Hey Nick, I'm a libertarian; I hope you don't mind me taking a crack at it.
Most small L libertarians I know (I'm distinguishing us from the Libertarian Party, which is another thing altogether) are deeply cynical people. It's not that we believe corporations are good; it's that EVERYONE gets that corporations operate on special principles, but many miss that same strain in politicians and political parties. In general, people don't root for corporations the way they root for politicians -- with the exception of the Apple fan boys, natch. So here's the thing: it's not so much that libertarians favor corporations over government; it's that we fear history has shown over and over that corporations USE government to solidify their positions, crush competition and prevent innovation. Note the activities in my old field: media. Do you think it coincidental that the major media companies favor laws like that struck down by the Supreme Court, which outlaw corporate speech but exempt media companies? Notice there is no choice on the table for NO corporate speech, which I guess would be your position; the only discussion is which corporations get to speak. Shockingly, The New York Times et al are in favor of a system where they get free reign and all those pesky internet startups and such...do not. So that's it, in a nutshell. We don't favor corporations over government. We think that people are rightly suspicious of corporations, and should be more suspicious of government. We oppose as the worst thing the melding of corporations and government. And we see little to choose from between Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-British Petroleum) and Dick Chaney (R-Haliburton). cjf Christopher J. Feola -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 9:30 PM To: Russell Gonnering Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress Russ, It is my deepest belief that if our country is to survived, people who disagree need to learn to argue with each other. You and I really disagree on this one, so on my account, we are obligated to argue. On the other hand, I DON'T believe that others should unwillingly be a party to such arguments, so I changed the thread. We obviously agree that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, we are both made nervous when power starts to accumulate in small numbers of hands And I bet we believe, both, that having power leads to the accumulation of more of it. .And, we both seem to agree that dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power are occuring in our society, right now? OK, so far? Where we seem to disagree is where the dangerous power is accumulating in our society. I think it is in large corporations; you think it is in governments. Still on board? Why don't I stop there, and see if you agree with this characterization of our disagreement. Nick Still ok? Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > [Original Message] > From: Russell Gonnering <rsgonneri...@mac.com> > To: <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity CoffeeGroup <friam@redfish.com> > Date: 5/15/2010 1:39:10 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do. > > Nick- > > Why not have both Fox and the BBC? Or more to the point, why not Fox and PBS? > > Fox is not like a government in the following ways: It can't tax me, it doesn't redistribute my wealth, it can't imprison me, it can't execute me or otherwise control me and I can turn them off. If they do not satisfy their viewers and their shareholders, they go out of business. Unless they are "too big to fail", which is a whole other discussion. > > I have this innate dislike for government censorship, and a very strong distrust of politicians. > > I like the fact that government is limited, and so did the framers of the Constitution. I can see no historical evidence of a political entity, that when granted absolute power over the flow of information to society for an unlimited period of time, used that power to increase or even merely insure the liberty of its citizens. Can you? If ever there is a situation of giving megaphones to people to yell "Fire" in the theater, it would be that. > > To each his own, I guess. > > Russ #3 > > > > Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ > rsgonneri...@mac.com > www.emergenthealth.net > > > On May 15, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > Russ, > > > > The thing I have never understood is why libertarians do not see > > corporations for what they are: HUGE governments. > > > > Is it really the case that you would rather get your news from Fox than > > from the BBC. It seems to me that the question about whether we are to be > > subject to government control is water over the dam. The question is only > > WHICH government are we going to be controlled by. I would prefer to be > > controlled by the government with the most responsible governance > > structure. I am no socialist, but I will take the BBC over Fox ANY TIME. > > > > Gotta Run, > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
