The Biggest Flaw in Libertarianism

So wait. You acknowledge the failure of the court system as a means for the individual to take on behemoth corporations - and maintain that, that is the only means which should be available to them. I see a contradiction here. I agree with you on the first part but not the second.

 

I'm not talking about bribes, but the ability to use the law to drag things out for so long that those bringing suit are either dead or too broke to continue. The problem is that the burden of proof is on the victim to prove that the company knew of the problems and the potential problems. Corporations can delay every request for documents, prevent the lawyers representing those harmed from gathering evidence through all sorts of legal procedures, costing lots of money and lots of time to overcome.

Let me give another example, a recent one. Do you honestly believe that without the evidence government regulators were able to find, that the families and victims of the Massey Mine disaster a couple of years ago would ever have received compensation? The only way they would have is if they had the same legal power as the government to investigate and demand documents, which of course, corporations would never allow to be enacted into law. But before that would work, the corporation would have to be required to keep accurate and detailed logs, safety inspections, etc., Do you honestly think they would keep such records and do the inspections if the Government didn't require them to?

 

The biggest flaw:

The view to shrink goverment down to such a small point it will create economic collaspe and society explosion. The view to conservatism with libertarianism concepts can be extreme, every liberal policy will be affected.

 

You also have to have enforcement of laws. Meat packing companies have to keep their facilities to a certain level of cleanliness, if they they don't have the threat of periodic inspection, history shows that they will likely not comply with the regulation (this was part of the problem with the General Slocum disaster.. there were laws on the books but no outside inspections were done .. thus the company saw an opportunity to save a little money by not doing the inspections themselves. Over 1000 people paid with their lives for that companies choice to save a few bucks, and the only person to go to jail was the Captain.

 

Companies do fail when they hurt people, hurt the environment and do things the public does not like.

Why is ti whenever there is some sort of problem, the only solution the left has is to goto government?

Just take healthcare for example. With all those on the left who are rich, including Hollywood, Bill Gates, Buffet, etc. You would think that they themselves could set up some sort of Healtcare system that will cover those who can't afford it for themselves.

But instead, what does the left do? they run to government.

This is why leftists aren't usually business owners. If you are in business for yourself, and can't solve problems, you fail.

 

I'm not against every regulation, but I think we've gone so far on that train that we're beyond the point of "needed regulations" and far into the realm of "over-regulation". Saying that, for example, chicken cannot be served unless it reaches a temperature that kills bacteria if good. Mandating fire escapes is good. But some are just plain idiotic. (http://www.businessinsider.com/ridi...ent-2010-11#1-private-investigators-license-1). How many people are hurt because bloggers aren't liscenced, or because someone fixing your computer isn't a trained private investigator? (actually, I think I'd be more concerned if that Greek Squad guy WAS a PI) and really, I don't see the point of having your hair-cutter liscenced by the state. It's nutty.

Well, the same could be said the other way -- how many businesses lose out because an idiot did something stupid and got himself hurt? I don't think that it's reasonable to hold someone accountable for another person's carelessness either way. If I dance a jig on a steam press and hurt myself, it's not the boss's fault. If I'm climbing up a shelving unit, it's not the boss's fault that I fall. If I reuse a needle, it's not the needle maker's fault that I get sick. I'll agree that sometimes the businessman is negligent, but I don't think we need to treat the entire population of the US as if they're two years old. We just don't need to bubble-wrap the world lest you get hurt. At some point, someone has to say "wait a minute, any fool could have seen how stupid and dangerous that was, and we can't punish other people because you refuse to use common sense.

 

BP hasn't failed, nor has Exxon.

Union Carbide and its parent, Dow, haven't failed either.

 

Yes agreed and this is perhaps the biggest flaw with current political philosophy. (Under libertairianism it may be worse)

The view to protect corperations like they are old style monarchy. Which still has to be addressed in our lifetimes, before the next stage of economical political evolution. (If it ever happens)

 

I agree with this. The fundamental flaw is how corrupt the state is and the fact it is in bed with corporations. The state is not an independent entity, it is a side show. Everyone's perspectives are correct on this thread, from the libertarians, to the leftists, to the conspiracy types. The people have got to take back the state. And no, I don't mean with the vote.

 

The irony here is pretty rich. You're saying this to a business-owner. Oops. And yet here I am, with a preference for having tainted food identified BEFORE it goes to market. Does that mean tainted food NEVER gets to market? Of course not. No agency OR private business is successful 100% of the time. But it's nice to know that for the most part, it is.
I have lived in countries where that wasn't the case. Not a great situation.
Let me AGAIN, make this clear: I think a lot of business is over-regulated. But I am addressing the extreme belief that there should be ZERO regulation. If you re-read the OP, you will see that is all I disscuss.

 

MMM, I think that everybody can agree that the state is in bed with corporations. But there ends the agreement, because each ideology sees different reasons to why it is like that. For a leftist, or for me(as a someone of the radical libertarian left) is that the corporations are the ones that rule.

And about must be taken back the state and not with the vote, what do you mean? By revolution? I am an anarchist, so I believe in revolution, or I think that is necessary, better said. But also I think that the goals would be really different the mines from the yours.

 

We can fight to the teeth when it is all said and done. Right now, the global regime's presence must be removed from the face of the earth. That is the common enemy.

 

So instead of judicial reform you endorse the 4rth branch of government that regulates us which costs trillions of tax payer dollars a year and churns out thousands of regulations a year? To top it all off, these regulators are not even elected.

 

Government cannot survive without corporate funding. Just look at the former USSR and China. One understood this and survived and the other did not. Simply put, socialist governments have tried to make money in the past with disasterous results. Do you really want a government that has put the US some $16 trillion in debt taking over Big Business?

If you are really an anarchist then the closest thing to your dream would have to be the Founding Fathers setting up a system with limited government.

 

Limited government is the key. But it must be genuine limited government. The two must be separate entities or all power of the electorate is rendered moot.

 

Yes, and no. USA never had a limited goverment. And maybe could have been the closest thing, but there are the corporations, and I want also their abolition, as anarchist, I want the abolition of any authoritarian relation, it is, state and corporations... and religion.

I want that people autogovern themselves, and I want a total horizontal organization, and to this state and corporations(vertical organizations) are enemies.

 

Good luck with that. At least help get rid of globalists to provide some usefulness. I thought you were from Spain. Did you move?

 

Yes, I moved. But I am going back to Spain in a few days.

MMM, well, to get rid of the globalists, maybe I could help. Depends, However I am already fighting in social movements always that I can In Spain fighting the corruption, the control of European Central Bank, the austerism...

 

It is always interesting when a non-libertarian makes comments about what libertarians believe or the positions we hold. There are, of course, minor differences between what libertarians believe but I would state that there is a fairly universal belief in laissez-faire capitalism.

Laissez-faire capitalism is not a free market with zero regulation but instead it is a free marktet that requires regulations designed to provide for the protections of the inalienable Rights of the Individual. Laissez-faire caplitalism does not allow government regulation intended to control or influence the economy. The economy does not belong to the government, it belongs to the People, and government has proven itself incompetent in controlling the economy.

It does not require a large and powerful central government to administer those regulations limited to providing for the protections of the inalienable Rights of the People and most of this regulatory control would be at the State level and not at the federal level of government. Remember that corporate entities are established and exist at the State level and not the Federal level of government so the States, not the Federal government, have primary responsibility related to corporate entities.

There are some issues where federal regulation is necessary although in many cases private industry has historically taken the lead. For example we can cite the creation of standard time zones where the argument was that the US was experiencing train wrecks because trains ran on different non-standardized time schedules. Yes, some train wrecks did occur because of this so the railroad industry standardized their times well before the US government addressed the matter.

Standardizing our system of weights and measures is certainly important for our economy and, in fact, it's cited as a responsibility of the Congress in the Constitution.

Environmental regulations are, to some degree, also needed to ensure against potential polution but they should be pragmatic in definition and limited to cause the least infringement upon the economy.

The problem isn't with libertarian political philosopy that does include the necessity of some regulation the problem exists that we are way over regulated in many cases while not having enough regulation in other cases. Most of our regulations are not about protecting the Rights of the Individual but instead they are about controlling our economy. Often, under Democrats and Republicans, the Rights of the People are being ignored while their focus is on controlling the economy through regulation. Therein lies the real problem.

 

So you want the abolition of corporations, state, and religion without an authoritarian power to see to it? What am I missing here?

 

Globalists will simply use people like kilgore to hasten the end of the current system. Then they will step in and "fix" things the way they like them.

 

When founded the United States had a very limited government and if our government limited itself to just fulfilling the enumerated roles and responsibilities in the US Constitution it would be very limited today. By way of example there would be no Social Security, no Medicare/Medicaid, no federal welfare programs, no NASA, Dept of Education, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, other Depts would disappear and the US military budget would be about 1/10th of what it currently is (or less). The entire budget of the United States might be as high as $500 billion total.

 

I am not an ideologue and can agree to some regulation, especially in more populated areas due to more negative externalities. However, a strong centralized government is not needed for the well-being of people. Whatever you believe necessary for a strong centralized government can happen at a local more decentralized level where citizens have more direct and democratic control.

In addition, I don't believe markets magically correct for themselves and believe in market failures. However, lets not forget that much of the power of transnational corporations that "need to be regulated" derive their powers from the state from subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, protectionist trade policies, explicit grants of monopoly powers, patents, intellectual property laws, eminent domain, protection against violating property rights, inflationary monetary policies that benefits the big businesses who receive the money first, beneficiaries of the military industrial complex, among other things.

What can I say? Some people just have a penchant for corporatism and love the idea of a strong centralized government being run by lobbyists and political rent-seekers, all masked in the name of liberty and democracy.

 

Interstate commerce makes most corporate matters federal in nature.

 

Very well, I will sort through it as I can. However, I will make it clear, again, that libertarianism is not an economic philosophy and the two should not be conflated, even by libertarians. Whether or not the "market will take care of problems" (rhetoric with broad meaning) is irrelevant to the liberterian principles. If there is initiation of aggression for social or economic purposes, then it is wrong. The end does not justify the means, according to libertarians, even if the economic end is allegedly "better" for having initiated aggression.