How libertarianism helps the poor

[Anonymous]

Charity doesn't hurt at all. If it feels good, it's not a sacrifice. Gain does not have to be monetary.

[1714791569]

1714791569

[1714791569]

1714791569

[1714791569]

1714791569

[myrkul]

Reading comprehension > you.

Reading comprehension > you, hurr hurr.

Think about this for a second... what does the libertarian-ideal, business friendly utopia look like?  Low taxes on the rich, no regulation of business, no minimum wage, no workers' right, no collective bargaining for workers, no environmental controls...

 Do, try and remember what you post.

[AyeYo]

Reading comprehension > you.

Reading comprehension > you, hurr hurr.

Think about this for a second... what does the libertarian-ideal, business friendly utopia look like?  Low taxes on the rich, no regulation of business, no minimum wage, no workers' right, no collective bargaining for workers, no environmental controls...

 Do, try and remember what you post.

It all depends what flavor of Libertarian you are.  The arguments in here are based on typical Chicago School, "leave the market alone and it'll figure everything out," "all power to the company and no power to the worker" economics and that brand of "Libertarian" is generally anti-union.

[GideonGono]

Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons:
1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it.
2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance.
3) As for the

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly.
4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw.

1. I saw your little trick. You lost the idea battle so you choose to debate semantics. I guess Agricultural subsidies are not subsidies because they go to all agri-business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Subsidy/gift/favoritism it's still the same thing. Without IP laws and publicly funded police and other govt agencies acting as enforcers for Microsoft and other IP based corporations, their business model as it exists today will no longer exist. It is favoritism. Maybe not to Microsoft specifically but to the software industry as a whole at the expense of everyone else. This gives said industry more power than it ought to have.

2. MS pulled ahead because of the firms receiving said benefits from govt they were best (relatively) at satisfying consumers.

3. Again, govt favors corporations over the people. Corporations proceed to abuse people with legal protection from govt (e.g. Deepwater horizon, BPs liability is capped at ~$100m BY LAW!. Socialists decry the corporations abuses and "faliures" of the "free market." Govt proposes new regulation. Corporations lobby hard and get legislation watered down/new bill that is nominally populist but pro-corporation. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff28.html

Limited liability at present is a State-granted privilege which works like this. Suppose that Happy Drug Company (HDC) has $100 market value financed solely by stock (equity). If HDC puts out a drug that unintentionally harms people, they or their survivors can sue the company but not the stockholders or manager-owners of the company. The liability of the latter two groups is limited. That means that the most that can be recovered depends on the worth of the company's assets that can meet the claims. The two main possibilities are that the company has enough assets to pay off the claims and that it does not have enough.

For example, if the company used up $40 of its value in paying off claims, the stockholders might be left with $60. In this case, the limited liability would not hurt those who were harmed because the company had enough to pay off. If the claims came to $135, however, then the company could pay at most $100. (I am intentionally simplifying the situation in a number of ways.) The people damaged could not legally assess the individual stockholders or the manager-owners for the other $35. They would lose $35. This situation is clearly unjust, and this is why libertarians do not favor a State-imposed limited liability law for companies. In a real free market, those damaged could sue the owners for the full amount of damages.

[myrkul]

It all depends what flavor of Libertarian you are.  The arguments in here are based on typical Chicago School, "leave the market alone and it'll figure everything out," "all power to the company and no power to the worker" economics and that brand of "Libertarian" is generally anti-union.

You are confusing (or possibly conflating) Labor Unions and Trade Unions. Labor Unions allow workers to collectively bargain with the company. This is (usually) a good thing, because getting together gives them more equivalent resources to the company. Trade unions force workers to comply with a set of regulations, mandate education levels, and otherwise restrict entry to a field. Trade unions are what we're against. That's where the confusion comes from.

[Basiley]

Charity doesn't hurt at all. If it feels good, it's not a sacrifice. Gain does not have to be monetary.

people, retaining piece of humanity inside, having beating heart don't need advocacy to be/stay humans. after all/against anything.
but evil creatures don't need advocacy too, trying smokescreen by "efficiency" benefits or other Nazi "reasons" lack of humanity.
they just different kind of creatures. like cat and dog. [they groundlessly favorite]usual Nietzsche or Confucian references, Nietzsche-ans can reject portray/accept/understand their guru as "differently-speaking/explaining-Jesus re-incarnation", in terms of love of humanity for humanity itself and save with Confucian references to Tao roots.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

This is a caricature of what I'm saying-- taxes within reason aren't just non-harmful they are also necessary for the public interest. Your argument would assume several things, as an extention of this:
1) Charity harms yourself
2) Giving excess material goods/finances is also a harm
3) Taxing $1 means you will tax somebody into oblivion(Nobody's proposing that)
4) For the industry it taxes, I'd be much more in favor of slashing the subsidies that we give to big oil, for example. That being said, under your seemingly contradictory logic, we have a contradiction, yet again-- subsidies help industries by being profitable. But subsidies can only be paid for by taxes. What do?

Yes, charity harms yourself. People still do it, because they value the good feeling they get from dropping the dollar (quarter, whatever) into the bucket, more than they do the money itself, or, by extension, anything they could have bought with that money. In economic terms, it is an experiential purchase, similar to going to a movie or riding a thrill ride. Same goes for giving away excess goods.

But wait, refer back to

But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point.

It is a dilemma, a double-bind in the best sense. I think you chose the option that people aren't rational agents, and thus will donate.

I'm ok with that decision on your part. What I'd like you to do is explain how a non-rational agents(one who does things to harm themselves economically, like donate to charity(a good feeding doesn't outweigh harming yourself through donations)) could function within lassez-faire capitalism. If I understand the premises of this system, the invisible hand of capitalism only really works if people are rationally self-interested. But as the charity example demonstrates, that isn't the case.

I'm not saying that a $1 tax is equal to taxing someone (or some business) into oblivion. I'm saying both are harm. A pinch and a gunshot are not equal, either. They're both harmful, though.

Oh, I expected you to say as much. But the problem with taking small tax = small harm is a principle in ethics which is significance-- the action under consideration has to be significant(and philosophers disagree on what it means), but most agree that a pinch or $1 tax isn't significant. For that reason, the ethical question of $1 taxation shouldn't be considered.

But to contest another point. If somebody has $100 million in the bank, do you honestly think that taxing them $1 million harms them that much? If I had $100 dollars, the $1 would be a pinch, and proportionately so to the millionaire-- 1 million isn't that much to him/her. What I'd like you to address is the possibility that a flat percentage tax(of total net-value, or income) as an ethical tax.

1. You seem to have skipped the last half of the point I made. People donate now to charity. Not because some governemt put a gun to their head and said 'Do it!', but because it makes them feel good. this wouldn't change.

It totally would. I'd argue that the reason they give money in the 1st place is because of western style liberalism, and the society that they grew up in which prizes helping other people-- if your argument about redistribution of wealth is to be believed, then people are giving money primarily due to the government's example of wealth-redistribution. Give it a few generations, and under your system, that impulse to donate will be gone.

See my point above re: experiential purchase. Note that most charitable agencies today are run by churches. For all the harms done by the church in the past, today's churches are mostly benign, A fact I would attribute to competition. Since I don't see those going away anytime soon (now that they've figured out killing each other isn't the way to solve disputes, at least for the most part), I see no reason why the enjoyment of donating would fade.

But my point concerning non-rational agents applies here too-- I'm willing to concede that they'd donate in the AnCap system, but the logical outcome of what them donating money means in an AnCap system is far more damning for the possibility of capitalistic regulation by the market.

3. People will donate to a cause which espouses values that they want to see spread. When a charity has a scandal, some portion (up to and including 100%) of those people will stop donating to that charity, instead picking one they do prefer. When a Government agency has a corruption scandal, you can not choose to stop supporting that agency, without risking life, liberty, or property. (stop paying taxes, and they'll come and shoot you or put you in a cage)

But once again, to say that all charities will always be corruption and poor management free is a pipe-dream. They will all be infected by it eventually, and as new ones come up, similar to new government agencies, there will be less incompetence and corruption, but it is a matter of time in both systems for it to fail.

Also, to say that all charities will be corrupt and poorly managed is nihilism. A sewer-pipe dream, if you will. I feel that more charities will be corruption free, well-managed, or both than will be neither, at any given time.

Well, I admit it is pessimistic, but the simple fact of the matter is that as time goes along, similar to government agencies, the chances of corruption or stupidity occurring goes up-- the longer around it is, the more likely something will go wrong.

Agreed. A Job at McDonalds is not as socially beneficial than, say... an Astrophysicist. Thankfully, the Market has already made that calculation for you, and that is why a job at McDonalds will earn you less money than one as an Astrophysicist. More dangerous or 'undesirable' jobs will earn you more money. This is known as 'Hazard pay'

That is literally nonsense. A coal miner's median income is $59,495, and it is well documented how bad their health can be.  Capitalists don't care if they harm employees, because there is a shortage of jobs-- the employers can be selective about their hirings.

A McDonalds employee's median income is $15,000, and I'm being generous. I'd say 4x as much pay per year is pretty good, considering the worst danger you're likely to see at Mccy-dee's is a burn on your hand (on day shift anyway - there's a reason the Night shift gets paid more...)

True on these points-- but to put it in computer terms, let's say the median income of a mcdonalds employee is equivalent to a 1st generation Sony Vaio, in today's times. Having 4 of those doesn't adequately compensate anybody... being king of a shitpile is awful, but being king of a shitpile 4 times as large as a mcdonald's employee isn't much comfort to the man who will likely die of lung related illnesses.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that 15,000 is pathetic. I challenge you to find a place, food, utilities, and the very basics for anywhere with a mcdonalds for that much. It is a pipe dream to pay them that little and expect them to survive. I expect the coal miner's job isn't that much better either.

And I know what you'll say, that the company isn't under an obligation to pay him anything more, but once again, looking at harm to the company versus benefit to the employee,  the proportions are completely off- a slight increase in pay would be less than thousandths of a percentile, but could make several percentile differences to him/her.

You also fall into the trap of assuming there would be a shortage of jobs. In a thriving economy, it's actually the opposite. A shortage of workers
 will allow those workers to be selective of what jobs they take.

I don't know if even having a health economy -> shortage of workers. I don't know the unemployment stats for other countries, so I really can't comment. I'd just be surprised if there was ever a situation wherein there was a shortage of workers, as the population is growing at quite a rate...

See the debate going on up above. I don't think they have any definitional basis on which to challenge me.

Also, my alternative is utilitarian anarchism, based on Levinasian ethics.

I've seen that debate, and no offense, but you're not making any good points. I'll leave that debate to them.

It comes down to definitions. W/e-- should they actually argue this well, I suspect I'll resort to marxist analyses of production, and prove cap = bad that way. /sigh. I was hoping it wouldn't come down to that.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons:
1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it.
2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance.
3) As for the

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly.
4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw.

1. I saw your little trick. You lost the idea battle so you choose to debate semantics. I guess Agricultural subsidies are not subsidies because they go to all agri-business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Subsidy/gift/favoritism it's still the same thing. Without IP laws and publicly funded police and other govt agencies acting as enforcers for Microsoft and other IP based corporations, their business model as it exists today will no longer exist. It is favoritism. Maybe not to Microsoft specifically but to the software industry as a whole at the expense of everyone else. This gives said industry more power than it ought to have.

/sigh. This is standard debating process. To know the terms in which you debate, and debate over them is natural, and to not do that means you really are only a surface debater. So yeah, no tricks here.

Except IP isn't IP for Software companies, and that's where your argumentation breaks down-- agricultural subsidies are subsidies because they target an industry-- IP doesn't. It is generalized for the entirety of all businesses and individuals.

So your equation is subsidy = gift/favoritism -- tell me where in any IP law, there is specific, specific reference to Microsoft, any of their competitors, or any business sector as a whole.

Also, you know you're merely a talking head when you advocate for private police. But more to the point, the debate, which you're trying very cleverly to shift, is about subsidies, not about private police or gov. agencies.

Question for you-- do any other businesses, private entities, or others benefit from these IPs?

And lastly, it doesn't give them any more power than they ought to have. This is on the same basis of protecting one's body from a murderer-- police need to take care of that as a preventative measure, and this needs to be in place as a breach in IP would cause damage to these businesses that wouldn't be fixable.

But I digress. Please tell me why this is a subsidy, cause nothing in the wikipedia article said anything that would back you up, and I read it twice.

2. MS pulled ahead because of the firms receiving said benefits from govt they were best (relatively) at satisfying consumers.

But isn't that the invisible hand of capitalism? If they were the "best (relatively) at satisfying consumers", that would make consumers want to come back and buy more-- so why isn't this a case of an incredibly successful business model?  And once again, you've taken that this is a benefit specific to MS as a given, which has yet to be proven, and perhaps has been disproven-- didn't we just talk about how many software companies would have logically gotten that "benefit" extended to them?

3. Again, govt favors corporations over the people. Corporations proceed to abuse people with legal protection from govt (e.g. Deepwater horizon, BPs liability is capped at ~$100m BY LAW!. Socialists decry the corporations abuses and "faliures" of the "free market." Govt proposes new regulation. Corporations lobby hard and get legislation watered down/new bill that is nominally populist but pro-corporation. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

This isn't responsive to the debate of whether or not IP = subsidy. Quite frankly, you can bitch and moan about corporations all you want, I'm in agreement with you-- but for the purposes of this, I'm only interested in that question-- does IP = subsidy?

Limited liability at present is a State-granted privilege which works like this. Suppose that Happy Drug Company (HDC) has $100 market value financed solely by stock (equity). If HDC puts out a drug that unintentionally harms people, they or their survivors can sue the company but not the stockholders or manager-owners of the company. The liability of the latter two groups is limited. That means that the most that can be recovered depends on the worth of the company's assets that can meet the claims. The two main possibilities are that the company has enough assets to pay off the claims and that it does not have enough.

For example, if the company used up $40 of its value in paying off claims, the stockholders might be left with $60. In this case, the limited liability would not hurt those who were harmed because the company had enough to pay off. If the claims came to $135, however, then the company could pay at most $100. (I am intentionally simplifying the situation in a number of ways.) The people damaged could not legally assess the individual stockholders or the manager-owners for the other $35. They would lose $35. This situation is clearly unjust, and this is why libertarians do not favor a State-imposed limited liability law for companies. In a real free market, those damaged could sue the owners for the full amount of damages.

Not relevant, see previous response.

[myrkul]

I'm ok with that decision on your part. What I'd like you to do is explain how a non-rational agents(one who does things to harm themselves economically, like donate to charity(a good feeding doesn't outweigh harming yourself through donations)) could function within lassez-faire capitalism. If I understand the premises of this system, the invisible hand of capitalism only really works if people are rationally self-interested. But as the charity example demonstrates, that isn't the case.

Ahh, but they are rational agents, and they are making a rational decision to enjoy an experience (the joy of donating something charity) as opposed to buying a sandwich, or a cup of coffee. Just exactly the same as a movie or an amusement ride. When you're done, you have nothing physical to show for it, but you have had an experience.

But to contest another point. If somebody has $100 million in the bank, do you honestly think that taxing them $1 million harms them that much? If I had $100 dollars, the $1 would be a pinch, and proportionately so to the millionaire-- 1 million isn't that much to him/her. What I'd like you to address is the possibility that a flat percentage tax(of total net-value, or income) as an ethical tax.

No, no tax is ethical, because they are all enforced with violence, be it $1 or $100,000,000.00.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that 15,000 is pathetic. I challenge you to find a place, food, utilities, and the very basics for anywhere with a mcdonalds for that much. It is a pipe dream to pay them that little and expect them to survive. I expect the coal miner's job isn't that much better either.

Did it on $12,000. Not easily, not in luxury, but I did it.

I don't know if even having a health economy -> shortage of workers. I don't know the unemployment stats for other countries, so I really can't comment. I'd just be surprised if there was ever a situation wherein there was a shortage of workers, as the population is growing at quite a rate...

Population growth itself creates jobs: Babysitting.

[AyeYo]

This thread brings the lulz, hardcore.

[Mageant]

The current system is not helping the poor! It's making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This has been shown by numerous studies.

The less centralized a society is, the more egaliatarian it is, and thus the levels of wealth are more evenly distributed.

Also, almost all people *like* to help each other if it's on a voluntary basis.

[Babylon]

We've already seen the results of unregulated capitalism in this country at the beginning of the 20th century - with workers earning just barely enough to survive, paid in company scrip that could only be redeemed on overpriced items at the company store.

I don't see how anyone could argue in good conscience that we should go back to that unless the only things they've ever read on the subject were highly-biased works by stuffy economists with a vested interest in ignoring or discounting the suffering of regular people. You owe it to yourself to read books from more diverse points of view. I'd recommend you check out The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. It's old enough to be in the public domain, so you can read it for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/140

That period was corporatist.  The workers did not have the support of the government,  the corporate bosses did.

Without the government interfereing the workers are stronger, in fact even with the government interfereing the unions and the labor movement were able to achieve huge concessions from the corporations.

[Babylon]

I highly recommend a read through Kevin  Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism

I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong.

Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding.

No need to buy it, It's free. (30 second google search, 3rd link.)

Fine, I misworded that. Buy should've been buy/read.

I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to: free markets want efficiency, corporations aren't efficient, corporations will cease to exist.

Two good reasons why this is nonsense-- if government is totally inefficient, and only efficient systems will survive, why does government survive?
I'll answer my own question-- it is because humans aren't rational actors, and there are other competing, and sometimes winning factors besides efficiency.

Other reason: The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

Microsoft.

Anything else?

Corporations are a legal construct.  Without limited liability laws they couldn't exist.  Giving them a framework to allow their existence certainly counts as a subsidy.

[Babylon]

The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

Microsoft.

Intellectual property law is a subsidy for Microsoft's business model of selling copies of a non-scarce resource.

This is of course on top of the government's recognition of Microsoft as some special entity that can do things individuals or groups of unrecognized individuals cannot.

Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons:
1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it.
2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance.
3) As for the

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly.
4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw.

You seem to be missing the fact ALL corporations are government subsidized. You reiterate it here, as if it somehow disproves itself.  Saying Microsoft is not subsidized because their competitors are supported in the same way.  That's right, all corporations are supported by government subsidies, and the fact that all the others are as well doesn't mean that Microsoft is not.

As to why the pulled ahead, because they have a corporate model that does well in the environment that they exist in, plain and simple.  Not because they received more subsidies than anyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that they, like all other corporations, are able to exist only because Government makes it possible.

[Babylon]

Taxation has, as it's stated goal, to help the poor, via welfare and other social programs. 'Wealth redistribution'. What they end up doing is robbing Peter, pocketing some, and then giving back to Peter, after he jumps through some hoops. Granted, they also rob Paul, but we're suggesting not taking from Peter in the first place.

No,  Taxation has, as it's stated goal, the funding of government.

WELFARE has as it's stated goal the helping of the poor.

[Babylon]

It all depends what flavor of Libertarian you are.  The arguments in here are based on typical Chicago School, "leave the market alone and it'll figure everything out," "all power to the company and no power to the worker" economics and that brand of "Libertarian" is generally anti-union.

You are confusing (or possibly conflating) Labor Unions and Trade Unions. Labor Unions allow workers to collectively bargain with the company. This is (usually) a good thing, because getting together gives them more equivalent resources to the company. Trade unions force workers to comply with a set of regulations, mandate education levels, and otherwise restrict entry to a field. Trade unions are what we're against. That's where the confusion comes from.

I had some resounding debates about labor unions with the libertarian capitalists on this board when it was first starting.  You and Atlas may not be opposed to labor unions, but a large portion of libertarian capitalists are.

[myrkul]

Taxation has, as it's stated goal, to help the poor, via welfare and other social programs. 'Wealth redistribution'. What they end up doing is robbing Peter, pocketing some, and then giving back to Peter, after he jumps through some hoops. Granted, they also rob Paul, but we're suggesting not taking from Peter in the first place.

No,  Taxation has, as it's stated goal, the funding of government.

WELFARE has as it's stated goal the helping of the poor.

Point.

[zer0]

If you are a Chicago school free market disciple I suggest you read Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul for a kick right in the balls.

"The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World" by JRS is also a good read, especially if you want to see what corporatism and currency speculation has done to destroy countries

[AyeYo]

If you are a Chicago school free market disciple I suggest you read Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul for a kick right in the balls.

"The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World" by JRS is also a good read, especially if you want to see what corporatism and currency speculation has done to destroy countries

You can also add this book to that list, for a real-world, in-depth examination of how well Chicago School economic policies worked out in post-revolution Chile.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine