an area where we probably can never come closer together. Libertarian Socialism seems to still cling to the idea that direct democracy as a good thing. In my opinion, direct democracy is nothing more than an authoritarian majority. It is completely in opposition to the idea of individual freedom and can be as brutal as any totalitarian form of government. This is where plain old libertarians see a small government as a necessary evil. We feel that there must be protection of individual freedom from the mob. To be more precise, this protection of the maximum practical individual freedoms from any consolidated force, whether government, special interest, or majority, is the only reason government should exist at all. The very suggestion that there is some "ideal" to be enforced upon everyone regardless of voluntary consent runs contrary to any definition of individual freedom.
Libertarianism to me is not a static set of outcomes or regulations, but simply its actual definition. A theory advocating the minimization of the State and the maximization of individual freedom. This tends toward anarchy until mob rule would begin to infringe upon individual freedoms. What I see Libertarian Socialism as is simply mob rule which infringes upon individual freedoms by advocating some sort outcome which does not result from freedom but from an act of aggression to force everyone to comply.
I think that I have reached out to explain why I am not some sort of "corporatist" or "right" libertarian, but rather just libertarian. If I am still "unfair" please point out where I have favored business over the individual or have not advocated the equality of freedom for all. If you wish to assert that outcomes in society are more important than freedom itself there really is nothing to debate. I think that unequal outcomes are the direct result of individual freedom. Believing in equal outcomes is something that I cannot accept in any way. So that is beyond any useful discussion between the two of us.
By the way, I do appreciate your input. Thank you.
Interesting indeed. You seem to at least have a foundation for your beliefs unlike many rabid socialists around here who simply spout their party's line. I do not consider myself to be a "right" libertarian, but simply libertarian. Let's see if we identify our common ground and foundational disputes.
I think that we are in agreement on a need to free people from an oppressive centralized government as it only serves to destroy freedom. That the larger said government becomes and the more consolidated the power it has the more corrupt and damaging it becomes to the individual. Also, if I am correct, we both believe that all people should have the maximum freedom that nature allows without infringing on same freedoms of others. This would mean that we are both against any group or institution which wields cooercive or aggressive force upon the individual without consent.
Our differences seem to be in how we view wealth and business. I believe that business provides to the market what the market demands. I believe that "proletariats" are tools of business by choice because they have no independent value to the market in themselves. Not that workers are useless, obviously they have a value to the employer, but they choose not to offer services to the market directly and select a "pimp" for security. I do not believe that workers are exploited any more employers than they are exploiting the ideas of those who have a business. (This is why every business attempts to replace workers with technology whenever possible because the tools, workers, are inefficient and problematic.) Our absolute biggest difference is in how we view wealth. Wealth is not some arbitrary right. Wealth is simply compensation that the market has paid to reward the actions that benefit society as a whole. People have voluntarily contributed to the reward of the richest in society in exchange for their contributions or actions within that society. To somehow define what people should have, regardless of their effect or value in the market, is nothing short of evil, theft, and extortion of the more valuable and productive people in society.
So how can I reach out to the "left" libertarians? While I find the fear of business foolish, there may be positions that I can take to subdue their fears. Since we agree to minimizing the largest and most detrimental business that exists, Government, we are already getting along there
Now I don't understand precisely why you think libertarians are corporatists, but I will try to offer reassurance to the contrary.
First, I do not believe that "corporations" are individuals. I do not believe that they are entitled to rights, protections, or subsidies in any way whatsoever. Virtually all of the "evil" that is caused by business stems from the current legal notion that business is to be treated like an individual person. "Evil" business is made possible by its collusion with evil government. Take banking for example. All of its evil practices, of usury and fractional reserve banking, are only made possible by government protection. The rapacious theft of the people by the Morgan Reserve's printing of fiat currency is only made possible by government consent. Every evil of business can be traced to artificial protections, powers, or rights given to business by government. All of the popular bashing of business and the "free"-market is misdirected completely. We have absolutely no relationship whatsoever to a free market in this country. What we do see is all of the ill effects of a government controlled market.
Second, I do not support the "corporation" as a protective shield for its owners against accountability for crimes or liabilities. A business should not be able to go "bankrupt" at the expense of everyone else while owners and investors walk away with profits. (I also don't think individuals should be able to claim "bankruptcy" either for the same reasons.) The idea that this is acceptable is criminally insane. As I alluded to earlier, businesses should be seen as the individuals who own it and not the fictional entity that they are now regarded. If a business has debt, that debt should be the owner's and not the business'. If a business commits a crime, the owners should be punished and not the business.
Third, "business" taxes should be abolished. They are nothing more than indirect taxes on the people that the droolers cannot comprehend. There is nothing more sad than to see the poor calling for more taxes to be levied upon themselves. (The same can be said of the poor souls who tax themselves by yelling "tax the rich".)
Now, how about the "injustice" of unequal distribution of wealth? Can we agree that people are unique and if equally free will produce an infinite number of different results? It should be obvious that even given an equal distribution of wealth and freedom people will naturally become richer and poorer dependent upon their actions thereafter. To deny this reality of human nature is to live in some fantasy land of lollipops and lemon drops.
Are we to perpetually reward people for destructive behavior or poor decisions? Are we to perpetually punish people for productive behavior or good decisions? This goes against everything in nature. We as a species cannot evolve with a practice like this. Actually, the welfare state, or any other such unnatural scheme, dooms us to extinction. It serves to subsidize the very worst amongst us and to ensure the continuation and perpetuation of the weakest in the gene pool. (Please keep in mind that I am talking about societal wide mandated policy and not personal behavior.)
I would imagine that libertarian socialists have some sort of "fair" equal distribution in theory. However, the very notion of someone or something defining a "fair" distribution demands the destruction of freedom to be more or less than the ideal "equality". So how can I as a libertarian reach out to the "left" libertarians in pursuit of "fairness".
First, as I mentioned earlier, the entire banking industry should be forbidden the government-created right to play their sinister shell game with people's money. No more fractional reserve banking in any way. Unless it is made clear to the droolers that they are not "saving" money but rather making a risky investment that actually pays less than the rate of inflation. The entire banking industry are nothing but shylocks that provide no more of a service than local street thugs offering "protection".
Second, their should be no laws that permit theft of one group for the benefit of another through government force. While this would eliminate the welfare state, which I would imagine libertarian socialists support, it would also eliminate the unfair subsidizing of business that profits owners personally while socializing its losses. I can not state strongly enough that what makes business "bad" is government policy that treats it as something separate from its owners. While you may disagree, the abolition of business "entities" is the biggest blow that could possibly be dealt to the real "evils" of big business. It is "theft" legislation that has lead to the great disparity of wealth distribution in this county in my humble opinion. So I see corporate welfare as simply a part of the overall welfare state that has done so much harm to the people of this nation.
Finally, I have to admit that there is an area where we probably can never come closer together. Libertarian Socialism seems to still cling to the idea that direct democracy as a good thing. In my opinion, direct democracy is nothing more than an authoritarian majority. It is completely in opposition to the idea of individual freedom and can be as brutal as any totalitarian form of government. This is where plain old libertarians see a small government as a necessary evil. We feel that there must be protection of individual freedom from the mob. To be more precise, this protection of the maximum practical individual freedoms from any consolidated force, whether government, special interest, or majority, is the only reason government should exist at all. The very suggestion that there is some "ideal" to be enforced upon everyone regardless of voluntary consent runs contrary to any definition of individual freedom.
Libertarianism to me is not a static set of outcomes or regulations, but simply its actual definition. A theory advocating the minimization of the State and the maximization of individual freedom. This tends toward anarchy until mob rule would begin to infringe upon individual freedoms. What I see Libertarian Socialism as is simply mob rule which infringes upon individual freedoms by advocating some sort outcome which does not result from freedom but from an act of aggression to force everyone to comply.
I think that I have reached out to explain why I am not some sort of "corporatist" or "right" libertarian, but rather just libertarian. If I am still "unfair" please point out where I have favored business over the individual or have not advocated the equality of freedom for all. If you wish to assert that outcomes in society are more important than freedom itself there really is nothing to debate. I think that unequal outcomes are the direct result of individual freedom. Believing in equal outcomes is something that I cannot accept in any way. So that is beyond any useful discussion between the two of us.
By the way, I do appreciate your input. Thank you.
Well, let me first say that I too am enjoying this conversation, as arguing over which form of libertarianism is best while everyone else seems to be still stuck on the same' ol' conservatives vs. liberals debate is refreshing.
And I do agree that a big, heavy-handed government can never be a good thing as it could never possibly lead to freedom or true security. And I certainly agree that corporations should not be treated as individuals. And I also agree with you on mob rule and small government, even though I'm left libertarian, I still feel we need some form of a small, non-intrusive government, as their would need to be something to guard against mob rule.
As to much of our disagreements, I describe it as a corporatist philosophy because it would allow the corporations to run wild. You see, what libertarians fail to realize, is that the corporations already run this country. The very government we all wisely distrust has been long since bought and paid for by these corporations, so all those laws, tax breaks for the rich, and bail outs are created for the benefit of these corporations. So in reality, they're the real tyrants. They have the power and control over society. Power is still power regardless of who wields it, be it government or corporate, and power never leads to freedom, only tyranny. And you guys seem to turn a blind eye to this. You are so focused on the tyranny of the government that you ignore the tyranny of the corporations themselves, and that to me is scary.
Your kind of libertarianism would simply empower them further, as you guys have pretty much the same or extremely similar economic theory as the republicans, whom are basically in bed with the corporations. You think the CEOs and the like fear your political theory? No, not really, because regardless if it's libertarianism, conservatism, or hell, even liberalism, it doesn't matter. Either way, they get what they want, which is essentially everything.
In a capitalist system, the people on top of the the pyramid possess more freedom than those in middle and bottom of the pyramid, and most people are on the lower half of the pyramid. This is an inescapable fact. Capitalism can not operate any other way. So how can you call it true libertarianism when most people aren't as free as others?
The way I see it is this, when we have built a society in which a certain few are able exploit everyone else to accumulate vast quantities of wealth, and subsequently then possess power and control over the rest of the population, and we have, then we have not built a society based on true freedom and personal liberty.
Are we to perpetually reward people for destructive behavior or poor decisions? Are we to perpetually punish people for productive behavior or good decisions? This goes against everything in nature. We as a species cannot evolve with a practice like this. Actually, the welfare state, or any other such unnatural scheme, dooms us to extinction. It serves to subsidize the very worst amongst us and to ensure the continuation and perpetuation of the weakest in the gene pool.
The logical extension of that sentiment is that people who are truly unproductive (or unable to get jobs) will simply have to starve.
Do you really think people in that position would quietly accept their fate, or that of their children?
This is a country with hundreds of millions of firearms.
If someone's kids are at actual risk of starvation, and he has firearms, and you have money, you are going to have security problems. You're talking about a society where you wouldn't even be able to travel without armed guards and armored vehicles.
Well, let me first say that I too am enjoying this conversation, as arguing over which form of libertarianism is best while everyone else seems to be still stuck on the same' ol' conservatives vs. liberals debate is refreshing.
And I do agree that a big, heavy-handed government can never be a good thing as it could never possibly lead to freedom or true security. And I certainly agree that corporations should not be treated as individuals. And I also agree with you on mob rule and small government, even though I'm left libertarian, I still feel we need some form of a small, non-intrusive government, as their would need to be something to guard against mob rule.
As to much of our disagreements, I describe it as a corporatist philosophy because it would allow the corporations to run wild. You see, what libertarians fail to realize, is that the corporations already run this country. The very government we all wisely distrust has been long since bought and paid for by these corporations, so all those laws, tax breaks for the rich, and bail outs are created for the benefit of these corporations. So in reality, they're the real tyrants. They have the power and control over society. Power is still power regardless of who wields it, be it government or corporate, and power never leads to freedom, only tyranny. And you guys seem to turn a blind eye to this. You are so focused on the tyranny of the government that you ignore the tyranny of the corporations themselves, and that to me is scary.
Your kind of libertarianism would simply empower them further, as you guys have pretty much the same or extremely similar economic theory as the republicans, whom are basically in bed with the corporations. You think the CEOs and the like fear your political theory? No, not really, because regardless if it's libertarianism, conservatism, or hell, even liberalism, it doesn't matter. Either way, they get what they want, which is essentially everything.
In a capitalist system, the people on top of the the pyramid possess more freedom than those in middle and bottom of the pyramid, and most people are on the lower half of the pyramid. This is an inescapable fact. Capitalism can not operate any other way. So how can you call it true libertarianism when most people aren't as free as others?
The way I see it is this, when we have built a society in which a certain few are able exploit everyone else to accumulate vast quantities of wealth, and subsequently then possess power and control over the rest of the population, and we have, then we have not built a society based on true freedom and personal liberty.
Great! I am glad that we have so much agreement. See, we aren't that far apart
So off we go to try to settle on our only real disagreement.
I agree whole-heartedly with you that too much consolidation of power in the hands of big business is a real threat to individual freedom. I hope that I didn't give you the impression that I favor the special interests of big business over individual interest. Yes the real power brokers of this world, like the Morgans and friends, wield a ridiculous amount of power over the people and that power needs to be abolished.
What I think we view differently is how these people get to the point where they have so much power. I would suggest that they would not have the power that they now do if the government was eradicated from the market. I believe that it is the special power and rights granted to these people, or "businesses", by government that has made them so powerful and not the free-market at all.
I don't support any form of selective "welfare" for individuals. However, it is precisely a belief in forced "charity" as "just" that has led to welfare for business. Many laws are for the selective benefit of business that are as immoral as they are when directed toward particular groups at the expense of the whole.
But I think that we need to get rid of the "business" label if we are ever to move forward in fixing the problem of big business. We must begin to discuss these entities in a way that reflect reality. "Business" is not an independent entity. It has owners who direct its actions. What I mean is we need to talk about holding owners accountable for their actions and not some "entity" that is seen as something other than people.
Now, I must preface all that follows with a few assumptions that I have. A free market only exists when all people can act freely within that market. Once government starts to legislate in favor of any individual interest within that market it becomes a government market and not a free one. The free market consists of all people acting freely amongst themselves. The only laws that would be necessary to protect individual freedoms in the economic sense are those that deal with enforcing contracts, forbidding fraud, and protecting private property. Any other legislation destroys any chance for the market to work correctly and for the benefit of all involved.
First, I will admit that if you were to allow a free market to exist instantly right now it would not be much better than the government market that we now have. This, and I think that you will agree, market would immediately be dominated by those very same people who have become dominant in our current corrupt system. These people have become disproportionately wealthy through the current government/business collusion. So how do we keep this "dirty" wealth out of a new real free market? If you figure that out, you will probably earn a nobel prize
If we can agree that if there were a way to keep the past pirates from dominating a new free market would you agree that a free market is the best way to ensure a free people? Minus these parasites, in current government and business, could you accept that the free market would allow all people the equal freedom to succeed or fail according to their value to society?
The premise that I am working on here is that it is natural and just for some people to become very successful and wealthy if the people as a whole have rewarded them for serving their interests. I am talking about people becoming successful because they provide a valuable service in the market and not because they are deemed special by government or simply profit off of the amassed wealth of a government/business collusion. I am talking about a system, a real free market, which allows all people to offer something of value to their fellow man in the open marketplace with no preferential treatment for anyone. Some will succeed more than others, but this is as natural and just as any other part of nature. If you can agree with what is above, we can proceed.
So how do we eliminate the ability of past plunderers of a government market to destroy the very pure, natural, and just distribution of wealth that occurs when people act freely? Well first we will have to eliminate the ability of government to have a monopoly over currency. There can be no fiat currency which is used by the government to control the people insidiously and indirectly without the people's consent. This takes the government pirates out of the equation if their legislation is limited to what I mentioned earlier.
The next group of pirates, those who have looted us while participating in the government/business collusion. This will be a tough one to accomplish. We cannot simply return to a gold standard which would keep them as wealthy as they are now. (But it would stop them from stealing more from us through their artificial "inflation" when they print paper.) We cannot probably stomach returning to the barter system either. Although I personally believe strongly in the justice of a barter system, it just is not something that any significant portion of society would be willing to accept in this modern world. It would almost collapse the powers-that-be if it could be accepted, but back to reality. Would the elimination of the power garnered from the current corrupt system allow you to accept a new true free market?
What can we use as the new measure of wealth or value to society? If it is not gold and we rule out the barter system, what can we use to reestablish freedom from the current government/business collusion? I am open to suggestions. Now I admit that I am from the Mises side of the economic/freedom belief system. I would like to see some type of real commodity used as a means of free trade. But I also would like such commodity to be something that is not controlled currently by the pirates of the past. Is this the type of level playing field that libertarian socialists seek?
I do not mind this type of "redistribution" as long as it is used to expand freedom for all, but I vehemently oppose trying to keep this condition static. Again, I believe freedom will result in "winners" and "losers" no matter what system is used. I also believe that any theoretical system capable of eliminating "winners" and "losers" is extremely anti-freedom. Any thoughts on a new "currency" which would eliminate past pirates, both in government and "business", so that we can restart the experiment in freedom?
I know that there would still be big business in the future even if we could lay out such a new free market. To deny the inevitable would be foolish. All I am saying is that apart from government preference or interference thes big businesses would be the result of free choice by the people. If this free choice to reward some more than others is to be seen as evil then we will have reached an insuperable divide in belief.
The logical extension of that sentiment is that people who are truly unproductive (or unable to get jobs) will simply have to starve.
Do you really think people in that position would quietly accept their fate, or that of their children?
This is a country with hundreds of millions of firearms.
If someone's kids are at actual risk of starvation, and he has firearms, and you have money, you are going to have security problems. You're talking about a society where you wouldn't even be able to travel without armed guards and armored vehicles.
Doesn't sound too pleasant.
Interestingly, you omitted to include the qualifier that I used in what you chose to quote. That qualifier:
(Please keep in mind that I am talking about societal wide mandated policy and not personal behavior.)
I have not stated that individuals should not help other individuals. This discussion is about society as a whole and not the individual people who make it up. Charity is noble and it is something that individual people should contribute to, but it is an evil enterprise of theft when it becomes government mandate.
Great! I am glad that we have so much agreement. See, we aren't that far apart
So off we go to try to settle on our only real disagreement.
I agree whole-heartedly with you that too much consolidation of power in the hands of big business is a real threat to individual freedom. I hope that I didn't give you the impression that I favor the special interests of big business over individual interest. Yes the real power brokers of this world, like the Morgans and friends, wield a ridiculous amount of power over the people and that power needs to be abolished.
What I think we view differently is how these people get to the point where they have so much power. I would suggest that they would not have the power that they now do if the government was eradicated from the market. I believe that it is the special power and rights granted to these people, or "businesses", by government that has made them so powerful and not the free-market at all.
I don't support any form of selective "welfare" for individuals. However, it is precisely a belief in forced "charity" as "just" that has led to welfare for business. Many laws are for the selective benefit of business that are as immoral as they are when directed toward particular groups at the expense of the whole.
But I think that we need to get rid of the "business" label if we are ever to move forward in fixing the problem of big business. We must begin to discuss these entities in a way that reflect reality. "Business" is not an independent entity. It has owners who direct its actions. What I mean is we need to talk about holding owners accountable for their actions and not some "entity" that is seen as something other than people.
Now, I must preface all that follows with a few assumptions that I have. A free market only exists when all people can act freely within that market. Once government starts to legislate in favor of any individual interest within that market it becomes a government market and not a free one. The free market consists of all people acting freely amongst themselves. The only laws that would be necessary to protect individual freedoms in the economic sense are those that deal with enforcing contracts, forbidding fraud, and protecting private property. Any other legislation destroys any chance for the market to work correctly and for the benefit of all involved.
First, I will admit that if you were to allow a free market to exist instantly right now it would not be much better than the government market that we now have. This, and I think that you will agree, market would immediately be dominated by those very same people who have become dominant in our current corrupt system. These people have become disproportionately wealthy through the current government/business collusion. So how do we keep this "dirty" wealth out of a new real free market? If you figure that out, you will probably earn a nobel prize
If we can agree that if there were a way to keep the past pirates from dominating a new free market would you agree that a free market is the best way to ensure a free people? Minus these parasites, in current government and business, could you accept that the free market would allow all people the equal freedom to succeed or fail according to their value to society?
The premise that I am working on here is that it is natural and just for some people to become very successful and wealthy if the people as a whole have rewarded them for serving their interests. I am talking about people becoming successful because they provide a valuable service in the market and not because they are deemed special by government or simply profit off of the amassed wealth of a government/business collusion. I am talking about a system, a real free market, which allows all people to offer something of value to their fellow man in the open marketplace with no preferential treatment for anyone. Some will succeed more than others, but this is as natural and just as any other part of nature. If you can agree with what is above, we can proceed.
So how do we eliminate the ability of past plunderers of a government market to destroy the very pure, natural, and just distribution of wealth that occurs when people act freely? Well first we will have to eliminate the ability of government to have a monopoly over currency. There can be no fiat currency which is used by the government to control the people insidiously and indirectly without the people's consent. This takes the government pirates out of the equation if their legislation is limited to what I mentioned earlier.
The next group of pirates, those who have looted us while participating in the government/business collusion. This will be a tough one to accomplish. We cannot simply return to a gold standard which would keep them as wealthy as they are now. (But it would stop them from stealing more from us through their artificial "inflation" when they print paper.) We cannot probably stomach returning to the barter system either. Although I personally believe strongly in the justice of a barter system, it just is not something that any significant portion of society would be willing to accept in this modern world. It would almost collapse the powers-that-be if it could be accepted, but back to reality. Would the elimination of the power garnered from the current corrupt system allow you to accept a new true free market?
What can we use as the new measure of wealth or value to society? If it is not gold and we rule out the barter system, what can we use to reestablish freedom from the current government/business collusion? I am open to suggestions. Now I admit that I am from the Mises side of the economic/freedom belief system. I would like to see some type of real commodity used as a means of free trade. But I also would like such commodity to be something that is not controlled currently by the pirates of the past. Is this the type of level playing field that libertarian socialists seek?
I do not mind this type of "redistribution" as long as it is used to expand freedom for all, but I vehemently oppose trying to keep this condition static. Again, I believe freedom will result in "winners" and "losers" no matter what system is used. I also believe that any theoretical system capable of eliminating "winners" and "losers" is extremely anti-freedom. Any thoughts on a new "currency" which would eliminate past pirates, both in government and "business", so that we can restart the experiment in freedom?
I know that there would still be big business in the future even if we could lay out such a new free market. To deny the inevitable would be foolish. All I am saying is that apart from government preference or interference thes big businesses would be the result of free choice by the people. If this free choice to reward some more than others is to be seen as evil then we will have reached an insuperable divide in belief.
The only conceivable way a free market could ever work is if no one was driven by greed, and everyone was at level playing field, unfortunately that'll never be the case, so it falls apart.
In other words it shares the same fallacy that communism does, namely that it could only happen in a perfect utopia. Someone will always find a way to rig the system. Our society has big businesses, small businesses, and some mid-sized businesses, and obviously the small businesses can not compete with the big businesses, so it can't truly work.
It also has a side effect of often being in conflict with other real world concerns such as global warming or health care.
I'm not against a market or competition between businesses, but I just can't agree with Laissez-faire free market.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
