I'm curious if any of these companies actually desire pure laissez-faire or if they just support narrow goals like lower taxes/less regulation. What do you think?
The problem with your question is that what a person or group says, does not actually define that person, or that group. This is one of the examples of words having no relevance to the truth. You can call yourself anything you want, but that does not make it true.
I guess because they like capitalism. See, most of these corporations don't necessarily use government to their advantage because they want to. It's because they have to. If they don't one of their competitors could jump in and use government to run them out of business. It's a vicious cycle that everyone knows that won't end well, but they're stuck in it with the current system. That's just one theory though. This certainly doesn't me that CATO is evil or anything though.
Lenin said left marxism is an infantile disorder. A nice way of saying it's retarded. The threat of capitalism and the several headed dragon heads it has in influental global markets, entire nations, and the ideology of dumbass peasents too ignorant and scared to riseup, makes it impossible to have any sortof revolution coupled with democratic or liberal condontations. The truth is, people are too fucking dumb and or evil to be trusted, communism must be backed by authority for the greater good.
Regulation is a double-edged sword to businesses. If you get lucky, lobby well, and the politicians play along, you can get an unfair advantage in the market. However, if another company lobbies better, the majority of people don't like your industry, or your politicians are stupid and really screw up the legislation, your competitor may get the advantage or your whole industry may be regulated out of existence. With no government interference, they can at least control their destiny by merit.
Libertarian is pro individual and explains that monopolies only exist when granted powers by governments. Quite different to the understanding I see in this video.
stealthswimmer Austrian economics has been discredited and since the 70s has actually LOST support among economists. As for economists support of capitalism this is just because of their belief in rational choice theory, which is on its way out in psychology. Economics just hasn't caught up with the rest of the social sciences but even a majority of today's economists FAVOR steps towards equality. Get with the times.
"Leftists" generally want to protect and give rights to people who do the work. Capitalists want to give right to people who do not do a majority of the work. .
_
You subscribe to discredited "Austrian economics" which makes up a philosophically invalid argument for capitalism - that anything we choose constitutes a "free-choice" regardless of the conditions. This is just a ridiculous twist on pragmatism which taught that if we believed something to be useful it's true.
It's not the government that creates these markets, the market creates these highly oppressive markets, and then the government has to come in and attempt to manage them just so they destroy themselves, and society in the process.
_
This is a flawed methodology and it's been conceded in economics it doesn't work. There needs to be a shift away from capitalism, towards cooperative development of resources.
Basically the free-market creates consolidation in all the industries, and these industries determine who sinks and who swims. This is readily apparent in any capitalist country. In fact in Hong Kong, who capitalists claim is the perfect example of the free-market, one or two corporations set all the prices of the food and any foreign company is easily shutdown. The government does nothing about the anti-competitive practices. But even in the US all industries are controlled by a few corps.
The idea that one person has more "rights" than another person based on how much money they had is the same idea that rich, elite white men had more "rights" in the structure of government based on how much property they have. It's the same logic as both situations.
_
Basically, Libertarians such as s0beit believe people should have rights based on how much property they acquire in highly rigged markets. Humanity has no time for such tyranny anymore.
Corporations are part of the same government infrastructure as any other government agency. The difference is that you can DEMOCRATICALLY vote in a government, which is how all institutions should be run. With corporations, you "vote with your dollars," which means that if I have $100 and you have $1, I have more of a vote than you do. So if there is a product that you want and you save, it may have already been taken off the market, as you had no vote.
Wrong. Having less money doesn't mean the stuff you like gets taken off the market. If something isn't paid for enough to pay for the money prices of the inputs, and enough to make up for opportunity cost, then it gets taken off the market. If lots of people with $1 spend on it, it can stay on the market. But of course you also ignore where income comes from. It comes from satisfying other people's preferences (in a free market anyways, not in our current fascist system)
@stealthswimmer Having less money means you have less decision making power. Further, I will have less to spend if I have less money thus I cannot "vote" as often as someone who has more money, and I have to be more careful with my money. This is easily mathematically proven and is often discussed in economics.
_
Finally, most investment comes from people with money. Thus, they decide what they choose is the most profitable investments, regardless of its health on the public, this is tyranny.
having less money means you have less power to make *some* decisions *on your own.* There is nothing stopping ppl from pooling resources together or getting others to lend them some money (that's how lots of small businesses start. You can borrow money and pay back with interest or out of future profits by making people shareholders).
Most investment comes from ppl with money *because they have more to invest with.* ANd things are profitable *because* ppl want them
@stealthswimmer People buy things because they need them. In order to survive in a capitalist market I know I have to get a job, and there are certain things that I have to acquire to obtain that job. Furthermore, objectively, I have human needs. And I must buy them. This mix necessities people's entrance in the "market system," but they are only allowed to vote through a limited set of options provided by the corporations.
Plenty of people buy stuff simply cus they want it, not cus they need it(if they have that much wealth, and in many of the more capitalist countries, they do).
"In order to survive in a capitalist market I know I have to get a job,"
Right off the bat, you're wrong. You CAN work a job....or you could be self-employed, or you could engage in self-subsistence farming(bad idea, in my opinion), or you might inherit something.
@stealthswimmer You don't understand utility, or capitalism. Capitalism always leads to a consolidation of resources in few hands. Thus, your "voting options" are always limited between a few corporate dictators that "earned" their property by being in the right place at the right time, securing large shares of equity and blockading other people from having democratic input. There isn't a single worthwhile economist who doesn't understand this fact.
"Capitalism always leads to a consolidation of resources in few hands."
no, not really. It depends on how you define it - since most people accept "private ownership of the means of production" that's the definition I use. There is state capitalism and there is laissez-faire. Capitalism all on its own doesn't necessarily lead to concentration of wealth and indeed created the middle class.
Yes you must buy certain necessities, that's a result of scarcity, not capitalism. We have limited resources....
Furthermore, the "voting" in a marketplaces is not a limited set of options provided by just corporations. Anyone who is willing to sell something can sell it. A market means far lower barriers to entry in the production and sale of goods and/or services.
@stealthswimmer We buy certain necessities because of biology. Even if there were unlimited resources there would still be capitalism if there was a government protecting private property rights because they would control the means of production, thus blocking people from utilizing the resources free. Capitalists have even done this with our limited resources - it's called artificial scarcity.
sure, if you have a state it can create artificial scarcity - however this doesn't necessarily follow from capitalism (which is simply private ownership over the means of production). We have scarce resources for the most part. Owning things in common and using them "free" simply would cause depletion faster than otherwise would occur, which has been shown in many circumstances such as with overfishing.
@stealthswimmer This is indeed "basic economics" and basic common sense. There are only so much resources. If corporations control most of the resources, obviously they are the ones providing me with my options. Corporations can attempt to determine what people really want, but they are the ones ultimately making the decisions. That's capitalism.
@stealthswimmer The free-market doesn't satisfy people's needs, nor do we live under a fascist system. Fascism is when the only power is private power, not public power. The Nazis pioneered the use of "privatization" (what Libertarians favor) as the basis of political freedom, and even Mussolini wrote that this is "liberty." This is what you Libertarians favor so you are fascist.
_
We are not fascist in America because the electorate still has some input and the market is not in total control.
The free market does satisfy ppl's needs, or at least is the best system for getting closest to that (because if people want something and are willing to pay for it, it means there is profit in providing it)
and yes we do live in a fascist system. Fascism is nominally private ownership with lots of government regulation but subsidies for favored businesses (corporate welfare) often times coupled with protectionism and barriers to trade. The US has all of that.
@stealthswimmer Yes, I would agree with you we have a system that is close to fascism, in that private corporations have a large influence on our government. But there are also public elements that exist that don't have anything to do with fascism.
_
Our "elite democracy" is close to fascism exactly because those with money/power have more say in the government, and the government uses its own power to push for more benefits for the corporations at the expense of the public.
"But there are also public elements that exist that don't have anything to do with fascism. "
I was referring to the economic aspects of fascism.
"Our "elite democracy" is close to fascism exactly because those with money/power have more say in the government, and the government uses its own power to push for more benefits for the corporations at the expense of the public. "
All governments work like that. That's what the incentives lead to - shouldn't be surprising
A land owner = a government. A land owner can charge rents to use the land he owns (taxes) and the land owner can hire forces (monopoly on force) to prevent you from threatening their rules (laws) and codes (regulations).
_ When Libertarians assume a universal implementation of property rights, they're assuming there should be some weird, corporate dictatorship that we must all live under. Let the cooperatives decide how they will run their own land.
@successfulbuild What you mean by "most effective" is the people will the best products selling it to the people who would willingly buy those products from them.
There are exceptions of course, of necessity but you will find 95% or more of the things you buy on a regular basis are not necessary.
You willingly give corporations money, if you want to kill them, stop giving them money and convince others to do the same. If they don't care, too bad.
@s0beit That's a lie. Microsoft doesn't have the "best products" and better products exist. Microsoft maintains its monopoly because it is a big corporation that force other companies into oppressive contracts, such as refusing to allow developers to develop or share information with other platforms.
_
Automobiles are not designed as they could be and when the people wanted safer cars, the corporations would not provide them and the govt stepped in.
@successfulbuild Yes they do have the best products (maybe not in servers) but they have a user friendly UI for morons, which, the world consists of mainly, and it also has a powerful graphics library which most operating systems do not have.
By the way, what is the alternative to MS? MAC? the guys want to shut flash out of their market? or Linux, the free guys who have no decent graphics library and no support from mainstream devs because there is no userbase?..
@s0beit Linux does have a good implementation of OpenGL and many programmers use Linux. Modern KDE is just as easy to use as windows. The reason developers don't make more games for it is because of its small market base and because it is difficult for companies to make drivers etc. for Linux because of the microsoft monopoly.
_
You have just proven my point, capitalism creates monopolies like Microsoft who have special privileges.
@successfulbuild how did i make your point? you are just believing your own bullshit. In fact you actually made ANOTHER point against your own argument.
"because it is difficult for companies to make drivers etc", whos fault is that? It is the developers of the kernels fault if thats true, what about a decent IDE? there is a litany of reasons why windows holds the market on that scene, you are just too up your own ass to see anything clearly.
@s0beit The Microsoft monopoly forces developers into oppressive contracts where they promise to only develop for MS. Hardware companies are only allowed to open up their specifications to MS. MS isn't as bad as apple - which does this same thing even for software and forces you to go through their "Apple Store" to even make a game for their cell phones - but it is still bad. Thus, hardware companies can't spend a tenth of the amount of time developing for Linux as they can for windows.
@successfulbuild There used to be dozens of operating systems, none of whom controlled all the market. Now there are really only two. There used to be more agribusinesses, the big three controlling only 40% of the market. Now they control 80% of the market. There used to be at least 14 different car companies, now we have the big three. And so on.
_
Capitalism creates monopolies, which are authorities that TELL people what they want, not provide them with what they want.
In a true free-market, there would be more than just "businesses." There would be confederations, cooperatives, guilds, and so on, and the most effective ones would win out.
@successfulbuild What you mean by "most effective" is the people will the best products selling it to the people who would willingly buy those products from them.
There are exceptions of course, of necessity but you will find 95% or more of the things you buy on a regular basis are not necessary.
You willingly give corporations money, if you want to kill them, stop giving them money and convince others to do the same. If they don't care, too bad.
As for the Libertarian Party, they are completely pro-corporatist. As this "s0beit" troll said, they basically want the military protecting the corporations, and thus protecting their "private property." This is basically Mussolini's definition of Fascism.
_
The Libertarian Party is thus completely corporatist/fascist.
@successfulbuild nobody said anything about the military, people would be able to defend themselves, or if a local municipality (government) decided to have a police force, yes, they would protect people from stealing other peoples money if it was in their laws.
However under a libertarian system you likely wouldn't need to steal, there is no provision for force to coerce money from civilians, but people would be willing to share if anyone actually had money (unlike our current system)
@successfulbuild also nowhere in the libertarian platform says anything about military protecting corporations, you clearly just made that up, anyone who reads this should go seek out the correct information too, i get it, you hate capitalism, but you are spinning things and making crazy accusations, you should learn what libertarianism is even about completely rather then make up lies.
Capitalism is about "corporatism." The only way to make money in capitalism is to start a business that is legally recognized by the government. It cannot be a business that is not legally recognized. Then you must get investors to put money into your business. Then you must make your shareholders happy, and so on and so forth. This is all done in a very narrow system of rights, and now the capitalists have admitted that they want military backing, so the government is involved in every step
This is what Libertarians are - capitalists. Capitalism does NOT work. If capitalism worked, the government wouldn't have to get involved in the first place. The government got involved with the economy because there was such a consolidation during the Gilded Age that people were demanding more access to the resources they created. Hence, anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly laws and so.
_
Libertarians basically want to remove all these, and allow corporations to run everything.
@successfulbuild What you are describing is crony-capitalism, not actual capitalism. If you study the history of corporations, you will see that large corporations were once frowned upon by the founding fathers. Before the civil war corporations were granted definite charters for a specific purpose and were only allowed to engage in activities in order to fulfill their stated purpose. People were able to start their own business without acknowledgment or intervention from the government.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Here's your answer: For the same reason they make contributions to all sides of the political spectrum; they are arrogant and believe they can manipulate all sides to serve their interests. True Libertarian ideology doesn't allow for the protections corporations have (and other businesses don't) under the law. If the corporations who are employing unethical practices think they can keep so-called Libertarians from removing these protections they will give as much money as they can.
Maybe they've tried and the IWW won't accept their donations which is good on them. I have no idea why. Just because the Cato Institute does accept their money, doesn't mean that true Libertarian ideology supports big corporate interests above all others. Just because true leftist views are completely against Corporatism doesn't mean libertarian ones are for it. This is a straw man argument and you know it.
True Libertarians would like to see our nation go back to before the 1880 Supreme Court decision which secured Corporations the same rights as individual citizens. Before this decision corporations mainly received their charters from states and for a definite period of time. These corporations had to have a purpose and were only allowed to engage in activities which allowed them to carry out their purpose stated in their charter. They could otherwise have their charter revoked or not renewed.
Also, these corporations were not allowed to buy stock in other corporations or get involved in the political process. The people had the power to petition the government to revoke the charters of companies who violated the law or partook in unethical practices. If we were to give back the power over corporations to the people then unions would become very useful as the watchdogs.
@mumanator27 Yes, if a corporation or entity exists it should have a purpose and should be efficiently working with resources. If the corporation is outside of its bounds and is mainly stalling progress, the corporation should be removed.
_
Corporations should be forced to renew their contracts every 10 years or so, so they are not just sitting there blocking other people from using resources effectively.
@successfulbuild When I say I agree with you it is about corporations having to renew their charters and being removed if they go outside of their bounds or stall progress.
There are several forces which drive a free market: supply/demand, competition, cost of living, inflation/deflation, cost (which includes labor, taxes, and other fees), and government. In a true free market (true capitalism) these forces (minus the government) oppose each other or work together to allow for greater production and creation of wealth. Government should only be involved in order to prevent the manipulation of these forces and to enforce contracts (including corporate charters).
@mr1001nights Free-market ideology may benefit corporations, but that doesn't mean it doesn't benefit small businesses and individuals as well. The ideas of the IWW may not benefit corporations at all, but that doesn't mean they would benefit small businesses and individuals. This isn't 1+1=2. No matter how hard we try there will never be a perfect system. A close study of history will show that when individuals within a society are given economic freedom, that society will flourish.
@mumanator27 I think you make a good point...his argument assumes that the CATO institute adequately represents what you have termed "true Libertarianism" - if this is not the case, then it is a classic straw man argument. However, let me ask you 1) what is "true Libertarianism" in your view? 2) do you agree or disagree with the positions of the CATO institute? 3) How would the absence of govt reg lead 2 anything but the extreme, unbridled tyranny of the many by a few concerted, corp interests?
Of course the state manages people's affairs when it manages private property - which is exactly what Libertarian fascists want. Only a total idiot would not recognize this fact. Given what Libertarians preach about economics and mathematics and logic, it's not surprising to see them hold such contradictory, idiotic positions I guess.
This latest kook is another 9-11 truther; Libertarians basically are stupid people.
"Libertarians" want a society where the government only protects the corporations. This is "corproatism" or fascism. Their fascism must be rejected if society is to advance as fascism does not work. Fascism doesn't work precisely for the reason capitalism doesn't work - resources are not used efficiently and are placed in the hands of stated created monopolies. Capitalism and Fascism are closely connected so it's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.
@successfulbuild No, Libertarians want the state to interfere as little as possible with everything. I don't know what ideology you THINK you are talking about, but the government would do very little under a libertarian structure, standing armies, foreign relations and very, very little else.
Capitalism works perfectly, your retarded rhetoric fails to conclude that you are talking about Corporatism, which Libertarians do not support.
@s0beit So basically Libertarians are for militarily enforced capitalism and you refuse to call it a state? You are the retard. When we had fewer "interventions" in the economy there were even BIGGER corporations who controlled even MORE areas of the economy, and there were fewer small businesses.
Okay that says Chase Foundation of Virginia NOT Chase Bank like you say, and is not associated with the bank. I noticed you didn't link to the report because if you did people would see that institutional support takes up less than a page, and their most recent report lists a total of 7 corporate sponsors. the rest are foundations. Now I can't research every sponsor, but Caterpillar, Volkswagen, Mazda and FedEx, don't really come of as "evil corporations" like say Halliburton or JP Morgan do.
Why do Democrats and Republicans get donations from corporations? Duh. It's a matter of survival and who is kissing whose ass. Right now most businesses like regulation because they write the laws and their small biz competition out of business. Wal-mart has politicians condemn property so they can take it...the abuses go on and on. We live in a socialistic society, and what happens, wake up and smell reality dude...the corps will follow the power no matter who has it.
@artsyeyes ALL corporations benefit from the government. What a government primarily does is determine who can and who cannot own property, so your "comment" is stupid and meaningless, like Libertarian philosophy. The fact that you think we are actually a socialist society shows you have no understanding of socialism outside of maybe Mark Levine, as the resources are primarily PRIVATELY owned. The government itself is mostly PRIVATE - not influenced by the public but only by private corps
Sorry but it absolutely is possible for corporations to pollute without government help. I could shit in a bucket right now and throw it in the local river. But for your sake you need to wake up and smell the poison because you live in the US, where fish in all fifty states have been contaminated with mercury that causes birth defects, and you would not even know that if it wasn't for state investigators. This was allowed to happen because of too little regulation, not too much.
@TimeTelescope There was a time when corporations could have their charters revoked for conducting shady business. You don't need a new law to make it illegal for corporations to pollute. To intentionally pollute is already illegal. Corporate charters just need to be enforced and revoked when the corporations break the law.
Since you seem unfamiliar with pollution litigation, let me inform you that proving the exact source of highly unstable chemicals which may have been introduced decades before detection takes committed teams of investigators and scientists.
In order to make pollution "illegal no matter what" (your words) everyone, including the very poor, would need access to such services, which means public investigators and scientists. If not, your constitution would be just an empty promise for most of us.
@ "takes committed teams of investigators and scientists."
And if you owned a valuable lake which was made poisonous by some other industry, you would hire that team to find out. Why do we need a company run by elected officials that can steal money at will to do it?
It isn't
gov=environemental protection
no gov=no protection
People like you make the fundamental mistake of thinking that human action somehow is fundamentally changed for the better by a monopoly of coercion directing it.
@Hashishin13 so I take it you prefer some kind of panopoly of coercion? like private armies? Mad Max is great to watch but I would rather not live in it, thanks.
@Hashishin13 Hold on. If I owned a valuable lake?! I think you may have made my point for me. I do not own a valuable lake. Never will. Neither do you. We just need water from it. The kind of people who could afford to buy the lake I need my drinking water from are guess who? Giant polluting multinationals like BP. And I cant afford to sue their asses. And neither can you. I rest my case.
@Hashishin13 If you are going to ignore reality completely there is no point even talking about it. There are many cases that could be won where the complainant is right, that no lawyer will take without money down because the defendant has such a strong legal team. Talk to a corporate lawyer. The law is not a self-regulating system. It is never that perfect. It cannot function effectively without oversight. The fact that oversight is presently flawed is reason to improve rather than destroy it.
@TimeTelescope Exactly, improve it by adopting the system I espouse. The government doesn't protect the environment. In fact all over the world the most polluted land is the land owned by government.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Of course state capitalism is the most retarded ideology we have today, and is most responsible for most of the violence we see in the world, but If we are going to deal with a consistent advocacy of libertarian capitalism, then we can only talk about market anarchists. CATO would NOT support a society where property was negotiated peacefully without violent enforcement, and therefore not support market anarchists. Corporations need the state to enforce their so called "property rights."
@hugolp. Hilarious. And what happens if those who own the property cannot afford to hire a team of reputable scientists and lawyers to make a case against the incredibly wealthy, powerful and well-represented polluters? They get fucked over and out, that's what.
The natural logic of your ideology leaves relatively poor people (i.e. most of us) at the mercy of wealthy corporations and banks who are best equipped to fight through the courts. That is submission to inevitable economic slavery.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TimeTelescope That depends on what kind of legal system you're talking about. That's not the system I support. I support a free market libertarian society where pollution is illegal, no matter how many lawyers you hire. Private property protection is paramount. You say my "system leaves poor people at the mercy of corporations who are best equipped to fight through the courts." No it doesn't. In my system, the constitution would be explicit that private property rights were inviolable.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Check the list of corporate donnors for comunist-"environmentalist" think-tanks and you will find something similar or even worse. George Soros is now funding this type of groups, and he is starting an instutite to opose free-market doctrines.
Also, bear in mind that CATO are the beltways, they oposed Ron Paul during the elections (this should tell you a lot). Check the Mises Institute for real libertarian though.
George Soros sponsors kensyan perspectives (i.e.straight center politics)--and only to save capitalism from itself. True radical ideas (e.g. anarcho-communism) don't get sponsored by elites.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
???? The comunist revolution was financed by the big banks. A lot of the european elites are comunist. How can you say big money does not like comunism?
Even if your bank conspiracy theory were true, you'd just be talking about an elite state system (bolshevism). You would have to provide evidence that elites supported true working class movements and anarchism.
Yes. I am glad we are getting into the substance of this now.
1. Poisoning/pollution: With no help from government, large companies can destroy ecosystems on which humans depend. It is important to note that these ecosystems can be thousands of miles away from the customers. If you review cases of gas companies in India, oil in South America and of course coal in the USA, you find that companies have dumped massive quantities of lethal pollutants in human habited areas with little legal redress.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Environment should be handled through private property rights.
This days, people can not enforce their private property rights on the environment and this rights are controlled by the goverment and you can see the disaster they are making.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TimeTelescope. Yes, but that's not what I asked. I asked what abuse of power could a corporation engage in WITHOUT the help of government. Pollution doesn't happen with the help of government. Corporations can do it on their own, without government assistance. Government not standing in the way of pollution is not government assistance. It's just government doing nothing. If government does its job of protecting property rights (of things and human bodies), then pollution is illegal.
Yes, size can effect economy of scale. But size also brings massive, unaccountable, undemocratic, non-transparent power. That power can be abused with or without the help of anyone else.
It is fair to observe that governments have very often abetted such abuses of corporate power. But to advance from this to the idea that removing government will spontaneously transform major corporations into saints/simpletons with no motivation or means to abuse their power is a wild utopian fantasy.
What would you consider an abuse of power by a corporation that it can engage in without the assistance of government force? Do you have an example, either actual or hypothetical?
Sorry but that is a total cop-out. Allow me to provide some quite necessary abstraction.
All books or other documents supporting "anarcho-capitalism" or anything like it are total delusion, based on abject incomprehension of the potentials of financial and political power. This in turn is based on gross ignorance of history that allows them to ignore the very plain fact that the history of all successful states is a history of effective governments.
Yes it is remarkably inconsistent to call yourself a libertarian and support the massive concentrations of power that comprise large corporations in the modern world.
There is no confusion of large corporations with corporatism. The two are identical. When a corporation reaches a certain size, the combination of loss of human personality, accumulation of resources and commitment to constantly increasing profits drives it into conflict with the public interest.
Corporations and corporatism are certainly not identical. Corporations by definition is the merger of corporations and government. If the corporation has not merged with government, then that's not corporatism. That's simply a corporation.
And you're wrong that when a corporations reaches a certain size and tries to increase profits that that drives it into conflict with the public interest. Size gives it economy of scale so that it can provide low prices. And if an eye is kept on "constantly" increasing profits, then they have to satisfy customers and continually attract new customers. They do this by improving existing products and services, devloping new one, and becoming more efficient so that prices can be driven down.
If a corporation is giving money to a libertarian think tank, then their interest there is obviously to stop the government from interfering with their businesses. Government can help some businesses by interfering with their competitors' business on their behalf, and government can hurt businesses by interfering with them.
"their interest there is obviously to stop the government from interfering with their businesses"
Well, they don't mind the billions they derive from their influence on government (tax payer's dollars, property protection). They just mind when the public uses their democratic influence through the government to have a say over the corporation's totalitarian structure.
@mr1001nights. Yes, so? I don't understand what point your'e trying to make. Do you think you've found some kind of inconsistency? Of course someone who is for private property protection and lower taxes is going to be likely to donate to libertarian think tanks and libertarian politicians. A libertarian is in favor of government being there to protect property from being stolen, and to keep government intself from stealing or controlling that property.
@mr1001nights a corporation is not a government, they do not have a standing army, they do not police people, your loose usage of the word "totalitarian" is simply retarded.
Governments are far more dangerous than capitalist corporations, libertarians do want to attack corporate structure because they believe a lot of the corporate monopolies are propped up by the government corporate welfare system, libertarians believe that corporations are an issue, just not as large an issue as government.
@s0beit Name a corporation that isn't government protected or hasn't been helped by the government. Corporations are legal entities that are propped up by the state and are granted special privileges by the state. You "Libertarian" corporations and fascists want the state ONLY to manage the affairs of these corporations, as predicted by Marx.
@successfulbuild Sure I can name a corporation that was not helped or protected by the state. Back in the 19th century an Anarchist named Lysander Spooner created a company ("corporation") to deliver mail, rather than helping it the state passed legislation making it illegal for anyone but the government to deliver mail, and so his business failed. Secondly it takes the most colossal misunderstanding in the history of misunderstandings to say that Libertarians want the state to manage buisness
@priapus512 If he created a company he had to register it with the government and the government helps small businesses by managing the economy as a whole. In fact, there are more small businesses today than there were then. The ratio of small businesses to people is greater today than it was then.
I'm a libertarian and love corporations. What's the problem? Maybe you're confusing corporations with corporaTISM? Corporatism is the merger of the state and corporations. I am all for corporations. I'm just against them teaming up with them colluding with the state to interfere with free markets.
I think you're on to something mr1001nights. But another good place to look for corporate dollar expenditures would be lobbying efforts. Let me know how your research goes in that area. =)
Simple question. Of course none of you dumb ass libertarians know. You just hear "no big government, no more spending" and you follow along like mindless sheep.
Fuck Ron Paul. Fuck Alex Jones. Fuck your tea bags and your ridiculous 18th century old slave owning white guy costumes. Fuck libertarianism.
Well here in the US, libertarianism means deregulated free market capitalism without any sort of government intervention whatsoever (that means minimum wage, 8 hour work day, and any other government regulation has to go) and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which only means private property rights (If i don't want to hire blacks, or pay someone $7.25 p/hr then I don't have to) This obviously has nothing to do with communism which represents a classless egalitarian society.
The Mises Institute advocates a private property-based society in which all mutually voluntary actions are legal and all coercive actions are illegal, wherein law and security are _services_ provided by the marketplace, and without any coercive governments.
Cato, on the other hand, are what are known as "beltway libertarians." They pick and choose libertarian positions like a buffet in order to try to influence policy in DC directly by gaining the attention of politicians. I think their mistake -- if it IS a mistake -- is in thinking that politicians care to protect the interests of anyone besides themselves.
I should take care to note that there may be some people at Cato who do worthwhile work, even if the organization as a whole is headed in the wrong direction. I don't want to malign everyone there, in case there are some good people.
"Security" is a byword for coercion, as many innocent victims of private "security" forces (in Iraq and Colombia for instance) will testify.
How do you make "all coercive actions" illegal? Think about this for a minute and you will realize it is impossible.
The question is not whether coercion exists, but how it is controlled. To say you prefer "the market" is exactly the same as saying those with the most money (banks etc) should have a monopoly on coercion.
I can't explain it in any greater detail than gross abstractions in the space of a YouTube comment. If you want to understand it, go read The Market for Liberty. Do a search for it and you can find a free audiobook and pdf of it if you like.
OK for example Toyota has caused the deaths of dozens of people with their defective accelerators. Is this a criminal Case? Of course not it, is TORT law (civil) so as a corporation you can cause the deaths of many many people and NOT be charged with any criminal act. Tell me you dont have TORT law in Ireland? Toyota and thier recall is a very good example of how companies use corporate law to skirt the same level of responsibility as an individual.
O Gee, fickle Corporate law.... Isnt this the whole premise of this blog. BTW you want to see the results of this Capitalist system google "Embeddedart com" and see what one guy who believed in so called Free market freedom did when the scales finally fell from his eyes.
Capitalists DONT work, They live off the work of others. They OWN the land, labor, and capital (plant and equipment). They live of the production of other people who actually put their hands on things that are made. A capitalist is DIFFERENT than an inventor or founder. Modern capitalists dont CREATE anything except accounts.
Well that is why laws are created to control individuals. Corporations are developed so that the individuals forming them have NO PERSONAL Liability. Then where does responsibility lay? This goes right back to the CATO and support for libertarian argument. Cato and Libertarians agitate for NO regulations on Corporations which in turn allows individuals in corporations to act criminally without any recourse from society.
So you see yourself as a Capitalist and not a worker. No wonder you have the viewpoint that you do. This is the foxes debating how to raid the henhouse. Let me guess, you sit at a desk and pontificate all day. You are the example of who 1001 talks about when he says that the capitalist never produces anything, but uses the excess production of the laborers he has appropriated for himself in the form of Profits.
So I see this is actually entertainment for you. LOL do you work for a corporation? I have for 31 years now. The largest corporation. I may have a little more insight into the reality of corporations than you do. Also having studied History and economics for longer than you have been on the planet. Ever wonder why Ireland is about to Belly UP? They bought too many CDOs from Corporations, LOL The Free Market unregulated Derivatives wrecked your country.
I wonder how many many Millions have died in wars fought to defend corporate profits and ensure the resource aquisition of Corporations. Do a little research on the real causes of ww1 and ww2 not to mention the occupations and invasions in places like the phillipines, indonesia, central America ect. the list goes on.
The Ludlow massacre was a good example of this. Of course in this case the competition was Labor, but you get my point. Standard Oil was known for "Killing Off" the competition. In Fact John D was quoted as saying he HATED competition.
It is the corporations who are supporting these "libertarian" thinktanks. If the premise was so flawed, there would not be such obvious evidence to back it up. It's like someone pointing out a hole in your argument and you saying, "that's impossible because my argument is right".
What's your point? If a corporation wants government to not regulate them then it's going to donate to libertarian think tanks. Not sure what your or mr1001night's points are. Seems like you think you've found some kind of inconsistency or something? Please explain.
@TimeTelescope That's because A) You're confusing Libertarian and libertarian. Big "L" is Republican lite. "l" is a free market philosophy. The two are not related other then the "L" take "l" ideas and use them to attract new fools.. B) You don't understand a Free Market. A Free Market cannot exist with a government. Without a government you cannot have a corporation. Corporations are created by the government. You cannot force limited liability down people's throats without government.
@TimeTelescope Also, corporations like the status quo. They make such huge profits from government intervention in the markets that they couldn't survive without subsidies and tax breaks. If you think corporations want a free market then you're blind. Corporations don't like competition.
What better way to protect yourself then to control the actions of your enemy?
Anyone within the libertarian movement knows that respect for CATO is very lacking. CATO even inspired a pejorative for libertarians becoming conservative and comfortable with statism: "beltway-libertarian"
brainpolice2 is a youtube user who produced a video called "The failure of Conservatarianism". It is a rather good demolition of the libetarian/conservative paradigm.
This is very important, because it's these things that give banking and the state all it's power. If you can extend the money supply limitlessly, then there is no restraint to it's growth in power of business or the state.
A healthy money supply prevents what you guys worry about, capital concentrating to a few overly powerful capitalist creating a sort of non-transparent fuedal system.
While both libertarian, the views on money supply and monetary policy is key.
if anarchism means being against self-legitimized authority, i will subscribe. in anarchy, you can do what you want and have free relationships with whomever, this is why id rather ally myself with other anarchists, whatever their views on market relationships, rather than people who are not anarchists and agree with me on everything else. i dont 'encourage' greed, it is just an assumption i work with in the worst case scenario, expecting anything better is expecting too much. greed=/=corruption
there are very few friends that i am able to be intimate with and label them as 'family,' sorry thats just me, i cant just go around trusting everybody, they need to build their credibility, its what ive learned about life. My rationalizations do not ground themselves in a revolution of human behavior, i take the worst possible scenario and build upon that, otherwise my argument would be weak.
Why is everyone acting like this is the ultimate zinger on Anarcho-Capitalism? Cato is a Minarchist/Conservative think tank, not an Anarcho-Capitalist think tank. They support some of the State functions that those corporations benefit from (police, copyright, courts). /obvious
Koch Family Foundations support all of these organizations and the republican party as well. Rothbard depended on the Koch family for much of his career too.
All of these think tanks exist only because corporations and elites support them financially.
A) A % number does not address the question. Perhaps you should watch the video again.
B) 60% of all stats are made up. Your 2% is clearly such a stat, not connected to fiscal year or given any sort of context.
C) In reality, Cato simply would never have existed in the first place without seed money from Charles Koch and would not continue to exist today without funds from corporations and wealthy elites.
*Direct* corporate donations are only a small % of its funding... but a larger chunk of its funding comes from donations from foundations that are themselves founded/funded by corporations.
Also:
- Cato was FOUNDED by billionaire Charles Koch, co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned company in the United States.
- Most of its board of directors come directly from corporations and corporate foundations
neutralize corruption and greed? how about we neutralize fear and idiocy while we are at it? then i wont need to reply to these comments thats for sure...
i dont know how we can 'neutralize' it, but there are ways to deal with it through creditability schemes. Now, i ask you, how would greed be 'neutralized' in your utopia?
there is a mechanism, and it doesn't need to the state. Like I said before if someone exercises greed and corruption, the company goes out of business, and the greedy individuals will lose their vehicle to exercise greed.
This is fine, unless the state as you said socializes the losses, which I agree is abhorrent. Also if you read the book Moral Markets which is based in Neuro-Science, shows how most market actors are honest, but the few naturally bad people hurt, as they would anyways.
I'm curious if any of these companies actually desire pure laissez-faire or if they just support narrow goals like lower taxes/less regulation. What do you think?
qrqrqrqr1 2 months ago
CATO does not promote a Free Market. That's why.
They promote a watered down, half-assed, pro-government version of "libertarianism".
chrislbrunner 4 months ago
The problem with your question is that what a person or group says, does not actually define that person, or that group. This is one of the examples of words having no relevance to the truth. You can call yourself anything you want, but that does not make it true.
jeebiskebowski 11 months ago
Why switch the topic!?
zg76 1 year ago
hahaahah pwnd.
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
I guess because they like capitalism. See, most of these corporations don't necessarily use government to their advantage because they want to. It's because they have to. If they don't one of their competitors could jump in and use government to run them out of business. It's a vicious cycle that everyone knows that won't end well, but they're stuck in it with the current system. That's just one theory though. This certainly doesn't me that CATO is evil or anything though.
sniper6081 1 year ago
Lenin said left marxism is an infantile disorder. A nice way of saying it's retarded. The threat of capitalism and the several headed dragon heads it has in influental global markets, entire nations, and the ideology of dumbass peasents too ignorant and scared to riseup, makes it impossible to have any sortof revolution coupled with democratic or liberal condontations. The truth is, people are too fucking dumb and or evil to be trusted, communism must be backed by authority for the greater good.
JimProfitCat 1 year ago
Regulation is a double-edged sword to businesses. If you get lucky, lobby well, and the politicians play along, you can get an unfair advantage in the market. However, if another company lobbies better, the majority of people don't like your industry, or your politicians are stupid and really screw up the legislation, your competitor may get the advantage or your whole industry may be regulated out of existence. With no government interference, they can at least control their destiny by merit.
rnecas 1 year ago
I'm not turning down free money from anyone.
rnecas 1 year ago
Libertarian is pro individual and explains that monopolies only exist when granted powers by governments. Quite different to the understanding I see in this video.
merekee 1 year ago
stealthswimmer Austrian economics has been discredited and since the 70s has actually LOST support among economists. As for economists support of capitalism this is just because of their belief in rational choice theory, which is on its way out in psychology. Economics just hasn't caught up with the rest of the social sciences but even a majority of today's economists FAVOR steps towards equality. Get with the times.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Leftists" generally want to protect and give rights to people who do the work. Capitalists want to give right to people who do not do a majority of the work. .
_
You subscribe to discredited "Austrian economics" which makes up a philosophically invalid argument for capitalism - that anything we choose constitutes a "free-choice" regardless of the conditions. This is just a ridiculous twist on pragmatism which taught that if we believed something to be useful it's true.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
It's not the government that creates these markets, the market creates these highly oppressive markets, and then the government has to come in and attempt to manage them just so they destroy themselves, and society in the process.
_
This is a flawed methodology and it's been conceded in economics it doesn't work. There needs to be a shift away from capitalism, towards cooperative development of resources.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Basically the free-market creates consolidation in all the industries, and these industries determine who sinks and who swims. This is readily apparent in any capitalist country. In fact in Hong Kong, who capitalists claim is the perfect example of the free-market, one or two corporations set all the prices of the food and any foreign company is easily shutdown. The government does nothing about the anti-competitive practices. But even in the US all industries are controlled by a few corps.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
The idea that one person has more "rights" than another person based on how much money they had is the same idea that rich, elite white men had more "rights" in the structure of government based on how much property they have. It's the same logic as both situations.
_
Basically, Libertarians such as s0beit believe people should have rights based on how much property they acquire in highly rigged markets. Humanity has no time for such tyranny anymore.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Corporations are part of the same government infrastructure as any other government agency. The difference is that you can DEMOCRATICALLY vote in a government, which is how all institutions should be run. With corporations, you "vote with your dollars," which means that if I have $100 and you have $1, I have more of a vote than you do. So if there is a product that you want and you save, it may have already been taken off the market, as you had no vote.
_
Such elitism is typical of the right.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
Wrong. Having less money doesn't mean the stuff you like gets taken off the market. If something isn't paid for enough to pay for the money prices of the inputs, and enough to make up for opportunity cost, then it gets taken off the market. If lots of people with $1 spend on it, it can stay on the market. But of course you also ignore where income comes from. It comes from satisfying other people's preferences (in a free market anyways, not in our current fascist system)
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer Having less money means you have less decision making power. Further, I will have less to spend if I have less money thus I cannot "vote" as often as someone who has more money, and I have to be more careful with my money. This is easily mathematically proven and is often discussed in economics.
_
Finally, most investment comes from people with money. Thus, they decide what they choose is the most profitable investments, regardless of its health on the public, this is tyranny.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
having less money means you have less power to make *some* decisions *on your own.* There is nothing stopping ppl from pooling resources together or getting others to lend them some money (that's how lots of small businesses start. You can borrow money and pay back with interest or out of future profits by making people shareholders).
Most investment comes from ppl with money *because they have more to invest with.* ANd things are profitable *because* ppl want them
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer People buy things because they need them. In order to survive in a capitalist market I know I have to get a job, and there are certain things that I have to acquire to obtain that job. Furthermore, objectively, I have human needs. And I must buy them. This mix necessities people's entrance in the "market system," but they are only allowed to vote through a limited set of options provided by the corporations.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
Plenty of people buy stuff simply cus they want it, not cus they need it(if they have that much wealth, and in many of the more capitalist countries, they do).
"In order to survive in a capitalist market I know I have to get a job,"
Right off the bat, you're wrong. You CAN work a job....or you could be self-employed, or you could engage in self-subsistence farming(bad idea, in my opinion), or you might inherit something.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer You don't understand utility, or capitalism. Capitalism always leads to a consolidation of resources in few hands. Thus, your "voting options" are always limited between a few corporate dictators that "earned" their property by being in the right place at the right time, securing large shares of equity and blockading other people from having democratic input. There isn't a single worthwhile economist who doesn't understand this fact.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
"Capitalism always leads to a consolidation of resources in few hands."
no, not really. It depends on how you define it - since most people accept "private ownership of the means of production" that's the definition I use. There is state capitalism and there is laissez-faire. Capitalism all on its own doesn't necessarily lead to concentration of wealth and indeed created the middle class.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
(continued)
Yes you must buy certain necessities, that's a result of scarcity, not capitalism. We have limited resources....
Furthermore, the "voting" in a marketplaces is not a limited set of options provided by just corporations. Anyone who is willing to sell something can sell it. A market means far lower barriers to entry in the production and sale of goods and/or services.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer We buy certain necessities because of biology. Even if there were unlimited resources there would still be capitalism if there was a government protecting private property rights because they would control the means of production, thus blocking people from utilizing the resources free. Capitalists have even done this with our limited resources - it's called artificial scarcity.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
sure, if you have a state it can create artificial scarcity - however this doesn't necessarily follow from capitalism (which is simply private ownership over the means of production). We have scarce resources for the most part. Owning things in common and using them "free" simply would cause depletion faster than otherwise would occur, which has been shown in many circumstances such as with overfishing.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer This is indeed "basic economics" and basic common sense. There are only so much resources. If corporations control most of the resources, obviously they are the ones providing me with my options. Corporations can attempt to determine what people really want, but they are the ones ultimately making the decisions. That's capitalism.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer The free-market doesn't satisfy people's needs, nor do we live under a fascist system. Fascism is when the only power is private power, not public power. The Nazis pioneered the use of "privatization" (what Libertarians favor) as the basis of political freedom, and even Mussolini wrote that this is "liberty." This is what you Libertarians favor so you are fascist.
_
We are not fascist in America because the electorate still has some input and the market is not in total control.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
The free market does satisfy ppl's needs, or at least is the best system for getting closest to that (because if people want something and are willing to pay for it, it means there is profit in providing it)
and yes we do live in a fascist system. Fascism is nominally private ownership with lots of government regulation but subsidies for favored businesses (corporate welfare) often times coupled with protectionism and barriers to trade. The US has all of that.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
(continued)
By fascism, i mean economic fascism, not necessarily 100% political fascism. Hence my description of it in the previous response.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@stealthswimmer Yes, I would agree with you we have a system that is close to fascism, in that private corporations have a large influence on our government. But there are also public elements that exist that don't have anything to do with fascism.
_
Our "elite democracy" is close to fascism exactly because those with money/power have more say in the government, and the government uses its own power to push for more benefits for the corporations at the expense of the public.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
"But there are also public elements that exist that don't have anything to do with fascism. "
I was referring to the economic aspects of fascism.
"Our "elite democracy" is close to fascism exactly because those with money/power have more say in the government, and the government uses its own power to push for more benefits for the corporations at the expense of the public. "
All governments work like that. That's what the incentives lead to - shouldn't be surprising
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
@mumanator
You very much do have to change the law of incorporation to force companies more responsible. The laws of incorporation ain't what they used to be.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago
A land owner = a government. A land owner can charge rents to use the land he owns (taxes) and the land owner can hire forces (monopoly on force) to prevent you from threatening their rules (laws) and codes (regulations).
_ When Libertarians assume a universal implementation of property rights, they're assuming there should be some weird, corporate dictatorship that we must all live under. Let the cooperatives decide how they will run their own land.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild What you mean by "most effective" is the people will the best products selling it to the people who would willingly buy those products from them.
There are exceptions of course, of necessity but you will find 95% or more of the things you buy on a regular basis are not necessary.
You willingly give corporations money, if you want to kill them, stop giving them money and convince others to do the same. If they don't care, too bad.
s0beit 1 year ago
@s0beit That's a lie. Microsoft doesn't have the "best products" and better products exist. Microsoft maintains its monopoly because it is a big corporation that force other companies into oppressive contracts, such as refusing to allow developers to develop or share information with other platforms.
_
Automobiles are not designed as they could be and when the people wanted safer cars, the corporations would not provide them and the govt stepped in.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Yes they do have the best products (maybe not in servers) but they have a user friendly UI for morons, which, the world consists of mainly, and it also has a powerful graphics library which most operating systems do not have.
By the way, what is the alternative to MS? MAC? the guys want to shut flash out of their market? or Linux, the free guys who have no decent graphics library and no support from mainstream devs because there is no userbase?..
s0beit 1 year ago
@s0beit Linux does have a good implementation of OpenGL and many programmers use Linux. Modern KDE is just as easy to use as windows. The reason developers don't make more games for it is because of its small market base and because it is difficult for companies to make drivers etc. for Linux because of the microsoft monopoly.
_
You have just proven my point, capitalism creates monopolies like Microsoft who have special privileges.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild how did i make your point? you are just believing your own bullshit. In fact you actually made ANOTHER point against your own argument.
"because it is difficult for companies to make drivers etc", whos fault is that? It is the developers of the kernels fault if thats true, what about a decent IDE? there is a litany of reasons why windows holds the market on that scene, you are just too up your own ass to see anything clearly.
s0beit 1 year ago
@s0beit The Microsoft monopoly forces developers into oppressive contracts where they promise to only develop for MS. Hardware companies are only allowed to open up their specifications to MS. MS isn't as bad as apple - which does this same thing even for software and forces you to go through their "Apple Store" to even make a game for their cell phones - but it is still bad. Thus, hardware companies can't spend a tenth of the amount of time developing for Linux as they can for windows.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild There used to be dozens of operating systems, none of whom controlled all the market. Now there are really only two. There used to be more agribusinesses, the big three controlling only 40% of the market. Now they control 80% of the market. There used to be at least 14 different car companies, now we have the big three. And so on.
_
Capitalism creates monopolies, which are authorities that TELL people what they want, not provide them with what they want.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
In a true free-market, there would be more than just "businesses." There would be confederations, cooperatives, guilds, and so on, and the most effective ones would win out.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild What you mean by "most effective" is the people will the best products selling it to the people who would willingly buy those products from them.
There are exceptions of course, of necessity but you will find 95% or more of the things you buy on a regular basis are not necessary.
You willingly give corporations money, if you want to kill them, stop giving them money and convince others to do the same. If they don't care, too bad.
s0beit 1 year ago
You said that the government would still have "standing armies" and would conduct "foreign relations."
_
However, the military should be abolished as the US has no major enemies. Then we should abolish corporations, and, finally, landed property.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
As for the Libertarian Party, they are completely pro-corporatist. As this "s0beit" troll said, they basically want the military protecting the corporations, and thus protecting their "private property." This is basically Mussolini's definition of Fascism.
_
The Libertarian Party is thus completely corporatist/fascist.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild nobody said anything about the military, people would be able to defend themselves, or if a local municipality (government) decided to have a police force, yes, they would protect people from stealing other peoples money if it was in their laws.
However under a libertarian system you likely wouldn't need to steal, there is no provision for force to coerce money from civilians, but people would be willing to share if anyone actually had money (unlike our current system)
s0beit 1 year ago
@successfulbuild also nowhere in the libertarian platform says anything about military protecting corporations, you clearly just made that up, anyone who reads this should go seek out the correct information too, i get it, you hate capitalism, but you are spinning things and making crazy accusations, you should learn what libertarianism is even about completely rather then make up lies.
s0beit 1 year ago
Capitalism is about "corporatism." The only way to make money in capitalism is to start a business that is legally recognized by the government. It cannot be a business that is not legally recognized. Then you must get investors to put money into your business. Then you must make your shareholders happy, and so on and so forth. This is all done in a very narrow system of rights, and now the capitalists have admitted that they want military backing, so the government is involved in every step
successfulbuild 1 year ago
This is what Libertarians are - capitalists. Capitalism does NOT work. If capitalism worked, the government wouldn't have to get involved in the first place. The government got involved with the economy because there was such a consolidation during the Gilded Age that people were demanding more access to the resources they created. Hence, anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly laws and so.
_
Libertarians basically want to remove all these, and allow corporations to run everything.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild What you are describing is crony-capitalism, not actual capitalism. If you study the history of corporations, you will see that large corporations were once frowned upon by the founding fathers. Before the civil war corporations were granted definite charters for a specific purpose and were only allowed to engage in activities in order to fulfill their stated purpose. People were able to start their own business without acknowledgment or intervention from the government.
mumanator27 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here's your answer: For the same reason they make contributions to all sides of the political spectrum; they are arrogant and believe they can manipulate all sides to serve their interests. True Libertarian ideology doesn't allow for the protections corporations have (and other businesses don't) under the law. If the corporations who are employing unethical practices think they can keep so-called Libertarians from removing these protections they will give as much money as they can.
mumanator27 1 year ago
@mumanator27
How come they don't donate to the IWW or other such radical unions then?
mr1001nights 1 year ago 7
@mr1001nights
Maybe they've tried and the IWW won't accept their donations which is good on them. I have no idea why. Just because the Cato Institute does accept their money, doesn't mean that true Libertarian ideology supports big corporate interests above all others. Just because true leftist views are completely against Corporatism doesn't mean libertarian ones are for it. This is a straw man argument and you know it.
mumanator27 1 year ago
True Libertarians would like to see our nation go back to before the 1880 Supreme Court decision which secured Corporations the same rights as individual citizens. Before this decision corporations mainly received their charters from states and for a definite period of time. These corporations had to have a purpose and were only allowed to engage in activities which allowed them to carry out their purpose stated in their charter. They could otherwise have their charter revoked or not renewed.
mumanator27 1 year ago
Also, these corporations were not allowed to buy stock in other corporations or get involved in the political process. The people had the power to petition the government to revoke the charters of companies who violated the law or partook in unethical practices. If we were to give back the power over corporations to the people then unions would become very useful as the watchdogs.
mumanator27 1 year ago
@mumanator27 Yes, if a corporation or entity exists it should have a purpose and should be efficiently working with resources. If the corporation is outside of its bounds and is mainly stalling progress, the corporation should be removed.
_
Corporations should be forced to renew their contracts every 10 years or so, so they are not just sitting there blocking other people from using resources effectively.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild I couldn't agree with you more.
mumanator27 1 year ago
@successfulbuild When I say I agree with you it is about corporations having to renew their charters and being removed if they go outside of their bounds or stall progress.
mumanator27 1 year ago
There are several forces which drive a free market: supply/demand, competition, cost of living, inflation/deflation, cost (which includes labor, taxes, and other fees), and government. In a true free market (true capitalism) these forces (minus the government) oppose each other or work together to allow for greater production and creation of wealth. Government should only be involved in order to prevent the manipulation of these forces and to enforce contracts (including corporate charters).
mumanator27 1 year ago
@mumanator27
"I have no idea why"
I do: free-market ideology supports elites. Radical unions like the IWW don't.
mr1001nights 1 year ago 4
@mr1001nights Free-market ideology may benefit corporations, but that doesn't mean it doesn't benefit small businesses and individuals as well. The ideas of the IWW may not benefit corporations at all, but that doesn't mean they would benefit small businesses and individuals. This isn't 1+1=2. No matter how hard we try there will never be a perfect system. A close study of history will show that when individuals within a society are given economic freedom, that society will flourish.
mumanator27 1 year ago
@mumanator27 I think you make a good point...his argument assumes that the CATO institute adequately represents what you have termed "true Libertarianism" - if this is not the case, then it is a classic straw man argument. However, let me ask you 1) what is "true Libertarianism" in your view? 2) do you agree or disagree with the positions of the CATO institute? 3) How would the absence of govt reg lead 2 anything but the extreme, unbridled tyranny of the many by a few concerted, corp interests?
musicalidea 1 year ago
Of course the state manages people's affairs when it manages private property - which is exactly what Libertarian fascists want. Only a total idiot would not recognize this fact. Given what Libertarians preach about economics and mathematics and logic, it's not surprising to see them hold such contradictory, idiotic positions I guess.
This latest kook is another 9-11 truther; Libertarians basically are stupid people.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Libertarians" want a society where the government only protects the corporations. This is "corproatism" or fascism. Their fascism must be rejected if society is to advance as fascism does not work. Fascism doesn't work precisely for the reason capitalism doesn't work - resources are not used efficiently and are placed in the hands of stated created monopolies. Capitalism and Fascism are closely connected so it's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild No, Libertarians want the state to interfere as little as possible with everything. I don't know what ideology you THINK you are talking about, but the government would do very little under a libertarian structure, standing armies, foreign relations and very, very little else.
Capitalism works perfectly, your retarded rhetoric fails to conclude that you are talking about Corporatism, which Libertarians do not support.
s0beit 1 year ago 2
@s0beit So basically Libertarians are for militarily enforced capitalism and you refuse to call it a state? You are the retard. When we had fewer "interventions" in the economy there were even BIGGER corporations who controlled even MORE areas of the economy, and there were fewer small businesses.
Capitalism does not work.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Okay that says Chase Foundation of Virginia NOT Chase Bank like you say, and is not associated with the bank. I noticed you didn't link to the report because if you did people would see that institutional support takes up less than a page, and their most recent report lists a total of 7 corporate sponsors. the rest are foundations. Now I can't research every sponsor, but Caterpillar, Volkswagen, Mazda and FedEx, don't really come of as "evil corporations" like say Halliburton or JP Morgan do.
priapus512 1 year ago
Why do Democrats and Republicans get donations from corporations? Duh. It's a matter of survival and who is kissing whose ass. Right now most businesses like regulation because they write the laws and their small biz competition out of business. Wal-mart has politicians condemn property so they can take it...the abuses go on and on. We live in a socialistic society, and what happens, wake up and smell reality dude...the corps will follow the power no matter who has it.
artsyeyes 1 year ago
@artsyeyes ALL corporations benefit from the government. What a government primarily does is determine who can and who cannot own property, so your "comment" is stupid and meaningless, like Libertarian philosophy. The fact that you think we are actually a socialist society shows you have no understanding of socialism outside of maybe Mark Levine, as the resources are primarily PRIVATELY owned. The government itself is mostly PRIVATE - not influenced by the public but only by private corps
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Sorry but it absolutely is possible for corporations to pollute without government help. I could shit in a bucket right now and throw it in the local river. But for your sake you need to wake up and smell the poison because you live in the US, where fish in all fifty states have been contaminated with mercury that causes birth defects, and you would not even know that if it wasn't for state investigators. This was allowed to happen because of too little regulation, not too much.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago 11
@TimeTelescope There was a time when corporations could have their charters revoked for conducting shady business. You don't need a new law to make it illegal for corporations to pollute. To intentionally pollute is already illegal. Corporate charters just need to be enforced and revoked when the corporations break the law.
mumanator27 1 year ago
Since you seem unfamiliar with pollution litigation, let me inform you that proving the exact source of highly unstable chemicals which may have been introduced decades before detection takes committed teams of investigators and scientists.
In order to make pollution "illegal no matter what" (your words) everyone, including the very poor, would need access to such services, which means public investigators and scientists. If not, your constitution would be just an empty promise for most of us.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago 5
@TimeTelescope, regardless, that still wouldn't be an example of corporations abusing their power without government help which is what I asked for.
DackBev 1 year ago
@ "takes committed teams of investigators and scientists."
And if you owned a valuable lake which was made poisonous by some other industry, you would hire that team to find out. Why do we need a company run by elected officials that can steal money at will to do it?
It isn't
gov=environemental protection
no gov=no protection
People like you make the fundamental mistake of thinking that human action somehow is fundamentally changed for the better by a monopoly of coercion directing it.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 so I take it you prefer some kind of panopoly of coercion? like private armies? Mad Max is great to watch but I would rather not live in it, thanks.
TimeTelescope 9 months ago
@Hashishin13 Hold on. If I owned a valuable lake?! I think you may have made my point for me. I do not own a valuable lake. Never will. Neither do you. We just need water from it. The kind of people who could afford to buy the lake I need my drinking water from are guess who? Giant polluting multinationals like BP. And I cant afford to sue their asses. And neither can you. I rest my case.
TimeTelescope 9 months ago
@TimeTelescope "can't afford to sue" isn't an arguement, lawyers take cases for free if there is a legitimate claim.
Hashishin13 9 months ago
@Hashishin13 If you are going to ignore reality completely there is no point even talking about it. There are many cases that could be won where the complainant is right, that no lawyer will take without money down because the defendant has such a strong legal team. Talk to a corporate lawyer. The law is not a self-regulating system. It is never that perfect. It cannot function effectively without oversight. The fact that oversight is presently flawed is reason to improve rather than destroy it.
TimeTelescope 9 months ago
@TimeTelescope Exactly, improve it by adopting the system I espouse. The government doesn't protect the environment. In fact all over the world the most polluted land is the land owned by government.
Hashishin13 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Of course state capitalism is the most retarded ideology we have today, and is most responsible for most of the violence we see in the world, but If we are going to deal with a consistent advocacy of libertarian capitalism, then we can only talk about market anarchists. CATO would NOT support a society where property was negotiated peacefully without violent enforcement, and therefore not support market anarchists. Corporations need the state to enforce their so called "property rights."
vteam02 1 year ago
@hugolp. Hilarious. And what happens if those who own the property cannot afford to hire a team of reputable scientists and lawyers to make a case against the incredibly wealthy, powerful and well-represented polluters? They get fucked over and out, that's what.
The natural logic of your ideology leaves relatively poor people (i.e. most of us) at the mercy of wealthy corporations and banks who are best equipped to fight through the courts. That is submission to inevitable economic slavery.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TimeTelescope That depends on what kind of legal system you're talking about. That's not the system I support. I support a free market libertarian society where pollution is illegal, no matter how many lawyers you hire. Private property protection is paramount. You say my "system leaves poor people at the mercy of corporations who are best equipped to fight through the courts." No it doesn't. In my system, the constitution would be explicit that private property rights were inviolable.
DackBev 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Check the list of corporate donnors for comunist-"environmentalist" think-tanks and you will find something similar or even worse. George Soros is now funding this type of groups, and he is starting an instutite to opose free-market doctrines.
Also, bear in mind that CATO are the beltways, they oposed Ron Paul during the elections (this should tell you a lot). Check the Mises Institute for real libertarian though.
hugolp 1 year ago
@hugolp
@hugolp
George Soros sponsors kensyan perspectives (i.e.straight center politics)--and only to save capitalism from itself. True radical ideas (e.g. anarcho-communism) don't get sponsored by elites.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
???? The comunist revolution was financed by the big banks. A lot of the european elites are comunist. How can you say big money does not like comunism?
hugolp 1 year ago
@hugolp
Even if your bank conspiracy theory were true, you'd just be talking about an elite state system (bolshevism). You would have to provide evidence that elites supported true working class movements and anarchism.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
Yes. I am glad we are getting into the substance of this now.
1. Poisoning/pollution: With no help from government, large companies can destroy ecosystems on which humans depend. It is important to note that these ecosystems can be thousands of miles away from the customers. If you review cases of gas companies in India, oil in South America and of course coal in the USA, you find that companies have dumped massive quantities of lethal pollutants in human habited areas with little legal redress.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Environment should be handled through private property rights.
This days, people can not enforce their private property rights on the environment and this rights are controlled by the goverment and you can see the disaster they are making.
hugolp 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TimeTelescope. Yes, but that's not what I asked. I asked what abuse of power could a corporation engage in WITHOUT the help of government. Pollution doesn't happen with the help of government. Corporations can do it on their own, without government assistance. Government not standing in the way of pollution is not government assistance. It's just government doing nothing. If government does its job of protecting property rights (of things and human bodies), then pollution is illegal.
DackBev 1 year ago
Yes, size can effect economy of scale. But size also brings massive, unaccountable, undemocratic, non-transparent power. That power can be abused with or without the help of anyone else.
It is fair to observe that governments have very often abetted such abuses of corporate power. But to advance from this to the idea that removing government will spontaneously transform major corporations into saints/simpletons with no motivation or means to abuse their power is a wild utopian fantasy.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago
What would you consider an abuse of power by a corporation that it can engage in without the assistance of government force? Do you have an example, either actual or hypothetical?
DackBev 1 year ago
Sorry but that is a total cop-out. Allow me to provide some quite necessary abstraction.
All books or other documents supporting "anarcho-capitalism" or anything like it are total delusion, based on abject incomprehension of the potentials of financial and political power. This in turn is based on gross ignorance of history that allows them to ignore the very plain fact that the history of all successful states is a history of effective governments.
I would be happy to elaborate if necessary.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago
@DackBev.
Yes it is remarkably inconsistent to call yourself a libertarian and support the massive concentrations of power that comprise large corporations in the modern world.
There is no confusion of large corporations with corporatism. The two are identical. When a corporation reaches a certain size, the combination of loss of human personality, accumulation of resources and commitment to constantly increasing profits drives it into conflict with the public interest.
TimeTelescope 2 years ago
Corporations and corporatism are certainly not identical. Corporations by definition is the merger of corporations and government. If the corporation has not merged with government, then that's not corporatism. That's simply a corporation.
DackBev 1 year ago
And you're wrong that when a corporations reaches a certain size and tries to increase profits that that drives it into conflict with the public interest. Size gives it economy of scale so that it can provide low prices. And if an eye is kept on "constantly" increasing profits, then they have to satisfy customers and continually attract new customers. They do this by improving existing products and services, devloping new one, and becoming more efficient so that prices can be driven down.
DackBev 1 year ago
If a corporation is giving money to a libertarian think tank, then their interest there is obviously to stop the government from interfering with their businesses. Government can help some businesses by interfering with their competitors' business on their behalf, and government can hurt businesses by interfering with them.
DackBev 2 years ago
@DackBev
"their interest there is obviously to stop the government from interfering with their businesses"
Well, they don't mind the billions they derive from their influence on government (tax payer's dollars, property protection). They just mind when the public uses their democratic influence through the government to have a say over the corporation's totalitarian structure.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights. Yes, so? I don't understand what point your'e trying to make. Do you think you've found some kind of inconsistency? Of course someone who is for private property protection and lower taxes is going to be likely to donate to libertarian think tanks and libertarian politicians. A libertarian is in favor of government being there to protect property from being stolen, and to keep government intself from stealing or controlling that property.
DackBev 2 years ago
@mr1001nights a corporation is not a government, they do not have a standing army, they do not police people, your loose usage of the word "totalitarian" is simply retarded.
Governments are far more dangerous than capitalist corporations, libertarians do want to attack corporate structure because they believe a lot of the corporate monopolies are propped up by the government corporate welfare system, libertarians believe that corporations are an issue, just not as large an issue as government.
s0beit 1 year ago
@s0beit Name a corporation that isn't government protected or hasn't been helped by the government. Corporations are legal entities that are propped up by the state and are granted special privileges by the state. You "Libertarian" corporations and fascists want the state ONLY to manage the affairs of these corporations, as predicted by Marx.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Negative, we want the state to control as little as possible.
Corporations simply wouldn't exist under a Libertarian structure.
s0beit 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Sure I can name a corporation that was not helped or protected by the state. Back in the 19th century an Anarchist named Lysander Spooner created a company ("corporation") to deliver mail, rather than helping it the state passed legislation making it illegal for anyone but the government to deliver mail, and so his business failed. Secondly it takes the most colossal misunderstanding in the history of misunderstandings to say that Libertarians want the state to manage buisness
priapus512 1 year ago
@priapus512 If he created a company he had to register it with the government and the government helps small businesses by managing the economy as a whole. In fact, there are more small businesses today than there were then. The ratio of small businesses to people is greater today than it was then.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Yeah, okay that's a strange response.
priapus512 1 year ago
I'm a libertarian and love corporations. What's the problem? Maybe you're confusing corporations with corporaTISM? Corporatism is the merger of the state and corporations. I am all for corporations. I'm just against them teaming up with them colluding with the state to interfere with free markets.
DackBev 2 years ago
I think you're on to something mr1001nights. But another good place to look for corporate dollar expenditures would be lobbying efforts. Let me know how your research goes in that area. =)
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
Simple question. Of course none of you dumb ass libertarians know. You just hear "no big government, no more spending" and you follow along like mindless sheep.
Fuck Ron Paul. Fuck Alex Jones. Fuck your tea bags and your ridiculous 18th century old slave owning white guy costumes. Fuck libertarianism.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
Libertarianism means social anarchism or communism in the rest of the world.
pulsatingremedy 2 years ago
@pulsatingremedy
Well here in the US, libertarianism means deregulated free market capitalism without any sort of government intervention whatsoever (that means minimum wage, 8 hour work day, and any other government regulation has to go) and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which only means private property rights (If i don't want to hire blacks, or pay someone $7.25 p/hr then I don't have to) This obviously has nothing to do with communism which represents a classless egalitarian society.
Xproletariatx 2 years ago
Yeah, but not here, oddly enough. We're to the right of EVERYTHING.
nocturnezero 2 years ago
@Xproletariatx No love for the Austrian school?
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
Think tanks are people paid to think by people with tanks.
coffeebeaner 2 years ago 3
CATO is not a principled organization. If you want to find some principled libertarians, look for the Mises Institute.
asdfqwerty2000 2 years ago
@asdfqwerty2000
But the CATO Institute and Von Mises Institute advocate the same or similar stances on policies.
maddoxfanx 2 years ago
To people who aren't libertarians looking in from the outside, they look very similar; but to libertarians, they are very different organizations.
asdfqwerty2000 2 years ago
@asdfqwerty2000
so what's the difference?
maddoxfanx 2 years ago
The Mises Institute advocates a private property-based society in which all mutually voluntary actions are legal and all coercive actions are illegal, wherein law and security are _services_ provided by the marketplace, and without any coercive governments.
asdfqwerty2000 2 years ago
Cato, on the other hand, are what are known as "beltway libertarians." They pick and choose libertarian positions like a buffet in order to try to influence policy in DC directly by gaining the attention of politicians. I think their mistake -- if it IS a mistake -- is in thinking that politicians care to protect the interests of anyone besides themselves.
asdfqwerty2000 2 years ago
I should take care to note that there may be some people at Cato who do worthwhile work, even if the organization as a whole is headed in the wrong direction. I don't want to malign everyone there, in case there are some good people.
asdfqwerty2000 2 years ago
@asd2000. Don't be ridiculous.
"Security" is a byword for coercion, as many innocent victims of private "security" forces (in Iraq and Colombia for instance) will testify.
How do you make "all coercive actions" illegal? Think about this for a minute and you will realize it is impossible.
The question is not whether coercion exists, but how it is controlled. To say you prefer "the market" is exactly the same as saying those with the most money (banks etc) should have a monopoly on coercion.
TimeTelescope 2 years ago 2
I can't explain it in any greater detail than gross abstractions in the space of a YouTube comment. If you want to understand it, go read The Market for Liberty. Do a search for it and you can find a free audiobook and pdf of it if you like.
asdfqwerty2000 1 year ago
OK for example Toyota has caused the deaths of dozens of people with their defective accelerators. Is this a criminal Case? Of course not it, is TORT law (civil) so as a corporation you can cause the deaths of many many people and NOT be charged with any criminal act. Tell me you dont have TORT law in Ireland? Toyota and thier recall is a very good example of how companies use corporate law to skirt the same level of responsibility as an individual.
enkelin32 2 years ago
O Gee, fickle Corporate law.... Isnt this the whole premise of this blog. BTW you want to see the results of this Capitalist system google "Embeddedart com" and see what one guy who believed in so called Free market freedom did when the scales finally fell from his eyes.
enkelin32 2 years ago
Capitalists DONT work, They live off the work of others. They OWN the land, labor, and capital (plant and equipment). They live of the production of other people who actually put their hands on things that are made. A capitalist is DIFFERENT than an inventor or founder. Modern capitalists dont CREATE anything except accounts.
enkelin32 2 years ago
Well that is why laws are created to control individuals. Corporations are developed so that the individuals forming them have NO PERSONAL Liability. Then where does responsibility lay? This goes right back to the CATO and support for libertarian argument. Cato and Libertarians agitate for NO regulations on Corporations which in turn allows individuals in corporations to act criminally without any recourse from society.
enkelin32 2 years ago
So you see yourself as a Capitalist and not a worker. No wonder you have the viewpoint that you do. This is the foxes debating how to raid the henhouse. Let me guess, you sit at a desk and pontificate all day. You are the example of who 1001 talks about when he says that the capitalist never produces anything, but uses the excess production of the laborers he has appropriated for himself in the form of Profits.
enkelin32 2 years ago
So I see this is actually entertainment for you. LOL do you work for a corporation? I have for 31 years now. The largest corporation. I may have a little more insight into the reality of corporations than you do. Also having studied History and economics for longer than you have been on the planet. Ever wonder why Ireland is about to Belly UP? They bought too many CDOs from Corporations, LOL The Free Market unregulated Derivatives wrecked your country.
enkelin32 2 years ago
So murder in the name of corporations is ok with you?
enkelin32 2 years ago
I wonder how many many Millions have died in wars fought to defend corporate profits and ensure the resource aquisition of Corporations. Do a little research on the real causes of ww1 and ww2 not to mention the occupations and invasions in places like the phillipines, indonesia, central America ect. the list goes on.
enkelin32 2 years ago
The Ludlow massacre was a good example of this. Of course in this case the competition was Labor, but you get my point. Standard Oil was known for "Killing Off" the competition. In Fact John D was quoted as saying he HATED competition.
enkelin32 2 years ago
Excellent point. I suggest you add a little information on the CATO in your info section so people can get a bit more context.
TimeTelescope 2 years ago
A corporation can't exist in a Free Market so you're whole premise is flawed.
mindmesh 2 years ago
Did you actually watch the video? Geeze.....
It is the corporations who are supporting these "libertarian" thinktanks. If the premise was so flawed, there would not be such obvious evidence to back it up. It's like someone pointing out a hole in your argument and you saying, "that's impossible because my argument is right".
TimeTelescope 2 years ago 2
What's your point? If a corporation wants government to not regulate them then it's going to donate to libertarian think tanks. Not sure what your or mr1001night's points are. Seems like you think you've found some kind of inconsistency or something? Please explain.
DackBev 2 years ago
@TimeTelescope That's because A) You're confusing Libertarian and libertarian. Big "L" is Republican lite. "l" is a free market philosophy. The two are not related other then the "L" take "l" ideas and use them to attract new fools.. B) You don't understand a Free Market. A Free Market cannot exist with a government. Without a government you cannot have a corporation. Corporations are created by the government. You cannot force limited liability down people's throats without government.
mindmesh 1 year ago
@TimeTelescope Also, corporations like the status quo. They make such huge profits from government intervention in the markets that they couldn't survive without subsidies and tax breaks. If you think corporations want a free market then you're blind. Corporations don't like competition.
What better way to protect yourself then to control the actions of your enemy?
mindmesh 1 year ago
CATO is about as terrible an example of principled libertarianism and anti-state free market ideal as the Soviet Union was of anarcho-communism.
Even Chomsky in his own research mirrors the libertarian argument that corporate power relies upon the suppression of a truly free market.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
Anyone within the libertarian movement knows that respect for CATO is very lacking. CATO even inspired a pejorative for libertarians becoming conservative and comfortable with statism: "beltway-libertarian"
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
How would you prevent neoliberal economists from propagandizing views like Cato's and other corp interests? Without an authority, you couldn't.
Antiks72 2 years ago
brainpolice2 is a youtube user who produced a video called "The failure of Conservatarianism". It is a rather good demolition of the libetarian/conservative paradigm.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago 2
This is very important, because it's these things that give banking and the state all it's power. If you can extend the money supply limitlessly, then there is no restraint to it's growth in power of business or the state.
A healthy money supply prevents what you guys worry about, capital concentrating to a few overly powerful capitalist creating a sort of non-transparent fuedal system.
While both libertarian, the views on money supply and monetary policy is key.
AlexMerced 2 years ago
What's the difference between CATO and Mises?
Well to sum it up, Mises is more of educational entity and CATO is a think tank trying to influence politics.
Although policy wise Mises is FAR MORE in the direction of Market Anarchism focusing on how to exist with little to no state. (which is more me)
While CATO focuses on how to shrink and use the state to free the market. (which is not so much me, but they do hit on some good points.)
CATO is more Neo-Classical, while Mises is Austrian
AlexMerced 2 years ago
and honestly, what are you talking about? nobody "welcomes" corruption... (other than politicians, central bankers, their corporate buddies, etc.)
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
Otherwise known as the people who control the world
enkelin32 2 years ago
if anarchism means being against self-legitimized authority, i will subscribe. in anarchy, you can do what you want and have free relationships with whomever, this is why id rather ally myself with other anarchists, whatever their views on market relationships, rather than people who are not anarchists and agree with me on everything else. i dont 'encourage' greed, it is just an assumption i work with in the worst case scenario, expecting anything better is expecting too much. greed=/=corruption
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
there are very few friends that i am able to be intimate with and label them as 'family,' sorry thats just me, i cant just go around trusting everybody, they need to build their credibility, its what ive learned about life. My rationalizations do not ground themselves in a revolution of human behavior, i take the worst possible scenario and build upon that, otherwise my argument would be weak.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
5 * and shared.
klfly 2 years ago 2
Why is everyone acting like this is the ultimate zinger on Anarcho-Capitalism? Cato is a Minarchist/Conservative think tank, not an Anarcho-Capitalist think tank. They support some of the State functions that those corporations benefit from (police, copyright, courts). /obvious
nightpotato 2 years ago
Koch Family Foundations support all of these organizations and the republican party as well. Rothbard depended on the Koch family for much of his career too.
All of these think tanks exist only because corporations and elites support them financially.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago 3
Uhh, yeah most Anarcho-capitalists hate the Koch foundation because it drags the Libertarian movement towards conservatism.
nightpotato 2 years ago
151 comments, still no An-Cap has answered the question.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
really?
FiremanHurley 2 years ago
@FiremanHurley
Snark = fail
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
You don't think the fact that Cato receives less than 2% of its funding from corporations is a significant answer?
briano8713 2 years ago
A) A % number does not address the question. Perhaps you should watch the video again.
B) 60% of all stats are made up. Your 2% is clearly such a stat, not connected to fiscal year or given any sort of context.
C) In reality, Cato simply would never have existed in the first place without seed money from Charles Koch and would not continue to exist today without funds from corporations and wealthy elites.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago 2
@briano8713
*Direct* corporate donations are only a small % of its funding... but a larger chunk of its funding comes from donations from foundations that are themselves founded/funded by corporations.
Also:
- Cato was FOUNDED by billionaire Charles Koch, co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned company in the United States.
- Most of its board of directors come directly from corporations and corporate foundations
PavedStones 2 years ago 4
@briano8713
- Ruppert Murdoch served in the Cato's board of directors. Meaning Cato has the whole global Murdoch media empire in it's pocket-- how anti-elite!
PavedStones 2 years ago 2
Why indeed.
slipcurve 2 years ago
neutralize corruption and greed? how about we neutralize fear and idiocy while we are at it? then i wont need to reply to these comments thats for sure...
i dont know how we can 'neutralize' it, but there are ways to deal with it through creditability schemes. Now, i ask you, how would greed be 'neutralized' in your utopia?
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
there is a mechanism, and it doesn't need to the state. Like I said before if someone exercises greed and corruption, the company goes out of business, and the greedy individuals will lose their vehicle to exercise greed.
This is fine, unless the state as you said socializes the losses, which I agree is abhorrent. Also if you read the book Moral Markets which is based in Neuro-Science, shows how most market actors are honest, but the few naturally bad people hurt, as they would anyways.
AlexMerced 2 years ago