Libertarians, What's Your Thoughts on Corporate Tyranny?

[irspow]

Originally Posted by le roi

Thanks, I don't need condescending suggestions about "learning how the free market operates" or any further reading from third parties. I asked you a specific question about something you said, because you disagreed with me.

Sorry, wasn't trying to be condescending, really. I was just thinking that if you would ask such a question when it has been answered many times by people much smarter than I, it would be advisable to direct you to those answers. Sorry you took it that way.

Originally Posted by le roi

Strange that you were pretty bold when you disagreed with me, but when I asked you a difficult question about your position, you fold.

Yes there will be SOME costs such as road which are always brought up by your type of argument. Again, taxation, or theft by gunpoint, need not be implemented to pay for them. Usage fees or tolls are the only moral way to pay for them. Same with police, in a way. Suppose a particular community wished to protect themselves instead of "hiring" government security? Should they be forced to "buy" that service? I know it is not a great analogy, but such arguments could be constructed for any "service" that we are forced to "buy" at gunpoint.

Fees for services is the only moral way to pay for the cost. If you can show me where someone uses a service voluntarily then I have no problem with the idea that they should pay for it.

But whenever a "tax" is levied upon an individual for a "service" which he was "forced" to buy or did not even use, it is theft and nothing more. That is all that I was getting at.

The "tragedy of the commons" is just something that cannot be avoided if you want "commons". If you volunteer to pay for the "commons" that is your choice, but you should not have a gun put to your head to pay for it either. What you people who are so worried about paying for the "commons" need to decide is if you think those "commons" are worth paying for even though some will no doubt abuse them.

If that "service" is not important enough for you to pay for it knowing that it will be abused by some, then don't. Depending on the decisions of everyone else, the commons will disappear or they won't. That is the free market without the use of arbitrary initiations of force. Thus, only those things which the vast supermajority are willing to pay for voluntarily will even exist in the absence of initiations of force.

Otherwise, in reality, you (not you specifically, just your proposition) are simply enslaving others to fund your special interests through force.]

I tried to answer you. But that is folding...sorry.

Originally Posted by le roi

I have no "type of argument", and i don't appreciate being lumped in with people I may or may not agree with. I had specific questions that your ideology seems to sweep under the rug, in a category of 'voluntary service' in which it doesn't belong.

What I meant is that your "type of argument" suggests that because some will take advantage of the "commons" that everyone must be forced to pay for them by government gunpoint or whatever threat they dream up. Again, if you want it bad enough you will pay for it. If you don't, do not pay for it. What everyone decides to do voluntarily will prevail without the use of force.

I am sorry that you seem to be getting hot under the collar...I am not trying to provoke anger, just share my thoughts. Sorry.

[flycessna]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

I find it absurd that libertarians(American definition) are against big government when they are avid supporters of private institutions(big business). Big business has as much potential as big government to create an establishment that oppresses people in society. That's why I find it ironic that the tea party speaks for the Koch brothers and business interest. To think big business and private institutions have no bearings on lives of individuals is asinine.


There is no difference between private institutions and government institutions. They both have power to oppress those who are vulnerable.

You start these threads and then refuse to debate... Whats the point...


there have been MANY posts suggesting that BIG business is a product of BIG GOVERNMENT... one cannot exist with out the other...

the two parties we have now are in bed with each other and big business..

A quote from thomas jefferson...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

Controversy about the Federal Reserve Act and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System has existed since prior to its passage. Some of the questions raised include: whether Congress has the Constitutional power to delegate its power to coin money or issue paper money, why it was passed on December 23 while most of Congress was away for Christmas, whether the Federal Reserve is a public cartel of private banks (also called a banking cartel) established to protect powerful financial interests, and whether the Federal Reserve's actions increased the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s (and/or the severity or frequency of other boom-bust economic cycles, such as the Late-2000s recession

where is your stance on this?

do you believe that under a Liberatarian government there would STILL be big corporations?

[le roi]

Originally Posted by irspow

I know it is not a great analogy, but such arguments could be constructed for any "service" that we are forced to "buy" at gunpoint.

I suppose I see your argument as far too ideological for the real world. I guess your response is getting me aggravating because it honestly seems like you are attempting to answer all these questions I never asked, and wandering off into theory, while never planting your feet in the ground and just answering the questions. You respond as if you've seen the questions before, but judging by your responses, you haven't.

In the real world when the streets flood, the people want something done about it.

In the real world when the Chinese attack, people want a military to defend them.

However, they never want to pay for these things until the moment they occur, when it is too late.

But to break it down, thought by thought:

Yes there will be SOME costs such as road which are always brought up by your type of argument.

Roads are not what I was asking about.

Again, taxation, or theft by gunpoint, need not be implemented to pay for them.

I wasn't talking about roads.

Usage fees or tolls are the only moral way to pay for them.

How would one calculate a usage fee for the military?

Same with police, in a way. Suppose a particular community wished to protect themselves instead of "hiring" government security? Should they be forced to "buy" that service?

Yes, they should, because private firms ought not be granted the same authority as a police force. Private firms lack political accountability.

Fees for services is the only moral way to pay for the cost.

What if that cost cannot be quantified on a pro rata basis, but there is no way to do away with the costs without a breakdown of the government itself?

If you can show me where someone uses a service voluntarily then I have no problem with the idea that they should pay for it.But whenever a "tax" is levied upon an individual for a "service" which he was "forced" to buy or did not even use, it is theft and nothing more. That is all that I was getting at.

What if they use it and don't even know it? It happens every day.

The "tragedy of the commons" is just something that cannot be avoided if you want "commons".

Tragedy of the commons describes the optional usage of something that is paid for by everyone.

What I'm talking about is the mandatory usage of something that people generally do not acknowledge that they "use" in the first place, but yet demand whenever it doesn't exist.

If you volunteer to pay for the "commons" that is your choice, but you should not have a gun put to your head to pay for it either. What you people who are so worried about paying for the "commons" need to decide is if you think those "commons" are worth paying for even though some will no doubt abuse them.

Not talking about the commons..

If that "service" is not important enough for you to pay for it knowing that it will be abused by some, then don't.

Using it is not optional.

Depending on the decisions of everyone else, the commons will disappear or they won't.

What if the consequences of the problem are simply transferred to another person's property? Is that not a violation of private property rights?

[LaTrang]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

I find it absurd that libertarians(American definition) are against big government when they are avid supporters of private institutions(big business). Big business has as much potential as big government to create an establishment that oppresses people in society. That's why I find it ironic that the tea party speaks for the Koch brothers and business interest. To think big business and private institutions have no bearings on lives of individuals is asinine.


There is no difference between private institutions and government institutions. They both have power to oppress those who are vulnerable.

Congratulations, you have managed to string a bunch of otherwise-useful words into complete gibberish.

BTW, what are your thoughts on marshmallow tyranny, or cricket tyranny, or new-born infant tyranny? Get it yet? Your post posits an inane premise. No corporation can put you in jail, tax you to parade rest, take your house etc. Your affiliating with them is completely voluntary.

[hilgi]

Originally Posted by coldbliss

Libertarian is a misnomer. I call them "Propertarians". They believe in the sanctity of private property above all else in human society. The market system should be the guiding force for human interaction. The human being's self worth is reduced to his wage and the prices that he is willing to afford in the market.

Capitalism is tyranny because I cannot opt out of the system. I cannot choose to leave the labor market. I cannot settle on property that is under private ownership. The consequences would be dire since I would either starve to death by not participating in the slave wage labor system OR I would be killed or arrested for trespassing on private property. This is not freedom, people.

The only true libertarians in existence are the anarchists who fight for the destruction of government and the capitalist system.

Most anarchists believe that lands should have no monetary value. Most anarchists believe that man should not sacrifice his freedom for slave wages.

The Propertarians like Ron Paul are no different with their repressive language than the ghouls who support the Patriot Act and America's endless war of destruction overseas.

It depends on what property you are talking about. Created and produced property? Yes, I am for that but above that I am for the rights and liberties of the individual.

Many libertarians also believe that you have the right to acquire and hold landed property, such as land and natural resources but you should also pay a tax to society for your exclusive use and government granted protection of said property.

Most libertarians are also for a change in our corporate system since corporations are nothing more than government granted and protected entities.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by kaimuki

Very true! And, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm a Libertarian that opposes "any" entity that use violence, force, coercion, or manipulation against the People.

I agree.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by coldbliss

Libertarian is a misnomer. I call them "Propertarians".

Yeah, they got this misguided belief that they own their own bodies and brains.

That is so selfish.

They should all be forced into slavery.