"Freedom" thread or something

The T wrote: TheDoc: these groups are usually labeled as the "right": neo cons, neo nazis, fascists, conservatives, libertarians, anarchocapitalists, religious groups, etc etc. I would like Geoff to explain me what is common among all these groups tha make them uniquevocally "the right".

The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: TheDoc: these groups are usually labeled as the "right": neo cons, neo nazis, fascists, conservatives, libertarians, anarchocapitalists, religious groups, etc etc. I would like Geoff to explain me what is common among all these groups tha make them uniquevocally "the right".   God, guns and greed?    Leaving out libertarians and anarchocapitalists for the moment, the other five have in common a nationalistic foreign policy, corporatism as its economic basis, and very strict social rules/policies regarding "moral" behavior.  They all have a dislike for unions and the working classes (empty rhetoric on your part), believe that those who cannot or even will not take care of themselves are drains on society and should be left to their own devices (there are neocons, fascists, and certainly religious groups who believe in the safety net).  Libertarians can be either left or right, generally they differ from the right in social policies, but the right libertarians agree with the right on economic policies, i.e. every man/woman/child for themselves (So, instead of accepting libertarians don't fit on your neat little chart you have to invent pseudo-subcategories.  Even in doing so you get it wrong by dividing social and economic, something a libertarian wouldn't do.  Something I, and any true libertarian, )would argue you cannot do.)    Anarcho-capitalists are an extreme form of right-leaning libertarians in which freedom and justice are bought and sold by the highest bidder. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a perfect description of corporatism and absolute bollocks description of anarcho-capitalists.   My sides hurt from laughing at this absurdity.

What's wrong with being a street juggler? It's fun and easy to learn, and you get to be your own boss!

The T wrote: TheDoc: these groups are usually labeled as the "right": neo cons, neo nazis, fascists, conservatives, libertarians, anarchocapitalists, religious groups, etc etc. I would like Geoff to explain me what is common among all these groups tha make them uniquevocally "the right".

That would take a while to explain.  However, this sums it up quite nicely, and I find it resonates with where I used to be as well as where I am now:

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."
- William E. Gladstone

The Doctor wrote: Not the kind of absolute free will that exists in your world.  Sure we have choices in some areas of our life, but those choices are limited and controlled to some degree by economic realities (said economic realities are usually controlled by others - CEOs, bankers, etc.).  I cannot be forced to buy a product from Walmart, as you are correct, they do not have the power to force me to buy anything from their store (yet).  However, I must buy certain products somewhere (food, housing) and I must sell products somewhere (my labor, etc.) - The question becomes who then has the power to control the terms of those transactions.  I have to sell my labor somewhere (or become a street juggler) and usually the employer determines the terms of that sale of my labor.  I have very little say in the pay I receive, working conditions, etc., especially for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.  I have to live somewhere.  Landlords generally control how much I must pay for that "privilege" and under what conditions I can live there.  I think employers and landlords already have too much power and too much control over my freedom, why should I want to give them more?  And that is exactly what getting rid of government will do.

He thinks that everyone who isn't him has some authority over him unless they are from the government, in which case, they have his best interests in mind and will punish everyone else who he has the misfortune of having to pay for goods and services or be hired by as a result of the unacceptable force that is living.  Clear it up for you, llama?

thellama73 wrote: Nice to see you Teo. Yeah, I no longer see a need for a state of any kind. I have always viewed taxation as immoral and had a hard time reconciling that with the need for police, military and courts. A wonderful essay by Murray Rothbard called "Police, Law and the Courts" convinced me that these things could work perfectly well as private entities. My chief hang up was the question "what's to stop the largest private firm from taking over and using violence to enforce its agenda?" to which the answer is "nothing, but what's to stop the military from doing that now?" It would be far easier to fight back against a company with the help of competing companies than to fight back against the military, who have a monopoly on force.

No offense, but that question reeks of unfounded paranoia.
The kind of societal structure that would embrace such a manner of private security would clearly allow corporate monopolies to exist, and we would quickly see one master corporation rise above them all and become far more powerful than any national military ever could. Corporations run on the ambition to profit. Any security they would provide would need to show its effectiveness in order to earn their place, and we would see such abuses of their power to prove their worth on a regular basis. Shareholders want results, right? A fat cop on a corner with nothing bad happening would make them upset.
 
Our military, as an entity, has no ambition aside from defense of our nation. And the military, as a whole, would never be allowed to turn on its country, certainly not in any conceivable reality in the present or any near-future. Nor would the great majority of soldiers follow orders to do so. The position is wholly unrealistic and unreasonable.

Sweet jebus! Pat has been full out anarchist for a bit, llama has now slid that far as well, Teo went all the way to....idk actually Minarchy at most. I'm still the craziest leftie here, you guys had to keep the gap eh? 


That does remind me, I posted a question about monopolies. I think it got sidetracked by pop gossip about pundits and their a****les or something...
I gather most of you are against anti monopoly laws, the idea being a naturally formed monopoly is fine since it grew from market forces, and it would be near impossible to maintain anyway.
However, do you really consider buy outs as a natural force? IMO doesn't seem like supply and demand driven market growth, just one buying a competitor and consolidating.

I honestly have no idea how anti monopoly laws work but could there be justification for not allowing monopolies to form that way?


Edited by JJLehto - January 21 2013 at 16:55

JJLehto wrote: Sweet jebus! Pat has been full out anarchist for a bit, llama has now slid that far as well, Teo went all the way to....idk actually Minarchy at most. I'm still the craziest leftie here, you guys had to keep the gap eh?  That does remind me, I posted a question about monopolies. I think it got sidetracked by pop gossip about pundits and their a****les or something... I gather most of you are against anti monopoly laws, the idea being a naturally formed monopoly is fine since it grew from market forces, and it would be near impossible to maintain anyway. However, do you really consider buy outs as a natural force? IMO doesn't seem like supply and demand driven market growth, just one buying a competitor and consolidating. I honestly have no idea how anti monopoly laws work but could there be justification for not allowing monopolies to form that way?

Found it, and happy to respond!

JJLehto wrote: Hmmmm serious note, how yall feel about monopoly laws and what not? I know that monopolies formed from natural market forces are, well natural, and without assistance they won't last...but is buying companies and consolidating them into a mega one really true market success? Havn't really thought about it, but I could see the justification for trying to keep monopolies from forming that way.

First, you are right to say that natural monopolies in a free market tend not to persist. They remain largely a theoretical construct that has been unproven. The few monopolies we have seen have been either by government, such as the post office, or with government support through barriers to entry such as licensing, IP laws and patent protection, and state granted contracts. Thus, there is little reason to suppose that they would be a problem in a free society.

As to your second point, I think you need to step back from the idea of "market forces" and think about what a buyout really is: two individuals, or groups of individuals, mutually agreeing to a voluntary exchange. How can such a thing be prevented while preserving liberty?

Thirdly, the laws regarding what does and  does not constitute a monopoly are somewhat vague and arbitrary. It usually has to do with market share, but the actual number is necessarily pulled out of a hat, and the definition of a market is such a complex thing that lobbying can have a significant impact, so that rich and powerful companies are allowed to shape the laws to a significant degree, a luxury which smaller firms do not have. If the DOJ is too aggressive in prosecuting anti-trust cases, it can inadvertently prevent mergers that would benefit consumers, not to mention the wasted resources on compliance, prosecution and lobbying thta could be put to better use elsewhere in the economy.

An example will be illustrative. Suppose Coca-Cola wanted to merge with Pepsi (for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that Coke and Pepsi don't also own other soft drinks, but only sell one product.). Naturally, they would then have a huge market share in the realm of colas, probably on the order of 90% or so. Is that too high? Should it be considered a monopoly? What if it was only 80%? Or 75%? Where is the appropriate place to draw the line, and who decides?

Next, is the "colas" market really the one we should be looking at? Does root beer count as a cola? Should we look at carbonated soft drinks in general? In that case, Coke/Pepsi's market share would plummet to about 60% or so,let's say. But what if we include juices in the market? Surely juices are a reasonable substitute for colas. Now Coke/Pepsi have a market share of just 25%. And how about milk, bottled water and coffee? How about alcoholic drinks? If we simply define the market as "drinks" Coke/Pepsi has a very small market share, and could hardly be considered a market.

Who makes these decisions? Usually the companies with the most lawyers and lobbyists play a large part in them.

In conclusion, anti-trust laws are neither useful, fair or necessary. Thank you very much.


Edited by thellama73 - January 21 2013 at 17:15

thellama73 wrote: *frinspar* wrote: thellama73 wrote: Nice to see you Teo. Yeah, I no longer see a need for a state of any kind. I have always viewed taxation as immoral and had a hard time reconciling that with the need for police, military and courts. A wonderful essay by Murray Rothbard called "Police, Law and the Courts" convinced me that these things could work perfectly well as private entities. My chief hang up was the question "what's to stop the largest private firm from taking over and using violence to enforce its agenda?" to which the answer is "nothing, but what's to stop the military from doing that now?" It would be far easier to fight back against a company with the help of competing companies than to fight back against the military, who have a monopoly on force. No offense, but that question reeks of unfounded paranoia. The kind of societal structure that would embrace such a manner of private security would clearly allow corporate monopolies to exist, and we would quickly see one master corporation rise above them all and become far more powerful than any national military ever could. Corporations run on the ambition to profit. Any security they would provide would need to show its effectiveness in order to earn their place, and we would see such abuses of their power to prove their worth on a regular basis. Shareholders want results, right? A fat cop on a corner with nothing bad happening would make them upset.   Our military, as an entity, has no ambition aside from defense of our nation. And the military, as a whole, would never be allowed to turn on its country, certainly not in any conceivable reality in the present or any near-future. Nor would the great majority of soldiers follow orders to do so. The position is wholly unrealistic and unreasonable. I think you missed my point, which was actually the opposite of paranoid. What I meant was that if the military decided to take over the country using its guns and tanks and bombs, it could and no one could stop them, but they don't do it. Similarly, a dominant private security firm could probably use its guns to take over the country, but they most likely wouldn't. It's generally easier to make money if everybody likes and trusts you than it is if everybody hates and fears you. I see no reason to suppose that one firm would achieve a monopoly over defense. Before the Sherman Act, there were no such naturally arising monopolies, and I don't see why there should be any. As soon as a company starts alienating its customers, a rival firm can spring up and capture their business.

We are well over 100 years removed from the Sherman Act and the much smaller world that existed then. While greed has always been the same, you have to admit that the abilities for instant global corporate maneuvering are something that didn't exist at the time.
We're talking about the inch and mile here, and if the handling of our army and police forces are handed over to private concerns, you can guarantee that such controls like the Sherman Act would quickly see their demise. We see the dodges and dealings daily in how companies operate now.
And if there is even a hint of profit in "taking over" then it would certainly happen. They'd have the entire rest of the world to sell to, while holding one nation as a labor force. Profit has no morals. And corporations exist for one purpose: profit.
Also, how blurry would the line become between law and company policy?

But out military will not turn on its nation, not even in another 100 years. It's impossible. Again, you can count on the larger part of the soldiers in uniform not following such orders.
You're creating support for the idea of private security based on a fantastical premise that you admit is not likely.

I'm saying the same thing, really, just from the other, more likely position.
People can fight against taxation. But have you ever tried calling your cable company about the seemingly arbitrary, outrageous and continuing increases in your bill?