5 ms·

Yes, it does. Our current system is based on corporatism (labor unions are not exempt from this behavior); where those with power and connections help make the

by gortok 11y ago

Yes, it does. Our current system is based on corporatism (labor unions are not exempt from this behavior); where those with power and connections help make the laws that keep them in power and from competition. In a libertarian society (or even in a Constitutional Republic sought out by the founders), laws are made as close to the people as possible, with the Federal government having 14 explicit powers (the power grab by interpeting the 'necessary and proper' clause broadly would not exist, and the 10th Amendment wouldn't be ignored), so you'd see Local ordinances, county ordinaces, and state laws most; and very few federal laws (again, they'd only need to cover their 14 expressly granted powers). Corporations (and labor unions, and any other 'special interest') wouldn't have to just lobby the Federal government, they'd have to lobby all 50 states, plus any localities; in short, it'd be a monumental proposition (even if we assume they were capable). Also, since the Federal Government would be necessarily weaker, there wouldn't be an incentive to try to lobby them -- no one lobbies the person that has no power. Currently, you can lobby 51-60 senators and 271 Congressmen and effectively rule the country (Remember, the ACA was written in part by the insurance industry), and in a libertarian society, there'd be no basis for that to ever happen. Also, sustained monopolies are a by-product of Government intervention (either through regulation, or explicitly by making rules against competition, much like the Railroads). In our lifetime, anyone who has 'had a monopoly' has sustained it with government help (think of Ma Bell; where utility providers are considered to have a 'natural monopoly' and as such competition is purposefully limited or non-existent). In Microsoft's case, nothing happened and their 'monopoly' was very short lived (1995-2005, Maybe?) because everyone innovated around them. There were no laws restricting who could get into the browser business, and Microsoft found themselves out-foxed. They're still trying to make up lost ground. Before saying "Libertarian policy would be far, far worse for the middle class right now", you have to ask yourself if you really understand what a Constitutional Republic actually calls for.

Frondo 11y ago
I'm sorry, but what you're replying with is kind of the standard libertarian fantasy. Shrink the reach of the federal government, and we'd be looking at rule by corporations, i.e. that don't answer to us not only in practice, but by design. How we know this? Weeelll, just look back a hundred years, when we had a significantly smaller federal government. Big businesses had far, far more power than they do now. Libertarianism surely sounds good. That's part of its enduring appeal. But for real-life workings? Nah. For anyone interested, this is a pretty good place to start unraveling the usual libertarian fare: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
- bmelton 11y ago
  And you're replying with the standard statist fantasy. Growing the federal government to protect us from all the evils of corporations is at least as naive an ideal as the libertarian one you are railing against, and moreover, presents a false dichotomy. American government is likely more an oligarchy now than it ever has been. So long as the policies are there that give the federal government influence, that influence will be exploited. If we can accept that neither unrestrained corporate power or oligarchical control of government is good, then we should be able to accept that the solution is in some middle ground, and ideological appeals to either end of the spectrum is likely ill founded.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    We might be using "fantasy" to mean different things. I'm describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn't reflect any history, and it doesn't work out the way it's supposed to wherever it's been tried. As best we have it, evidence simply doesn't support that libertarian policy ideas work the way they're supposed to. As for "statist fantasy," well, here we are: through a long, slow process of democratic engagement, we have agencies that protect our environment, improve road safety, keep workplace hazards minimal, and work to minimize discrimination in the workplace. None of them, of course, are perfect, but they all came about in response to something, some perceived imperfection in the world. People voted in politicians who reflected their values, and that eventually filtered into what we have now. But, you know, nothing's ever perfect, and it's always a process of refinement. The difference between my "statist fantasy" and the libertarian one is that I see that, by means of government, we're slowly getting the world we want. Giving free reign back to big business, to turn the environment and workplace back into a free-for-all, how much sense does that make?
    - bmelton 11y ago
      > We might be using "fantasy" to mean different things Fair. > I'm describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn't reflect any history That's arguable, really, and depends on how one defines "libertarian". I tend to get lumped in with libertarians (and even self-profess to be one when the label is convenient), but depending on your definition, early America certainly can fit the bill. Were there evils done in that time? Absolutely. Are there evils done today? Absolutely. For every agency you listed, I could list evils that they do as well, and more specifically, evils that benefit either only themselves or the corporations that have demanded them. I agree that nothing is perfect, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that there isn't a place for government protection from corporate evils -- but at the same time, it's worth refraining from dismissing entire ideologies out of hand, especially as not every libertarian argument reflects the scenario you portrayed. It's also worth noting that the libertarian argument, or at least the constitutionalist argument, doesn't mean that the abolition of, say, OSHA, will result in a complete and total lack of workplace safety regulation. The states can and should enforce workplace safety standards, and as the states are (in theory) more answerable to their people, that should be more reflective of public will. I definitely agree that nothing is a panacea, and I'm not really arguing in favor of either ideology, except to point out that just because A is not right, that doesn't mean that B necessarily is.

by gortok 11y ago

Frondo 11y ago

I'm sorry, but what you're replying with is kind of the standard libertarian fantasy. Shrink the reach of the federal government, and we'd be looking at rule by corporations, i.e. that don't answer to us not only in practice, but by design. How we know this? Weeelll, just look back a hundred years, when we had a significantly smaller federal government. Big businesses had far, far more power than they do now. Libertarianism surely sounds good. That's part of its enduring appeal. But for real-life workings? Nah. For anyone interested, this is a pretty good place to start unraveling the usual libertarian fare: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

bmelton 11y ago
And you're replying with the standard statist fantasy. Growing the federal government to protect us from all the evils of corporations is at least as naive an ideal as the libertarian one you are railing against, and moreover, presents a false dichotomy. American government is likely more an oligarchy now than it ever has been. So long as the policies are there that give the federal government influence, that influence will be exploited. If we can accept that neither unrestrained corporate power or oligarchical control of government is good, then we should be able to accept that the solution is in some middle ground, and ideological appeals to either end of the spectrum is likely ill founded.
- Frondo 11y ago
  We might be using "fantasy" to mean different things. I'm describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn't reflect any history, and it doesn't work out the way it's supposed to wherever it's been tried. As best we have it, evidence simply doesn't support that libertarian policy ideas work the way they're supposed to. As for "statist fantasy," well, here we are: through a long, slow process of democratic engagement, we have agencies that protect our environment, improve road safety, keep workplace hazards minimal, and work to minimize discrimination in the workplace. None of them, of course, are perfect, but they all came about in response to something, some perceived imperfection in the world. People voted in politicians who reflected their values, and that eventually filtered into what we have now. But, you know, nothing's ever perfect, and it's always a process of refinement. The difference between my "statist fantasy" and the libertarian one is that I see that, by means of government, we're slowly getting the world we want. Giving free reign back to big business, to turn the environment and workplace back into a free-for-all, how much sense does that make?
  - bmelton 11y ago
    > We might be using "fantasy" to mean different things Fair. > I'm describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn't reflect any history That's arguable, really, and depends on how one defines "libertarian". I tend to get lumped in with libertarians (and even self-profess to be one when the label is convenient), but depending on your definition, early America certainly can fit the bill. Were there evils done in that time? Absolutely. Are there evils done today? Absolutely. For every agency you listed, I could list evils that they do as well, and more specifically, evils that benefit either only themselves or the corporations that have demanded them. I agree that nothing is perfect, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that there isn't a place for government protection from corporate evils -- but at the same time, it's worth refraining from dismissing entire ideologies out of hand, especially as not every libertarian argument reflects the scenario you portrayed. It's also worth noting that the libertarian argument, or at least the constitutionalist argument, doesn't mean that the abolition of, say, OSHA, will result in a complete and total lack of workplace safety regulation. The states can and should enforce workplace safety standards, and as the states are (in theory) more answerable to their people, that should be more reflective of public will. I definitely agree that nothing is a panacea, and I'm not really arguing in favor of either ideology, except to point out that just because A is not right, that doesn't mean that B necessarily is.