4 ms·
A large contingent (here and in general) are "supply-side", pro-management, laissez faire, no/low/fair/flat tax supporting, anti-socialist types. It comes with
by muhfuhkuh 15y ago
A large contingent (here and in general) are "supply-side", pro-management, laissez faire, no/low/fair/flat tax supporting, anti-socialist types.
It comes with the territory that they'd also be almost certifiably Libertarian, which as a system would work perfectly if it weren't for the people.
- Joakal 15y agoI've downvoted him because it's a one-comment opinion post that wasn't constructive to the thread. Same as the other post examples (negative ones disappear fast so here's a loose example): "unions are bad." "wow, Apple employees are so self-entitled." "Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union." Grinding axes is fine, but not when it purposely hijacks the thread.
- cheez 15y agoIt's funny how laissez faire is considered as solely good for producers by you. In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. I have yet to see how this corporatism is going to benefit me. I'll take my chances with laissez faire, thanks.
- phillmv 15y ago>In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. Yes, I'm sure the price of oil and the price of grain rising 30% due to shortages hasn't affected you at all.
- schmittz 15y agoI'm not sure what the point of your post is as it's unrelated to the comment it's in reply to. But aside from that fact, be careful to avoid confusing price increases due to shortages and price increases due to speculation about perceived current or future shortages.
- anamax 15y ago> Yes, I'm sure the price of oil and the price of grain rising 30% due to shortages hasn't affected you at all. The last time I looked, govt controlled the vast majority of the oil leases in the US. They just shut down Shell in AK after Shell spent >$2B to get a site ready. The last time I looked, the US govt mandated 10% ethanol in gas, subsidized its production, and placed a high tarriff on imported ethanal.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- cheez 15y agoIt's due to speculation as another poster said. That being said, government loves higher prices. They benefit first.
- ryanisinallofus 15y agoThere is nothing anti laissez-faire about unions. In a free society people should be allowed to organize however they want. As long as the government stays out of such situations a union is as capitalist an idea as a corporation.
- prodigal_erik 15y agoUnions depend on threats of violence or specialized legal action (using privileges which are only available to them by law). In a laissez-faire society, employers would be able to do business with competing workers against the union's wishes, and the union would fail in its modern function as a rent-seeking labor cartel.
- tjmc 15y agoYou're overlooking health and safety which is still a very legitimate concern. In laissez-faire societies, mine workers die like flies. China (quite ironically as an apparently worker loving state) takes such an attitude and thousands of coal miners die each year. In Australia, where far more coal is mined, there have been no deaths this year. I wouldn't claim it's just the union influence that makes the difference as there's much more automation here for one thing. But to discount it as a factor is naive.
- prodigal_erik 15y agoI agree, I'm not really a fan of Libertopia (it requires far more faith in human nature than I have), just making the argument that in that environment we wouldn't see unions as we know them now.
- omouse 15y agoUnions depend on threats of violence or specialized legal action EMPLOYMENT depends on threats of poverty! If you don't work, you might fucking die. Unions depend on threats of strikes and other actions, but they don't depend on violence.
- omouse 15y agoThe sad part is that the word "Libertarian" used to mean someone that was in favour of equality and socialism. Someone who was actually liberal.
- th 15y agoI've never heard about the change of meaning in this word. Could you provide a source for that fact?
- randallsquared 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism says, in part, The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term "libertarianism" in "libertarian socialism" is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence "libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism" to these scholars. In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms.
- cheez 15y ago"Classic liberal" vs "Modern liberal". It's a really bad co-opting but normal.
- randallsquared 15y ago...and "liberal" used to refer to what we now call "(U.S.) libertarian".
- omouse 15y agoThe sad part is that the word "Libertarian" used to mean someone that was in favour of equality and socialism. Someone who was actually liberal.
- wisty 15y agoI just can't stand the whole "scarecrow Libertarian vs. scarecrow Red Taper" debacle that happens every time the word "union" crops up.
- ramanujan 15y agoWell, those who considered themselves to be "building socialism" killed 100 million people and drove their nations into poverty. Would you agree that China only emerged from this situation by embracing a fairly strong pro-business ideology?