How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[CoinDiver]

We are in the age of Statism. Like all other "ages", it seems it is the only way. This too shall pass.

[1714808286]

1714808286

[1714808286]

1714808286

[1714808286]

1714808286

[1714808286]

1714808286

[Rudd-O]

We are in the age of Statism. Like all other "ages", it seems it is the only way. This too shall pass.

Well said.

[FirstAscent]

Really?

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

First, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not the person to really argue this point.

Still, the answer is in the data.  The reason that the do not dominate our world despite their effectiveness is that they are not sustainable.  The Penn State example is perfect for this.  It was very anarchist and it was effective, it just didn't provide any resistance to other ideas, and thus ultimately, to the rise of governments.

Doesn't this just corroborate what I'm saying?

There are other examples, but my point isn't that AnCap theories (or libertarian theories) on government should be discounted simply because they aren't perfect.  Nothing is.  Do you disagree with the root premises of AnCap?  I don't, I think that they are obviously correct, just not (as examples highlight) likely to result in a society with a vested interest in it's own long term viability.

There are so many forum threads here where myself, or no longer existing members (I wonder why), or banned members pointed this out over and over - inadequacy regarding long term viability. Takeovers can occur from within or beyond.

What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the society with the minumum of interference from government, while also being able to protiect that society from existential threats.

I agree, to a point. Here's my version:

What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the society, which includes a smoothing of misfortunes which befall the unlucky, those born into lesser circumstances, etc., with the minimum of interference from government, but utilizes forward thinking which minimizes *borrowing from the future excessively due to excessive greed, opportunism, and ignorance of consequences within self serving groups, while also being able to protect that society from existential threats.

* Where borrowing from the future means depletion of natural capital in such a way that the future has less potential productivity. The use of the term potential productivity here is important, as opposed to the term productivity by itself.

[cunicula]

Presumably the drivers think the contract was already breached by the company, which therefore rendered the drivers' side of the bargain "null and void" or something similar.

In this particular case, I think that is unlikely because the bus drivers are in the public view.

However, it raises an important issue. Contracts guaranteeing working conditions for indentured servitude are often unenforceable. I think unenforceable contracts should be outlawed. I also think States should set minimal contractual conditions to prevent incomplete contracts.

For example, consider the 3 year term imported bond servants in Singapore. Singapore is quite libertarian with respect to its treatment of foreign nationals. Paternalism only applies to citizens. The standard contract requires 3*24/7/365 service except for leave provided at the master's pleasure. To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission.

How does one seek contract enforcement from the confines of a cell? For example, lack of recourse in cases of rape is a frequent issue. How does one enforce protection from rape when the rape victim cannot lawfully communicate with the outside world? Moreover, contracts are always incomplete. If the contract does not prohibit an abuse, is that abuse then permissible? It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day.

Everyone in Singapore lives in a skyscraper. Every year in Singapore, 20 domestic servants "fall" from skyscrapers to their deaths. That is an annual "fall from height" rate of about 1 in 15,000 per servant-year, or 1 in 5,000 per servant-contract. Two principal reasons:

1) Master requires domestic servant to clean exterior windows without safety equipment. Most maids survive and maids are cheaply replaced. Safety equipment is expensive.  
2) Domestic servants abscond from their cells via the windows. Death can be preferable to serving a contract term.

a) Is it really okay to force someone to choose between carrying out a contract and suicide?
b) If not, then how can a contract that cuts someone off from the outside world for 3 years be allowed? Such contracts will always result semi-frequent cases of (a).

Now, servants benefit from the contracts on average. They get higher wages and serious abuses occur in only a minority of cases. Does that make these contracts moral? I have to deviate from the free market logic here and say no. What do you think?

[Here is something very funny BTW. Singapore has a quasi-fixed exchange rate, so we can't do any Keynesian shenanigans. How does the state cool down inflation? Import foreign nationals to lower labor demand for citizens. How does the state stimulate a sluggish economy? Forcibly deport foreign nationals to raise labor demand. Unlike weak Keynesian states, we don't fuck with the money supply, no need lah. The state simply trades in poor people. It is a 'sound money' alternative to Keynesian stimulus. LOL as the Sing Dollar appreciates.]
 

[Richy_T]

To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission.

This, right here, is a large part of the problem from what you have described.

[Richy_T]

To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission.

This, right here, is a large part of the problem from what you have described.

The lack of a robust State to maintain pesky "pro little people" laws, which would introduce distortions into the Libertarian economy?

"To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission. "

Who, exactly, makes things legal and illegal?

[cunicula]

To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission.

This, right here, is a large part of the problem from what you have described.

The lack of a robust State to maintain pesky "pro little people" laws, which would introduce distortions into the Libertarian economy?

"To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission. "

Who, exactly, makes things legal and illegal?

The servant signed a contract to work 24/7/365*3. The servant cannot leave a house unless instructed to do so without permission. That would be refusal to work, a contract violation. Penalty for contract violation is to forfeit your bond to the employment agency. Typically about 6 months - 1 years' back wages. It is all in the voluntary contract signed by the servant of course.

Contracts like this are illegal in the United States, but legal in Singapore.

Does protection of rights to enter into bonded servitude advance individual rights? Or are these voluntary contracts similar to slavery?

[Richy_T]

Cunicula, which parts of the contract are you referring to specifically? Likely there are some aspects that would be acceptable and some that would not and possibly some gray areas that would be subject to common sense.

Balahdeblah, Breaking a contract is typically a civil matter. In theory there could be criminal actions involved. However, it wouldn't be possible for someone to write in to your contract that if you didn't polish the silverware sufficiently, you could be arrested for rape. Clearly this is an example of government stepping over its correct role.

If the story was that workers who tried to leave their employers houses were being rounded up and imprisoned by private security companies, that would be a different story but apparently, it isn't.

[cunicula]

If the story was that workers who tried to leave their employers houses were being rounded up and imprisoned by private security companies, that would be a different story but apparently, it isn't.

Actually, that is close to what happens. However, runaways are typically forcibly repatriated rather than returned to their employers.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/11/repartriation-companies-manpower-ministers-response-belittles-the-efforts-of-migrant-workers/

When I arrived, I spoke with Mr Peter Ng, the owner of A Team Repatriation Services, and he told me that the workers were being terminated because they had ‘attitude’ problems. The workers were all huddled together in a room with mats on the floor for them to lie on. They could move about freely in the premises but were not allowed to leave it. When he refused to let them out even after I had negotiated with him, I decided to call the police for assistance.
The Police and the Ministry of Manpower Respond
When our boys in blue arrived, they laughed at me and said that this company was operating a legitimate business.

"A Team Repatriation Services"
I can almost hear the "A Team" theme song. Wouldn't it be sweet if Mr T was on the payroll?

[myrkul]

When I arrived, I spoke with Mr Peter Ng, the owner of A Team Repatriation Services, and he told me that the workers were being terminated because they had ‘attitude’ problems. The workers were all huddled together in a room with mats on the floor for them to lie on. They could move about freely in the premises but were not allowed to leave it. When he refused to let them out even after I had negotiated with him, I decided to call the police for assistance.
The Police and the Ministry of Manpower Respond
When our boys in blue arrived, they laughed at me and said that this company was operating a legitimate business.

It looks like the issue here is the poor treatment of the workers, not the terms of their employment.

[cunicula]

Cunicula, which parts of the contract are you referring to specifically?

You can learn about the employment relationship by visiting a maid company website.  

http://www.eck.com.sg/web/faq.html

This part is LOL funny.

18. Can I ask my MAID to clean my windows? I live on the 13th floor. Can cleaning windows be justly considered a domestic chore?

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

But is it worth arguing if one outcome of this obsession with clean windows may be the death of a young woman in the prime of her life? On August 3, 1999, The Straits Times reported "Maid falls 13 floors and dies".
On June 26, 2001 The Straits Times published a photo submitted by a Singaporean woman showing a maid precariously perched on the window sill six storeys above the ground. A fall from the 3rd storey will certainly kill. A fall from the 2nd storey may not always lead to death, but it may incapacitate the victim for the rest of her life.

I love how they describe the working conditions, but then part of their answer is "perhaps yes". At least the human life vs. clean windows trade off is "worth arguing" about.
Welcome to Libertarian paradise.

[myrkul]

Welcome to Libertarian paradise.

So the maids or their families are paid restitution if/when they get injured or killed as a result of their employment?

[cunicula]

When I arrived, I spoke with Mr Peter Ng, the owner of A Team Repatriation Services, and he told me that the workers were being terminated because they had ‘attitude’ problems. The workers were all huddled together in a room with mats on the floor for them to lie on. They could move about freely in the premises but were not allowed to leave it. When he refused to let them out even after I had negotiated with him, I decided to call the police for assistance.
The Police and the Ministry of Manpower Respond
When our boys in blue arrived, they laughed at me and said that this company was operating a legitimate business.

It looks like the issue here is the poor treatment of the workers, not the terms of their employment.

What are you talking about? Poor treatment is one of the contract terms, see above. Forcible repatriation is legal and is in the contract.
High-risk window cleaning is legal and is in the contract. No time off ever is legal and is in the contract.

[cunicula]

Welcome to Libertarian paradise.

So the maids or their families are paid restitution if/when they get injured or killed as a result of their employment?

No, that's not in the contract silly. I thought libertarians enforced contracts. You just want to make up phony laws about restitution. Restrict markets. You fucking Statist you!

But I'm exaggerating, you do have to provide medical care if injury is detected before you can successfully repatriate them. That's state law though.

In China they have good compensation for injury, but not death. Thus if you run someone over with your car, it is optimal to do a double tap. I can link to CCTV videos of this if you would like.

I don't think I am as confident about the fundamental goodness of humanity as you are. If people are really poor compared to you, they start to seem like animals and you treat them as such.

[myrkul]

What are you talking about? Poor treatment is one of the contract terms, see above. Forcible repatriation is legal and is in the contract.
High-risk window cleaning is legal and is in the contract. No time off ever is legal and is in the contract.

What about the mats on the floor? Is that in the contract?

Welcome to Libertarian paradise.

So the maids or their families are paid restitution if/when they get injured or killed as a result of their employment?

No, that's not in the contract silly. I thought libertarians enforced contracts. You just want to make up phony laws about restitution. Restrict markets. You fucking Statist you!

Making whole those you injure is hardly restrictive of markets. It's also part-and-parcel of the NAP. You harm someone, you have to make that right. You wouldn't happen to have a copy of one of these contracts we could look at? You're making a lot of claims about what is and is not in there, and some proof would be appreciated.

[cunicula]

The contracts don't say anything about compensation for injury or death. They are pretty sparse. If you want to make such contracts illegal (more power to you), that is restrictive of markets. That is not ambiguous.

Here is a short article about compensation for death:
http://www.tnp.sg/content/compensate-maids-who-die-job

Apparently, the human rights groups are calling for employers to compensate maid's families when they die on the job. That is not in the contract though. Tough cookies.  
Maids are not covered under worker's compensation law in Singapore.

Should that be changed? Should we bring more workers under the scope of State protection? I'm glad that's what you are arguing for. Maybe you have a few brain cells after all.

One of the facebook comments:

I agree with Sisi. What is wrong with having bit of dirt on windows? Make it compulsory for employers of maids to buy work place insurance for them. Remember maids are someone's daughter's and sisters as well.

What do you think of compulsory insurance purchases? Reeks of Statism doesn't it.

[MoonShadow]

Since we have been on the topic of examples of 'anarchist' societies and their longevity, I'm going to post this link here to an excerpt from a book that I've just recently learned about called The Starfish and the Spider.

http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/16.html

It's not copy&pastable, so just start at the line, "By 1521..." and read about the structure of the Apaches and why the Spanish lost.

[myrkul]

I agree with Sisi. What is wrong with having bit of dirt on windows? Make it compulsory for employers of maids to buy work place insurance for them. Remember maids are someone's daughter's and sisters as well.

What do you think of compulsory insurance purchases? Reeks of Statism doesn't it.

Not if it's in the contract.

[Richy_T]

It is a reasonable question of exactly how far should you be able to contract and how enforcible it should be. Things like duress obviously negate contracts and competency to enter a contract is also a requirement. But after the fact of a contract entered purely voluntarily? Since I don't swing quite that extreme, it's something of an "angels on the head of a pin" argument for me but I am somewhat sympathetic to the AnCap position so I take an interest.

Again, though, it's down to the ability to enforce the contract. In this case, it appears to be the state in some cases doing the enforcing and in other cases, failing to enforce what laws there are (or, in the case of the lack of such law, the state designating a set of second class individual since I'm sure it would not be acceptable for its citizens to be treated this way).

[Richy_T]

It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day.

Hmm. Just doing some reading about why such desperate people would be coming out of Myanmar. Interesting so far. Guess which word beginning with "g" describes the reason?