On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 11:59:18AM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote:
>
> > > The first two are not possible without the corruption of the government.
> > > Why is government corruption more likely under a Libertarian regime, as
> > > opposed to a Democratic or Republican regime?
> >
> > They can still happen under a Democratic or Republican regime, and
> > have happened under Democratic and Republican regimes in the past.
> > But this is more likely under a Libertarian regime because of the
> > no-holds-barred stance towards business and industry.
>
> So we have a choice. We can be:
>
> * Fucked by capitalists.
> * Fucked by government.
> * Fucked by both.
> * (Unless we destroy both at once.)
>
> Doesn't seem very promising. I hope the premise is wrong.
>
> > As for freedom to strike and such, I thought that striking is theft
> > according to the views of at least some Libertarians and
> > "anarcho"capitalists? It might not be your idea, but I wouldn't be
> > surprised if the government viewed striking as such under a
> > Libertarian regime.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Wasn't it Marcel Popescu, who is a self-avowed "anarcho"capitalist,
say that striking is theft (for the workers have given the capitalists
their work in return for pay, and therefore striking is stealing
continued work from the capitalists). Also, doesn't the
"anarcho"capitalist doctrine of Utilitarianism allow slavery (for one
has the right to sign away their freedom and liberty).
> > Starting new corporations: easier said than done. Where do you get
> > the capital? Where do you get the starting resources? And even if it
>
> You earn it, or ask people who have money to lend some.
You expect an individual person to earn enough money to make a
corporation that can compete with huge multinational corporations?!
> > is originally run for everyone's benefit, how long do you think it
> > will be before people concerned with profit and screwing anyone and
> > everyone who gets in the way of profit gain control (unless it is a
> > collective, which in an otherwise capitalist society is technically a
> > corporation, but is rather different and usually behaves differently
> > from normal corporations because it is worker-owned and
> > worker-managed)?
>
> Why is starting a collective more difficult in a capitalist society?
A capitalist society does not lend itself to the creation of
collectives (for the creation of collectives often has the same
problems as the creation of a plain old corporation).
> > And do you really think that you can rely on charity?! It is not in
> > the interests of the ruling class to provide charity for charity sake,
> > for poor people are a good source of cheap labor; the only sort of
> > corporate charity that I see today is stuff that is meant to result in
> > tax reductions and stuff that is really in the interests of the
> > corporation providing charity (such as giving schools a whole bunch of
> > computers with Micro$oft Windows, so all the kiddies grow up using
> > Micro$oft software).
>
> So the commonplace charities - salvation army, etc - don't really give to
> the poor? Where does all that money go, then?
I'm talking about the ruling class. And anyways, the Salvation Army
does give to the poor, for doing so helps it advance religion.
> > As for corporate-run cities, do you know what a company town is? It
> > is a town that is run as a company, usually to supply workers for a
> > particular factory; if you work at that factory you must live in that
> > town. In many areas where there are a not many jobs, people often end
> > up needing to work in a company town, because of necessity.
>
> Yeah. The solution to that is to strike, or to quit and join a better
> company. Both of those are possible and effective.
For lots of people, there really isn't the option of quitting and
joining a better company. Maybe in theory, but often not in
practice.
> > Finally, back in the bad old days of the late 1800s, there were laws
> > against murder and such, but that did not stop vigilantes and police
> > and soldiers from killing strikers and such. Do Haymarket Square and
> > the Pullman Strike mean anything to you.
>
> Those were incidents where crimes were committed against strikers, and the
> free market was interfered with.
What I am saying is that the corporations and such can practically get
away with murder, even if it is technically illegal, for the people in
the government support capitalism and business and therefore are often
perfectly willing to overlook crimes committed for capitalism.
> > > I would like to live in a world where I can freely buy and sell things.
> > > Maybe it's just a stupid fantasy.
> >
> > It is a stupid fantasy, for it is never going to happen without all
> > the nasty baggage, as long as it is "anarcho"capitalism that you
> > desire. On the other hand, you can shed all the nasty baggage by
>
> When did I claim that I wanted "anarcho"capitalism? I meant what I wrote.
> I would like to be free to buy and sell things. From that freedom you can
> infer more freedoms I would like.
Well, IIRC you called yourself an anarchist and a capitalist, maybe
not in this discussion, but in the past.
> > switching what you want from "anarcho"capitalism to individualist
> > anarchist (which is market-based but replaces capitalist property with
> > possession/use rights and hierarchial management with collective
> > worker management).
>
> Would you be content pursuing the goals of collectivisation and equality
> within the framework of a fair, just, and minimal civic order which
> respected the rights to life, liberty, and property?
The problem with this is property, which is a thoroughly capitalist
and authoritarian notion, for it allows stuff like landlordism and
shareholders and executives controlling the workers who actually do
the work. The replacement of property with possession/use rights
fixes this because it shifts ownership from some arbitrary owners to
those who live somewhere or uses something (instead of a landlord
owning an apartment building, the apartment building is owned by all
the people who live in it, and instead of shareholders owning the
means of production, the workers who use the means of production own
the means of production).
--
Yes, I know my enemies.
They're the teachers who tell me to fight me.
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance,
hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Rage Against The Machine
PGP signature
