The Biggest Flaw in Libertarianism

as would corporations...

It's human nature for us to vex and oppress each other. Voluntarism is a nice idea and all, but it doesn't realistically assess our natural failings as a species.

 

As would corporations if they became states. But I oppose states, remember? You're basically saying I should approve of states because if there were no state, there would be states and we don't want that.

Saying that states are inevitable may lead to a kind of pessimistic fatalism about that matter, but it doesn't lead one to support them or anything they do. Rather, it leads one to still oppose them, to try to hinder and weaken them as much as possible, albeit with a pessimistic attitude about their final abolition.

 

But without the government sicking its finger in every pie, the coprorations wouldn't bother to "take control". No one tries to influence things that have no effect on them. Corporations do not rig the vote on American Idol or campaign for a certain teeny bopper. Why -- because the results don't affect how they can behave. When the government can kill your business or make your life much more difficult, you will do everything in your power to make sure that the "right" outcome is attained. The reason that corporate power is so strong is that it must control elections for self preservation. The next regulation could kill a small business, or tilt the field in ways that make doing business more difficult. If the government would stick to political matters designated by the constitution, rather than dabbling in social utopianism or environmental control, we wouldn't have the same problems.

The answer for non-political problems is not the state. If the problem is social, it should be solved by non-government social institutions (things like churches or social clubs or charities). It the problem is economic, it should be solved by the economic institutions (banks, businesses, unions, and credit unions). When you mix them it screws up the whole system, as government cannot solve problems of single parenthood, or economic problems like fair wages. At least it cannot solve those problems without creating dozens more problems (all of which will of course require more government to solve). Single parenthood was "fixed" by WIC and Food Stamps. All well and good, right? Except that it created problems. It not only did not discourage single parenthood, but it made it a reasonable choice. Now you don't just have a few single mothers who fall through the cracks, but you create more -- because there's no longer a fear of what happens when you do get pregnant outside of marriage. Which leads to more problems -- an ever expanding single parent demographic, and an increase in sexually transmitted disease as people who no longer fear having sex outside of marriage and have more sexual partners before marriage now "hook up" with the wrong person and get syphillus or ghonorhea or some other disease. Oops. Now moving on to ecnomics. When the government sets a minimum wage, that wage hurts the entire country. Since the wage is "per hour", it means that the default method of counting labor done is "hours worked" rather then something else. It's arbitrary -- I could count units made, I could count sales while you are present, I could count happy customers, or whatever. Except that the market is distorted by "$8 an hour" as minimal, and so I must figure out how to translate these other measures into a number that I can report "per hour". The second problem is the price floor the government creates. Some work cannot be done fast enough by humans to rate $8 an hour. such work is not done by humans, but by machines. Or illeagal immigrants work under the table at less. Or the job leaves the country for places with lower wages. The other thing it does is that when a service cannot be done for less than minimum, you get inflation. There goes your "increase in the minimum wage" it gets soaked up by inflation. You might make 2x what grandpa made, but everything costs twice as much. But such minimums also hurt the poor -- if I cannot work fast enough to make my boss a profit at $8, I cannot legally work. I either work under the table, or I don't work. Business is not a charity, and they don't hire people just because. What does that create? Chronic unemployment, which is solved by the government paying people not to work (welfare). Well now we have a problem again. See, because a person with no job is given a house, a welfare check, food stamps, and so on, the total value might very well pass the minimum wage, meaning that if it's a wash ($10 of welfare, or $10 to work) most people won't set an alarm clock. This adds yet more trouble, not only because we have lots of able-bodied people not producing, but because these same idle people must do something (and generally something not so nice) to fill the hours. And those numbers will grow. Rome tried this -- free grain was given out. eventually Julius Caeser cut the dole to 200,000 out of a population of perhaps 1 million. 20% weren't working, and the gradual increase both of the benefits of the dole (they added wine and pork), and in the population recieving them. Eventually, it became too much for Rome. Government cannot be expected to solve problems outside of its realm, it fails every time it tries, and usually makes things worse.

[/QUOTE]

 

Well, good luck with all that. I can pretty much guarantee you that the voluntarist ideal will never see the light of day on a societal scale, aside from obscure Celtic societies of the distant past.

 

Of course. They merely take control of supply routes and make deals with competitors to collude in prices.

There is nothing inherently more unethical about government than there is about corporations. Human nature is the same across the board. The only way to truly restrict behaviors is to set things up so that self-interest equals the public's interest. It's rarely achieved, but government sometimes does that effectively. Sometimes even the private sector does.

The rest of the time, it's just one group of elites vs. another with most of us as pawns in that fight.

 

How is this supposed to convince that states are right and just? You might just as well say "I can pretty much guarantee that a society with rape will never see the light of day." So then rape is okay? So then we shouldn't work to stop rape?

Government, in the common sense of the term, is inherently aggressive, while for-profit businesses are not inherently aggressive.

 

No, it's more like a "choose your battles" thing.

 

What is moral, is moral, whether it is considered practical or not. The same thing was said about ending slavery in the past.

 

True... but, slavery ended via the state.

 

The battle is to reduce the aggression inherent in statism as much as possible. Whether or not states will ever be fully abolished, I am convinced that it is much more productive to that end to try to convince people that statism is evil and should be opposed at every turn, rather than, say, prattle about how we should vote for Obamney instead of Obamney. Furthermore, the truth is the truth and stating the truth is right and good, in and of itself.

 

And was created by the state. Most countries ended slavery without a civil war, mind you.

 

Slavery was enforced by the state throughout the existence of slavery. Actually, I don't see much difference between them; they're simply different points on a continuum.

 

Changing policy is no where on a level near changing the entirety of human thinking and evolution. The back and forth going on reminds me of OWS. Just because marching brought on civil rights doesn't mean marching can change Wall St/bankers having total control and tainting every inch of the state. One is marching to get elite to concede to policy change. The other is marching to get elite to voluntarily give up their control and corruption, and such things are impossible peacefully.

 

What monopolistic tactics have Apple and Microsoft engaged in?

I agree that the War on Drugs has created an environment in which certain individuals are able to enhance their wealth using government as a tool, at the expense of the free market.

"Companies" aren't dirty. PEOPLE are dirty. That is the problem with you leftists...youre blinded by the irrationality of your own Collectivist beliefs. By placing the blame on "companies", you're effectively lifting the blame from the individuals responsible and placing it on an abstract concept. You rail against the idea of corporate personhood, and yet you describe corporations as if they are people. Absolutely an amazing phenomenon.

The conservatives ascribe to the idea of corporate personhood but at least they aren't ashamed to admit it.

 

Through massive lobbying and bailouts, they are examples of companies that have ridden off the coatails of government at the expense of the free market. Not examples of companies that have abided by the laws of the free market. Try again.

You missed the point. It's not simply a case of semantics. That type of thinking is what sets the legal precedent for corporate personhood in the first place. I don't understand how you can claim to be against corporate personhood if your argument ascribes personhood status to a corporation in the first place. It makes no sense to me.

I do. I'm just asking you to be more specific.

I agree that in order for a free market to exist, government must strictly enforce contracts between individuals. Unfortunately, insurance companies have gotten large and powerful due to their massive lobbying effort and Collectivist panderers in Congress and the White House selling out the free market.

But what you're talking about is not the free market. It's partially a failure of government to enforce the laws of the free market, and partially the government actively destroying the free market.

Utter nonsense. Mass pollution has never been the result of government failing to prevent it - it has always been the result of government actively engaging in it.

In the 19th century, the railroad industry was polluting the environment and farmers took them to court because their land was being destroyed. They were told by the court that they had to make sacrifices in favor of social progress. It's a Collectivist mindset - the farmers had to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the greater number. And you have a situation where the government was legally forcing pollution on farmers, rather than failing to prevent it. As you have tried to paint it.

Today, the federal government engages in polluting the environment far more than any private entity ever has. Now you tell me - how can we trust the biggest environmental polluting entity (the state) to protect us from pollution?

Sure. Oil companies are extremely inefficient because they have an effective monopoly created by government regulation. And government regulations also guarantee that taxpayers will bail out oil companies that are involved in massive oil spills in the ocean. Thanks to Bush Sr.

Of course there are. It's not surprising that the government would claim to be protecting the public from such things, and yet fails to do so. It's another attestment to the inefficiency and corruption of government.

Non-sequitor.

*Claim to protect....

It's evident that you're still not understanding the differences between Individualism and Collectivism, otherwise you wouldn't make such a silly statement that mischaracterizes my position. Groups shouldn't have rights, only individuals should.

Sure, because most Americans have been blinded by the Collectivist thinking patterns that they have been brainwashed by.

 

States will be abolished in time. Humanity is simply not ready or enlightened enough to free itself from the slavery of the state. The state has been working hard to beat statist propaganda into the Individual's head from cradle to grave. Though I wouldn't support overthrowing the state right now, I attempt to do my part contributing to enlightening people on the subject in hopes that these ideas will spread and be passed on throughout the generations.

 

That's like saying one day humans will evolve passed the notions of towns and cities. There will always be the need for law. The need for law means a need for someone to enforce law, as right and wrongs are perspectives and change from person to person. To settle perceived wrongs without law is to battle to the death. That my friend, is going backwards. The key is small state presence, with rules written in stone. In this best case scenario, there is nothing to taint.

 

Has their in the history of human kind when there wasn't at least a nascent state? The smaller the group, the fewer formal rules their might be, but there will always be someone or some group that will assume the power to enforce the rules. How would you prevent a group of people taking what is yours by force in your dream society? The only way to counter such a group effectively is to form your own group of equal or larger size, as soon as you have done that, you need too coordinate the actions of your group in order to keep it effective as a means of defending your stuff (or lives). Once you have done that you have a nascent State.

 

No. I am more individualist than self-called individualist. I am for free work, free life. But a corporation is a totalitarian organization, so you never can have a Libertarian system if in that system survive the corporations and the private property.

I refuse any corporate personhood. The difference between "individualists" and me, is that in my system the people achieve truely real freedom and liberty, nothing can limit their lifes.

 

Yes, states will be abolished and also corporations and private property. Corporations are something from totalitarian micro-states to macro-states(big corporations). Corporations are pyramidal and totalitarian organizations. Religion, state and private property are the limiters to the freedom and emancipation of the human.

 

So the future to you is humans in loin cloths, living in huts and wandering like nomads? Could have sworn that was the past.

 

There is a difference between coordinating actions for mutual defense or any other purpose and using aggression. It takes the initiation of force to make something a nascent state.

 

I admire you sticking to your guns. However, your belief is so black and white that it will never have a chance in a world that is grey. Humans rape, murder and steal. It took centuries to turn those things from the norm to the exception. Don't think for a second that the guy behind bars is rehabilitated simply because he can't commit crimes behind bars. If one can correlate society to that of individuals, the fact humans have been behind those bars for so long will almost guarantee worse than it ever was with them gone. Any decency a man possessed before being institutionalized is gone upon his release. You will not just get the bad of centuries past, you will get the bad of centuries passed without the little bit of honor and decency which made it bearable at that time.

 

If some group chooses to use force against you, you have two options, you can surrender or you can fight. To fight effectively you have to organize and be prepared to be aggressive against those who would do you harm. To choose to defend yourself against the use of force, you have to choose aggression, because you have to win in order too avoid surrender. (a draw doesn't work in the long term, one side or the other will usually go for a rematch). The reality is that there are always going to be those who are willing to use force to obtain their ends. The only options are surrender or aggressive behavior (which includes such things as the ability to require people on your side to contribute to the defense and victory - ideology alone is not going to be sufficient)

 

No one is suggesting that statism will disappear overnight. Rather, all forms of aggression that have been institutionalized by a society can only disappear--or at least be criminalized--once the bulk of the members of the society recognize them as unjust. This has happened with human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and the subjugation of women of women, for example. Over the course of a long time, the same process can occur with territorial monopolies of coercion.