5 ms·

". . . but trying NOT to give power to anyone will just accept that power falls to those that are ruthless and abusive to take it regardless." This is the crux

". . . but trying NOT to give power to anyone will just accept that power falls to those that are ruthless and abusive to take it regardless." This is the crux, and I've never seen a good Libertarian defense against this. Someone will always fill the power void.

Consultant32452 10y ago
I'm a libertarian that supports unions. If you can get enough of the labor force together to demand higher wages or better benefits, more power to you. I don't think the government should be involved in that. I'm even happy to support socialist style businesses where the workers share ownership. If someone can make that work and be successful/competitive? Awesome. Again, I just don't think the government has any business meddling in it.
- grasshopperpurp 10y ago
  Appreciate the response and POV. Based on the info you shared here, I think you're someone who could definitely work with more left-leaning people to find common ground, which is sadly missing from the people actually making decisions. My question would be: without government intervention, what incentive do mega corporations have to allow unions to continue? What prevents them from making their own rules, which prevent unions? Since these same companies are behind the efforts to dismantle unions, it seems that removing government would just remove the middle man, making it easier for companies to abuse workers, dismantle unions, etc.
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    Without government intervention it would be harder for mega corporations to exist in the first place. The broadest example is how insane our patent and copyright laws are right now. I do support monopoly laws and think we don't drop that hammer nearly enough.
    - ergothus 10y ago
      I'm not quite sure I follow...You're saying the govt should break up monopolies more (I agree), but without the govt we'd have fewer monopolies? So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention. It is simply too hard to be a well-informed consumer, and we consumers prioritize our short term convenience over societies (or even just our own) long term benefit.
      - Consultant32452 10y ago
        Just as a thought experiment, try to imagine a world with no patent or copyright laws. I'm not suggesting we make that a reality, but just consider it. How would Lockheed Martin, GE, Disney, etc. look? Without local government granted monopolies, how would Comcast look? It would be a completely different world. Look into the concept of regulatory capture. The Dodd-Frank regulations that went into place are a great example of this. They were sold to us plebes as a way to protect us from future banking failures. Except the regulations were basically written by the big banks and forced the small banks out of business. They have actually increased the risk of future crisis by consolidating the industry. Here's an article about it. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-frank-eliminated-the-dangers-in-the-banking-system/dodd-frank-is-hurting-community-banks http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-fra...
        ergothus 10y ago
        > try to imagine a world with no patent or copyright laws I'm not a big fan of the laws as we have them, but sure, i'll play along: > How would Lockheed Martin, GE, Disney, etc. look? ...I'm not sure they'd look substantially different. LM would still only be in competition with a few others because of high barriers to entry. GE...I lack even passing knowledge to speculate. Disney would lose out on a lot of merchandizing money, but once someone in a field like animation or entertainment got ahead, they'd have an easier time attracting both customer AND talent, which provide a feedback loop to their benefit. > how would Comcast look? ...of my many, MANY complaints about Comcast, I don't know that copyright or patent issues show up. Comcast isn't what they are via govt monopoly (so far as I know, though they have of course abused govt power) but because the cost of entry is so high that there are few competitors. Even when there ARE competitors, they choose not to compete (see recent admission that comcast and time-warner don't even compete pre-merger). > Look into the concept of regulatory capture Not qualified to even speculate - let's just say I have some skepticism but don't reject your claims. All in all, it seems like you are arguing that the govt creates monopolies. I won't argue against that. BUT my claim is that you have MORE monopolies in (certain) unregulated markets. I can very well be wrong...do you have any evidence to that point?
  - vidarh 10y ago
    It's noting that a significant factor in the creation of US-style right-wing libertarianism was an attempt by economically right-wing individualists to straddle the political left-wing gap by reaching out to left-libertarians on shared issues (left wing libertarianism pre-dates right-wing libertarianism by almost a century). E.g. Rothbard being a prominent example, with his "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian Thought": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_and_Right:_A_Journal_of_Libertarian_Thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_and_Right:_A_Journal_of_L...
    - opo 10y ago
      No, it more accurate to say that the "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian Thought" was an attempt by libertarians to highlight the fact that the one dimensional left/right line is obviously a very incomplete model of political thought. As your link quotes from the opening editorial: "Our title, Left and Right, reflects our concerns in several ways. It reveals our editorial concern with the ideological; and it also highlights our conviction that the present-day categories of left and right have become misleading and obsolete, and that the doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths." Those who talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" should realize that this is a too simplistic label as Rothbard tried to say decades ago. For example: • not only has the libertarian party always supported gay marriage but the first presidential candidate was an openly gay man • libertarians are opposed to the war on drugs • libertarians opposed the Viet Nam war • libertarians generally favor regulated legalized prostitution etc etc etc Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions.
      - vidarh 10y ago
        You start out seeming trying to argue against me, but nothing of what you've written contradicts what I wrote. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. > Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions. "Right wing" in this context is about economic positions, views on property etc. Right-wing libertarianism generally draw from the Austrian school, and people like von Mises and occasionally Ayn Rand etc. Compare to left-wing libertarians who generally are anarchists or Marxists when it comes to economic views and views on property rights. The entire point is that these two camps align with the traditional left and right on economic issues, but are aligned with each other on a lot of social issues and on anti-authoritarianism.
cookiecaper 10y ago
This is why libertarians stop being libertarians. At some point, they realize that it's futile and impractical. Someone is going to be in charge, and that person is going to make the rules. Authority is an inevitability. Libertarianism and Marxism are two sides of the same coin: theoretical utopias, if we can just get everyone to agree to play nice! Well, in the real world where humans compete for resources to survive, people don't play nice. That's a hard biological fact, and no amount of indoctrination or force is going to be able to remove those hard-coded instincts for self-preservation, so it's best to adopt a system that is at least somewhat compatible with it. That can take a while to fully internalize, which explains why so many young idealists adopt Libertarian and/or Marxist positions for a few years before they end up moving on.

Consultant32452 10y ago

I'm a libertarian that supports unions. If you can get enough of the labor force together to demand higher wages or better benefits, more power to you. I don't think the government should be involved in that. I'm even happy to support socialist style businesses where the workers share ownership. If someone can make that work and be successful/competitive? Awesome. Again, I just don't think the government has any business meddling in it.

grasshopperpurp 10y ago
Appreciate the response and POV. Based on the info you shared here, I think you're someone who could definitely work with more left-leaning people to find common ground, which is sadly missing from the people actually making decisions. My question would be: without government intervention, what incentive do mega corporations have to allow unions to continue? What prevents them from making their own rules, which prevent unions? Since these same companies are behind the efforts to dismantle unions, it seems that removing government would just remove the middle man, making it easier for companies to abuse workers, dismantle unions, etc.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  Without government intervention it would be harder for mega corporations to exist in the first place. The broadest example is how insane our patent and copyright laws are right now. I do support monopoly laws and think we don't drop that hammer nearly enough.
  - ergothus 10y ago
    I'm not quite sure I follow...You're saying the govt should break up monopolies more (I agree), but without the govt we'd have fewer monopolies? So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention. It is simply too hard to be a well-informed consumer, and we consumers prioritize our short term convenience over societies (or even just our own) long term benefit.
    - Consultant32452 10y ago
      Just as a thought experiment, try to imagine a world with no patent or copyright laws. I'm not suggesting we make that a reality, but just consider it. How would Lockheed Martin, GE, Disney, etc. look? Without local government granted monopolies, how would Comcast look? It would be a completely different world. Look into the concept of regulatory capture. The Dodd-Frank regulations that went into place are a great example of this. They were sold to us plebes as a way to protect us from future banking failures. Except the regulations were basically written by the big banks and forced the small banks out of business. They have actually increased the risk of future crisis by consolidating the industry. Here's an article about it. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-frank-eliminated-the-dangers-in-the-banking-system/dodd-frank-is-hurting-community-banks http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-fra...
      - ergothus 10y ago
        > try to imagine a world with no patent or copyright laws I'm not a big fan of the laws as we have them, but sure, i'll play along: > How would Lockheed Martin, GE, Disney, etc. look? ...I'm not sure they'd look substantially different. LM would still only be in competition with a few others because of high barriers to entry. GE...I lack even passing knowledge to speculate. Disney would lose out on a lot of merchandizing money, but once someone in a field like animation or entertainment got ahead, they'd have an easier time attracting both customer AND talent, which provide a feedback loop to their benefit. > how would Comcast look? ...of my many, MANY complaints about Comcast, I don't know that copyright or patent issues show up. Comcast isn't what they are via govt monopoly (so far as I know, though they have of course abused govt power) but because the cost of entry is so high that there are few competitors. Even when there ARE competitors, they choose not to compete (see recent admission that comcast and time-warner don't even compete pre-merger). > Look into the concept of regulatory capture Not qualified to even speculate - let's just say I have some skepticism but don't reject your claims. All in all, it seems like you are arguing that the govt creates monopolies. I won't argue against that. BUT my claim is that you have MORE monopolies in (certain) unregulated markets. I can very well be wrong...do you have any evidence to that point?
- vidarh 10y ago
  It's noting that a significant factor in the creation of US-style right-wing libertarianism was an attempt by economically right-wing individualists to straddle the political left-wing gap by reaching out to left-libertarians on shared issues (left wing libertarianism pre-dates right-wing libertarianism by almost a century). E.g. Rothbard being a prominent example, with his "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian Thought": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_and_Right:_A_Journal_of_Libertarian_Thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_and_Right:_A_Journal_of_L...
  - opo 10y ago
    No, it more accurate to say that the "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian Thought" was an attempt by libertarians to highlight the fact that the one dimensional left/right line is obviously a very incomplete model of political thought. As your link quotes from the opening editorial: "Our title, Left and Right, reflects our concerns in several ways. It reveals our editorial concern with the ideological; and it also highlights our conviction that the present-day categories of left and right have become misleading and obsolete, and that the doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths." Those who talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" should realize that this is a too simplistic label as Rothbard tried to say decades ago. For example: • not only has the libertarian party always supported gay marriage but the first presidential candidate was an openly gay man • libertarians are opposed to the war on drugs • libertarians opposed the Viet Nam war • libertarians generally favor regulated legalized prostitution etc etc etc Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      You start out seeming trying to argue against me, but nothing of what you've written contradicts what I wrote. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. > Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions. "Right wing" in this context is about economic positions, views on property etc. Right-wing libertarianism generally draw from the Austrian school, and people like von Mises and occasionally Ayn Rand etc. Compare to left-wing libertarians who generally are anarchists or Marxists when it comes to economic views and views on property rights. The entire point is that these two camps align with the traditional left and right on economic issues, but are aligned with each other on a lot of social issues and on anti-authoritarianism.

cookiecaper 10y ago

This is why libertarians stop being libertarians. At some point, they realize that it's futile and impractical. Someone is going to be in charge, and that person is going to make the rules. Authority is an inevitability. Libertarianism and Marxism are two sides of the same coin: theoretical utopias, if we can just get everyone to agree to play nice! Well, in the real world where humans compete for resources to survive, people don't play nice. That's a hard biological fact, and no amount of indoctrination or force is going to be able to remove those hard-coded instincts for self-preservation, so it's best to adopt a system that is at least somewhat compatible with it. That can take a while to fully internalize, which explains why so many young idealists adopt Libertarian and/or Marxist positions for a few years before they end up moving on.