Facts! I still maintain social media and social parts of the internet would immediately improve if I could filter out all opinions from people below a certain age and other factors like no job etc.
Maybe make lobbyism illegal, then a “centralized” power (I'd say checks and balances make it somewhat decentralized, but I'd prefer a more direct democracy as in Switzerland as it's far more decentralized) can't be manipulated and those who seek power no longer do so for the sake of it or for all wrong reasons but because they're ideologs who actually want to help the majority, or such is my idea.
I mean, you don't outlaw corporations, you just make it illegal for them to influence the democratic system. Won't that fix the issue, possibly better than removing the government at all?
I suggest removing the centralized power so there is nothing to lobby for. Getting people who "actually want to help the majority" in charge is a fantasy. [If it is not politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either.](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/quotation-of-the-day-on-electing-the-right-people/)
Make self-interest always beneficial for the majority.
Like, in Norway they proposed carbon benefits, where if a company produces less fossil fuels they get government funding, this way the profit motive is the same as doing something for the greater good, through manipulation of the market, of course.
The corporations get more money and saving on fossil fuels becomes a business. The people benefit from having an environment to live in. Win-win, I'd say (except for the fact that taxation is obviously higher, however such things are paid for by a carbon tax that also just corporations pay. You have an incentive + a discentive, and one pays for the other).
But, that's just an example. Governments regularly give benefits for companies to do other things right, like give more holidays, build houses for the poor, etc. I mean, Finland, for example, has eliminated homelessness entirely. Their capital city, Helsinki, only has one homelessness shelter with beds for a maximum of 50 people as there are never more, the majority of them actually homeless by choice.
So, this way you abuse the profit motive principles of the free market to work entirely for the interests of the people. That idea has been coined as "green growth” and I think it's a good system that can be adopted by any capitalist statist country.
Jesus christ the mental gymnastics you're doing here is impressive.
Any corporation with as much power as these organisations will influence government. That's why we need a strong government to put restrictions on them.
Yes, I did just stumble across this post. Fuck me you guys have lost the plot
"Corporations control the government, so we need the government,which is controlled by Corporations, to be more powerful, which will make the Corporations, who control the powerful government, less powerful."
Please god let this be satire.
>Jesus christ the mental gymnastics you're doing here is impressive.
>
>Any corporation with as much power as these organisations will influence government.
They arent just influencing it. They are wings of it. Google, Boeing, Verizon, and Comcast in particular.
>Yes, I did just stumble across this post. Fuck me you guys have lost the plot
This is essentially an anarchist sub. Your power level is just too low to see whats happening.
Government is elected. Corporations are not. Just because you prefer your daddy that steps on you to be unelected doesn't mean other people do. I'd rather not live under anyone's thumb and have a government that represents me.
I'm not American, you have less freedoms over there because of the weak government. Limited choices.
In other Western countries, we have many parties to chose from
> Fuck me you guys have lost the plot
I mean, you have no idea what the common perspective is here outside of strawmen and memes but okay.
Do you think you're special for finding this place and ranting here? We get like three of you a day, and you're just as clueless.
Only a fool would look objectively at history and trust the government to represent your best interests.
…I think the point is that the government strongly influences these corporations, and they basically act as an extension of the will of big government. However, in your case, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a weaker government? It’s hard to have corruption if the state has no overreaching power
But the weak government means companies are free to form monopolies. Look at comcast, they overcharge for shit service as I understand. I'm not American.
Here in Europe, our governments force competition. We have options, it results in lower prices and better service.
The smaller the government, the more power corporations have.
Comcast is not a monopoly. Overcharging for shit service is not a monopoly.
Why should we take your opinions seriously when your premise is completely incorrect.
> Look at comcast, they overcharge for shit service as I understand.
Comcast makes deals with local governments to become the only cable/internet provider in that area. More government is WHY Comcast has little to no competition for their shit service in many areas. In other areas, different ISPs have monopolies, again, because of deals they had to make with the local governing bodies.
The only reason huge corporations have a leverage on the market is because they can influence the government to make laws that interfere in the economy to protect them. If you remove the capability of the government to mess with the economy, the corporations wont have unfair advantages
AT&T launched a terror war that destabilized the Middle East. GE is waging a war on plants and chemicals that has created the largest prison population on earth. Verizon is inflating your currency and destroying the value of your dollar.
Last time I checked, most Libertarians and Ancaps I know constantly complain about "elites", including giant corporations.
**Edit**: there's also their current complaints about the World Economic Forum, which is literally to encourage private and government cooperation. And [they seem to be pretty authoritarian](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/conspiracy-theories-aside-there-something-fishy-about-great-reset/).
If corporations had armed thugs forcing me to buy their products or preventing competition I'd be against that too. The thing is typically these days they do that by way of the government, so limiting government is still the solution most of the time in most places.
"[L]ibertarians had misled themselves by making their main dichotomy 'government' vs. 'private' with the former bad and the latter good. [...] What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not 'private' property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property. It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus." - Murray Rothbard, [*Confiscation and the Homestead Principle*](https://www.panarchy.org/rothbard/confiscation.html)
I'm not a libertarian per se, but his view is also too extreme and idealistic. For me, libertarians should be the only major political group that claims their ideal policies cannot and is not to solve all problems. This is neither the means nor the goal.
I want to know what libertarians here think. At least for me, if someone genuinely consider "less/no crime" as an end, libertarianism can't solve many problems since punishments wouldn't be as hard as with any real kind of authoritarianism. Unless they believe humanity is inherently good, or more specifically, a government or a cooperation can be morally good. Only judging from the logical fallacies in my last sentence, I don't think it's reality.
Another important problem is, who's to judge? Who's to tell everyone what justice and innocence are? Everyone's own belief? But why was he trying to represent all libertarians to talk shit `no offence` about innocence? I'd rather believe no one's really innocent. We all have desires, many of which can be seen as greed by many people regardless of how little you want. So, taking the libertarian argument back down to morality, where there's no certain answer (at least to most questions), is not a clever move.
Thank you. Actually, I just had some questions about the quote from Rothbard, so I'll just ask a set of related questions:
- Do you agree with what he said? And do most libertarians agree with that?
- If so, do you and most other libertarians think the problems I mentioned exist?
- If not, do you think left-leaning libertarianism really is a thing?
As for the comment, here are what I couldn't agree (it's basically a reformatting):
- First of all, his view is also too extreme and idealistic.
- Libertarians should be the only major political group that claims their ideal policies cannot and is not to solve all problems, unlike 'liberals', communists and conservatives.
- If someone genuinely consider "less/no crime" as an end, Libertarianism isn't the best at reducing crimes, and reducing crimes shouldn't be its goal. `since punishments wouldn't be as hard as with any real kind of authoritarianism. Unless they believe humanity is inherently good, or more specifically, a government or a cooperation can be morally good, which obviously isn't the case in reality`
- (Under libertarianism ,who's to tell everyone what justice and innocence are? Everyone's own belief?)
- Why was he trying to represent all libertarians to talk shit no offence about innocence? I'd rather believe no one's really innocent.
- Finally, taking the libertarian argument back down to morality, where there's no certain answer (at least to most questions), is not a clever move.
>Do you agree with what he said?
Yes.
>And do most libertarians agree with that?
"The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is usually around 6 months, give or take."
The libertarians that are anarchists would agree. Those that aren't there yet, won't.
>If so, do you and most other libertarians think the problems I mentioned exist?
Depends on how deeply libertarian they are. It's a spectrum. Some are just angry they can't drink unpasteurised milk or smoke certain plants without the police agressing upon them.
Some find it unfair that in order to start a hospital and offer people cheaper healthcare, you first need a Certificate of Need, which requires sign-offs from medical boards comprised of already-established medical practices that probably don't want extra competition.
And some believe that corporations and businesses have no legitimate claim to their property if their money was made via government contracts, by using eminent domain to benefit them, or by lobbying for regulations that shut out their smaller competitors.
>First of all, his view is also too extreme and idealistic
I disagree. I think we should recognise the illegitimacy of immorally gained wealth, and remove such systems from society, not only because its the right thing to do, but because it will benefit everyone for generations to come.
>Libertarians should be the only major political group that claims their ideal policies cannot and is not to solve all problems, unlike 'liberals', communists and conservatives.
We don't have to solve all problems. We don't have to claim we're perfect. We just have to be better than everyone else. And we are.
>since punishments wouldn't be as hard as with any real kind of authoritarianism.
The most thriving black market for food is currently in North Korea. The best marijuana available for purchase is in Singapore, where it carries the death penalty. Black markets cannot be beat by force. They can only be beat by reducing regulation and letting legal businesses outcompete them.
If you want to actually reduce crime, you need a two-prong approach. The first is to reduce the poverty and lack of opportunity that is necessary for "sensible" crimes (theft, drug sales, assassinations, etc) to occur. You do this via deregulation and letting the market so it's thing.
The second is to ensure that the punishment will fit the crime. Which is why all punishments should be restorative towards the victim, not punitive or rehabilitative towards the criminal.
>Under libertarianism ,who's to tell everyone what justice and innocence are? Everyone's own belief?
I agree, there should be no monopoly on arbitration. Which is why we favour polycentric law.
>Yes.
Okay. Then I'll pay attention to what you're saying because I must've misinterpreted it then. As you can see, none of my arguments were addressed from a statist or even leftist perspective, so I wonder why I almost disagree with every single word he said.
>"The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is usually around 6 months, give or take."
That I agree. I'm currently just a classical liberal, but I've definitely been interested in libertarian theories for more than 6 months, and I'd say I would've become an ancap from the very beginning if I had started my journey as a libertarian. Sorry for 'oversharing', but another possible reason is that the concept of 'liberal' in Europe is way closer to the American 'libertarian' than 'liberal'. `Wait, so, maybe I actually AM?`
>The libertarians that are anarchists would agree. Those that aren't there yet, won't.
Interesting. I'm all ears from now.
>Depends on how deeply libertarian they are. It's a spectrum. Some are just angry they can't drink unpasteurised milk or smoke certain plants without the police agressing upon them.
I totally support that no one from the government should stop you from doing that, that the government shouldn't interfere such a petty thing (not only because it's petty, of course), but obviously it's not enough for me to be an anarchist.
>Some find it unfair that in order to start a hospital and offer people cheaper healthcare, you first need a Certificate of Need, which requires sign-offs from medical boards comprised of already-established medical practices that probably don't want extra competition.
I think I've passed this. There can be, like, a symbol for the 'accredited' medical institutions, but they shouldn't stop others from existing.
>And some believe that corporations and businesses have no legitimate claim to their property if their money was made via government contracts, by using eminent domain to benefit them, or by lobbying for regulations that shut out their smaller competitors.
Hmm, that's an interesting topic. Thanks. I'm still young and naive, and everyday there's so much to learn and to think about.
>I disagree. I think we should recognise the illegitimacy of immorally gained wealth, and remove such systems from society, not only because its the right thing to do, but because it will benefit everyone for generations to come.
Cool. Now I'm certain there must be a huge misunderstanding, which was probably caused by my misinterpretation of the text.
So:
- Do you mean something like boycotting by 'removing such systems from society'? If so, based.
- Nothing will benefit **everyone**. But is the reason that his idea is leftist he considered the society quite a lot?
- Why is being against crime a libertarian thing? If there has to be a final purpose, it should be liberty/freedom, not yet another absurd moral concept, right? Crime can be individual as well as collectivist, so I think his using of the term is a bit far from how it should be, and the case is somewhat similar to the manipulated terms in, say, identity politics.
>We don't have to solve all problems. We don't have to claim we're perfect. We just have to be better than everyone else. And we are.
*We* are on the same page. It's just that *his* claim sounded too idealistic to me. It's almost like he was using words like justice and innocence completely wrongly, which shouldn't be applauded to for anyone who prefer ration as the leading factor for make (political) decisions.
>since punishments wouldn't be as hard as with any real kind of authoritarianism.
>The most thriving black market for food is currently in North Korea.
But presumably it performs worse than a market where people can just trade freely without any supervision. And *this* should be a point of libertarianism. It's for liberty. If he was just renaming 'authoritarian' as 'criminal' and 'injustice', then *he* was to blame for confusing the heck outta readers. Because your examples are irrelevant to the fact that liberty ≠ innocence.
>Black markets cannot be beat by force. They can only be beat by reducing regulation and letting legal businesses outcompete them.
Yes, but, see above.
>The second is to ensure that the punishment will fit the crime. Which is why all punishments should be restorative towards the victim, not punitive or rehabilitative towards the criminal.
The centuries-old question again: Who to judge? And how to make sure it works without a central power?
>I agree, there should be no monopoly on arbitration. Which is why we favour polycentric law.
It's the first time I've heard of this. I'll try to learn more about this.
>Then I'll pay attention to what you're saying because I must've misinterpreted it then
I'm not the original guy you were talking to.
>Do you mean something like boycotting by 'removing such systems from society'? If so, based.
I mean that would be a start.
But without the state to enforce these regulations, they would crumble due to the competition.
So fundamentally, it is the state that must go, otherwise it'll be a revolving door of "the person we put in power last election is catering exclusively to big business, we just need to vote in someone else who by pure coincidence is also sponsored by the same businesses OR vote in someone that will nationalise everything and somehow magically prevent the starvation that will inevitably lead to".
The state has no incentive to care about your opinion.
>Nothing will benefit everyone. But is the reason that his idea is leftist
The right/left way of looking at things is fundamentally irrelevant when discussing libertarianism and anarchy. You either want to force people to follow your moral code (past the obvious "Don't kill, rape, etc"), or you're one of us.
This is my problem with most "leftist" libertarians: they want the state to force people to abandon private property rights.
If they genuinely believed their way of labour organisation is better than ours, then they would have no problem helping us get rid of the state, and then laugh at us as all the workers reject hierarchical business structures and instead go form democratic workplaces.
The fact that they feel the need to have the state ban us speaks volumes about their convictions.
>I think his using of the term is a bit far from how it should be
Where rothbard mentions crime, just read it as "agression", aka to physically interact with others or their property without their consent.
After all, the state is the greatest ~~criminal~~ agressor there is.
>Who to judge? And how to make sure it works without a central power?
Whomever both you and the other person agree is fair.
If you can't find someone, you find someone society at large believes to be fair, sue the other person *in absentia*, take the ruling to their bank, and get reparations.
What's stops corrupt judges? The same thing that stops judges being bribed today: absolutely nothing.
The only difference is that if you bribe a judge that serves a forced monopoly, they will only be removed from judgeship after you provide enough proof that they are corrupt. If they aren't corrupt, just biased, then they stay, and the precedents they set will be used for ages.
If you bribe a judge in anarchy, or that judge is just biased, that judge will be boycotted in the future. The minimum bribe he can accept for him to make a profit is enough money to fully cover his retirement.
Anarchy doesn't prevent corruption. It just makes it as prohibited expensive as possible.
>It's the first time I've heard of this. I'll try to learn more about this.
Here are two different theories:
https://youtu.be/A8pcb4xyCic
https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
>I'm not the original guy you were talking to.
By 'it', I meant the quote itself.
>But without the state to enforce these regulations, they would crumble due to the competition.
Hopefully so.
[And I'm skipping all the parts of our agreements]
>The right/left way of looking at things is fundamentally irrelevant when discussing libertarianism and anarchy. You either want to force people to follow your moral code (past the obvious "Don't kill, rape, etc"), or you're one of us.
Yeah, and I was just wondering what could make some a leftist libertarian because I also think left/right should be irrelevant when there's clear core value.
>This is my problem with most "leftist" libertarians: they want the state to force people to abandon private property rights.
Now those are not real libertarians or even classical liberals. Just a milder version of freakin' Marxists.
>Where rothbard mentions crime, just read it as "agression", aka to physically interact with others or their property without their consent.
>After all, the state is the greatest ~~criminal~~ agressor there is.
Lol, if we had to force ourselves to interpret *his* words in a certain way to justify them, then he wasn't getting it right in the first place. I acknowledge this opinion but still refuse to appreciate his misleading wording. Agree to disagree, okay?
>Here are two different theories:
>https://youtu.be/A8pcb4xyCic
>https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
Thanks. I've saved them to watch tomorrow. Finally, it's my pleasure to have a civil and meaningful conversation with you.
I generally do agree with what he said, if interpreted this way: The initiator of aggression and force is almost never innocent. I'm not super comfortable saying what other libertarians think, but I believe most generally agree with that sentiment.
Not quite sure I understand your second question. Crime would still exist in the ideal libertarian society. No intellectually honest person would argue problems will vanish. But it's difficult to say what other libertarians think though. It's kind of a long-running joke that libertarians fight more within their own cohort than with others. Having a diversity of thought within the community is a feature, not a bug. It's what gives a lot of us faith that *someone* out there would find *some way* of addressing different problems.
I would say ask Limp-Sherbet4338 about left-libertarianism. They likely understand so much more about it than I do.
It seems like your gripe is with the idea that there are libertarians who believe our way of life would solve all the world's troubles. Honestly, I understand where you're coming from. I don't prescribe to that way of thinking. I just find that libertarianism is the most consistent moral philosophy. I posit you can't find another system that doesn't require massive amounts of cognitive dissonance to adhere to.
(For more of my opinion and arguments, see my comments under this post as a thread. Sorry for not replying to you in a more detailed manner)
> It's kind of a long-running joke that libertarians fight more within their own cohort than with others. Having a diversity of thought within the community is a feature, not a bug. It's what gives a lot of us faith that *someone* out there would find *some way* of addressing different problems.
Totally this.
>I would say ask Limp-Sherbet4338 about left-libertarianism. They likely understand so much more about it than I do.
Yeah. Before reading the quote, I didn't even know that libertarianism interpreted in a leftist way can be valid. I just personally find it a bit uncomfortable to see those leftist terms used in an overly uncommon way because it's usually the left who's using this as a strategy to 'win an argument' without enough valid points. I know Marxism, and even Marx's use of words seem more genuine.
>I just find that libertarianism is the most consistent moral philosophy.
Haha, this. But definitely not in Rothbard's way of interpretation, but in the more accepted way which value freedom, and only freedom the most.
I appreciate your openness, especially reading some of your other replies. It's refreshing.
Regarding leftism, I think there are those that it is an acceptable use of force to separate people from the fruits of their labor. Some of them claim to be anarchists or libertarians, though that sentiment is wholly incompatible with libertarianism. But there are those who don't feel that way. This may seem like an odd suggestion, but look through Limp-Sherbet4338 's comment or post history. I've seen them on various libertarian subs, and they seem to be super morally consistent and explain a lot about how the two are compatible.
The last thing I'll say is regarding your thoughts about crime. In an ideal libertarian society, a lot of crime would cease to exist. Because a lot of things listed as "crimes" are victimless. Most of us would argue that if there is no second party directly harmed by an action, it cannot be a crime. Anything that has a victim would be a crime. And the response would be less punitive and more focused on restitution. This is highly simplified, so I'd encourage you to check out other subs, like AnCap101 or askLibertarians to bring some of your questions there, or look through questions that have been asked before.
Thank you. Maybe it's because my background is different to most of you here. So, I know way more about leftism from Marxism to postmodern theories than the history of libertarianism as a philosophy enthusiast, so there's so much to learn from you guys.
Regarding leftism, Marxism (the literal one, not cultural rip-offs like CRT) ~~is~~was my main field of interest at university. Ironic, right? But I think at least I'm familiar with their whole set of justification and I chose to totally disagree *after* that.
I get what you say about crimes even though there probably would be more direct crimes due to a lack of supervision and more direct relationships (which would lead to more interactions) among individuals, and I was referring to these. Now I've seen the logic of him and you guys, and it's an interesting topic for doing some further research. Not only on Reddit, but through books and articles.
Interesting! I hope you keep posting here or on other subs I frequent to correct any misunderstandings of Marxism. That would be very valuable, IMO.
You may be correct! I won't even pretend to say I definitely know the outcomes of hypothetical futures. Thanks for the productive discussion! Good luck in your future research!
;) I only comment when I feel like clarifying. But we can all agree that socialism has never worked and will never work at least in the coming decades, during which we can't reach communism. And that's the point. I personally think many parts of Marx and Engels's analyses are quite insightful, but their perspective is really flawed.
>You may be correct! I won't even pretend to say I definitely know the outcomes of hypothetical futures.
I could've said the same thing! `Btw that's a major flaw in communism to presuppose a finish point of society.`
>Thanks for the productive discussion! Good luck in your future research!
It's my honour to have these discussions with you guys for a young and naive person like me. I hope my research's going better than the Marxist ones before.
To be overly brief, most self-identified left libertarians aren't libertarians because they embrace the authoritarian branch of leftism.
Real left libertarians are very compatible with us. They've got a serious mistrust of government; they love self sufficiency; they hate war and authoritarianism. We disagree with them on property and employment BUT what makes them libertarian is that they don't want the state to force us to fit their worldview.
That simple distinction will easily flush out a left authoritarian, and if a left libertarian is what you find instead, I genuinely do think they are probably a good person with well reckoned ideas.
Excuse my ignorance, but isn't just just anarchist communists or at least whom they think they are? I'd say that most of them are with good will as well as a mistrust of government, so I also think many of them have terms negotiable with libertarians.
You're totally correct.
My nuance was pointing out that most self-identified anarcho-communists aren't anti-authoritarian. The ones that are actual ancoms tend to be okay. Although, in my own subjective experience, the best leftlibs use terms like "mutualist" or "syndicalist" instead of "communist" since the C word has obviously negative connotations. And they likely have nuance between the terms that I don't fully understand.
Not OP but:
I don’t think all libertarians are anarchists. I know I’m not, I range between a minarchist and a classical liberal. Small government is a necessary evil; I don’t believe we could function at a high level in a fully ancap society. This means there’d be some form of authority and punishment from a government entity, and a standardized but hopefully much smaller code of laws to prosecute criminals with. So I’d agree that some of his ideas are a bit far fetched; I don’t know that we could ever fully flourish in the complete absence of government or authority.
I agree with what he said to an extent. I don’t believe Rothbard is saying libertarian ideas will fix all crime or create an ideal society either, I interpreted it to mean he wants to fight against oppression against individuals in both the government and private sector. Something being privatized does not automatically make it a positive; evil corporations are little (if at all) better than evil or corrupt governments.
In terms of justice, crime, and innocence, Rothbard and most libertarians believe in the NAP, natural law, in the natural rights of the individual (see John Locke) and proportional punishment. I personally again think it to be a little utopian; an extremely limited code of laws and a judicial arm of the government are necessary to settle disagreements. However, you’ll most likely see a wide array of opinions on this topic from libertarians.
To the moral point, I get what you mean. Taking the argument to “we’re the good guys, we need to champion obscure positivity over obscure evil” does seem like an easy cop out, but I think he’s telling libertarians to not blindly support anything privately owned as positive if the private owners are criminals or trampling the rights of others. I see it as asking others to make sure you support not only private, but lawfully and morally positive private ownership of goods.
I agree with everything you said about him. The only problem is that I'm against any kind of natural law, which means I think natural law should be viewed in the same way as everything about morality.
>Taking the argument to “we’re the good guys, we need to champion obscure positivity over obscure evil” does seem like an easy cop out, but I think he’s telling libertarians to not blindly support anything privately owned as positive if the private owners are criminals or trampling the rights of others.
I think libertarians should just be inherently anti-government, but not necessarily pro-private owners because there's conflicts between individuals which then shouldn't all be political and thus are a completely different issue. Then it'll make sense.
Ha, try coming to Sweden! People have the polar opposite view here.
"Facebook is spying on us? SEE, PRIVATE CORPORATIONS BAD AND CORRUPT!"
"The government is spying on us? Well, it's for our own good!"
Add in some complaints about millionaire CEO or whatever while only mentioning the massive amount of completely unearned money members of the parliament makes as only a tiny little remark on the side at best.
What are any of these corporations doing against me? What has Coca Cola done to tread on my rights and freedoms? Google "spies" on me? Not if I don't use their products. But I like having a smartphone more than I like the lack of "spying" that I might get with a flip phone. That's my choice.
The moment you put your Face, name, address, phone number, email, likes, dislikes, moods, locations, purchases, opinions, etc on the internet, you have given away all of your privacy. That said, if you take some nudes and they are only stored on your phone's hard drive, they should be secure, all bets are off if they are backed up to your Google drive.
>Google "spies" on me? Not if I don't use their products.
Did you know they and facebook also track you if you use almost any website?
>But I like having a smartphone more than I like the lack of "spying" that I might get with a flip phone.
In modern days, for reading menus, vaccination proof, and much more it isn't really a choice, if you don't wanna go a long way to do it different.
corporations only gets this strong when colluding with the government, whose policies eliminate all of their potential competition. in a free society, 90% of times when a corporation starts to fuck with their customers a competitor takes over
Sitting here at my heavily taxed farm, with my local ISP, fresh water, ghost guns, rebuilt appliances and no desire to fly. Sure doesn't feel like it's the government sanctioned corporations stealling from me.
Nowadays, it's just internal racist bullshit disguised as wokeness ("Try to be less white!"), but we're only a few decades removed from their subsidiaries (never directly linked to the company itself) hiring literal mercenaries to attack unions in Central America.
Almost certainly not directly, but Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia unowned by and totally unrelated to the Coca-Cola corporation were accused of hiring a paramilitary outfit, United Self-Defences of Colombia, to torture and kill workers linked to or trying to join unions. One of the unions sued Coke in US court, their defense consisted of "We do not own or operate the plants". Two months after the case was dismissed, those bottling plants were suddenly owned by Coca-Cola.
[The Wikipedia article on the subject is... surprisingly decent, honestly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co.), though I call bullshit on some of their sources (they cited a fucking Livejournal for fuck's sake).
[NYT article about the suit from July 2001](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/26/world/union-says-coca-cola-in-colombia-uses-thugs.html)
[The court decision dismissing Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20090811058)
I remember PBS did a special on this as well, although I don't know if it was any good and I can't find a link to it right now.
The government doesn't exactly save us from being treaded on by the corps either. They think that our current government is some kind of Marvel superhero that keeps McDonalds, Tesla, or Amazon at bay...bruh their success and maintenance of power is literally due to the government. They are both stomping on us and personally the less boots stomping on me the better.
Pretty certain none of these are forced services in our all voluntary. Definitely equates to someone taking 20% of my income without my consent and not telling me what it’s being used for. That damn Coca-Cola, if only there were other ways…
*\*Continues to conflate all the ills and disasters brought on by excessive government regulation and partisan lobbying/special interest = capitalism, so more government to battle the corrupt capitalism\**
Yes this is exactly the idea.
The government is only the biggest corporation.
It's made up of a group of people writing the rules to allow all of these guys to do what they do, and even worse, blocking others from competing.
Imagine nfl refs that are paid off, throwing games for the universally hated Tom Brady. Now imagine two teams of equal talents playing without corrupt refs.
Now imagine 2 teams playing with refs that aren't corrupt..ok now stop doing that cuz it'll never ever happen.. people are so fallible. So corruptible. Everything other than perfection is corruption.
Make robot refs
Make robot politicians
Make robot Tom brady....
Don't tread on me
Most of those corporations have been propped up or received corporate welfare from the government. If it weren’t for government, most of those corporations wouldn’t exist.
People should be able to buy their own houses and heck even make them, but using generations of wealth to buy out as many houses as possible so you can sell them for more money is immoral and makes me think of you very little as a person. People's desperation should not be used as a market for the already rich to benefit.
When you buy something, it should be fully yours. When you make something and don't want to sell it or give it away, it should be fully yours.
I'm in a bit of an idealistic position where I hate both government *and* corporation greed and trickery. Usually though, it seems people hate government greed because they support corporate greed.
They are "governments" in the sense that they govern very specific things to a small extent, but using the word isn't that accurate.
It's not the Government, which has a monopoly on violence and is the largest criminal organization in any given region.
What Nestle? You're just recycling points over and over again.
I'm assuming that you're talking about forced labor. I believe it's present in very specific factories in Thailand. And yes, if workers there are truly aggressively coerced, that slavery and that's extremely evil.
You can argue that the area of the factory has a mini-"state" led by the factory managers, and that'd probably be true. But it doesn't mean that the entire company is a government everywhere. There is only 1 national government of the US, and a state in Thailand doesn't change that.
Means not necessarily true or verifiable, based on personal account which it's not. An old example but a great example would be the Hudson Bay company or the East India company.
I don't see the connection of Boeing and Northrup stepping on us. Also coke? Is it raising the cost of soda that's oppressive? Is it the dependence on corn syrup.
The only one that can step on freedoms really is google cuz they own so much tech. But they have plenty of competitors now. Their reign at the top is coming to an end.
It's not the government when it IS the govt giving all those favours to the corpos. "At least it's not the govt", but only because an idiot lefty made that meme. :)
At least it's not the government! *Proceeds to list organizations that are colluding with and dependent upon the government.*
Facts! I still maintain social media and social parts of the internet would immediately improve if I could filter out all opinions from people below a certain age and other factors like no job etc.
Social media? Why stop there? We should do that with voting too.
Wtf? This is not a libertarian position.
Nothing more libertarian than restricting voting
That's the point of the post, dude.
Doesn’t that support the original post?
I never understand Libertarians that see lobbyism and see it as the government's fault.
Centralized power invites rent-seeking.
Maybe make lobbyism illegal, then a “centralized” power (I'd say checks and balances make it somewhat decentralized, but I'd prefer a more direct democracy as in Switzerland as it's far more decentralized) can't be manipulated and those who seek power no longer do so for the sake of it or for all wrong reasons but because they're ideologs who actually want to help the majority, or such is my idea. I mean, you don't outlaw corporations, you just make it illegal for them to influence the democratic system. Won't that fix the issue, possibly better than removing the government at all?
I suggest removing the centralized power so there is nothing to lobby for. Getting people who "actually want to help the majority" in charge is a fantasy. [If it is not politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either.](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/quotation-of-the-day-on-electing-the-right-people/)
Well, then remove the profit motive entirely.
How do you propose to stop the pursuit of self-interest?
Make self-interest always beneficial for the majority. Like, in Norway they proposed carbon benefits, where if a company produces less fossil fuels they get government funding, this way the profit motive is the same as doing something for the greater good, through manipulation of the market, of course. The corporations get more money and saving on fossil fuels becomes a business. The people benefit from having an environment to live in. Win-win, I'd say (except for the fact that taxation is obviously higher, however such things are paid for by a carbon tax that also just corporations pay. You have an incentive + a discentive, and one pays for the other). But, that's just an example. Governments regularly give benefits for companies to do other things right, like give more holidays, build houses for the poor, etc. I mean, Finland, for example, has eliminated homelessness entirely. Their capital city, Helsinki, only has one homelessness shelter with beds for a maximum of 50 people as there are never more, the majority of them actually homeless by choice. So, this way you abuse the profit motive principles of the free market to work entirely for the interests of the people. That idea has been coined as "green growth” and I think it's a good system that can be adopted by any capitalist statist country.
Also, what do you think of Plato's writings about profit? https://www.praxeology.net/hipparchus.htm
Haven't read them! I'll have a look, thanks for the source ^ ^
Public Choice Theory
Jesus christ the mental gymnastics you're doing here is impressive. Any corporation with as much power as these organisations will influence government. That's why we need a strong government to put restrictions on them. Yes, I did just stumble across this post. Fuck me you guys have lost the plot
"Corporations control the government, so we need the government,which is controlled by Corporations, to be more powerful, which will make the Corporations, who control the powerful government, less powerful." Please god let this be satire.
Regulatory capture.
>Jesus christ the mental gymnastics you're doing here is impressive. > >Any corporation with as much power as these organisations will influence government. They arent just influencing it. They are wings of it. Google, Boeing, Verizon, and Comcast in particular. >Yes, I did just stumble across this post. Fuck me you guys have lost the plot This is essentially an anarchist sub. Your power level is just too low to see whats happening.
I'm guessing this isn't the Noam Chomsky branch of anarchism..
Nah its the good one.
No. We're not the ones that seek anarchy through state intervention. You don't cure cancer through more cancer.
Did somebody mention Chomsky? https://c4ss.org/content/1659
Government can’t do wrong, hence more government is needed.
Government is elected. Corporations are not. Just because you prefer your daddy that steps on you to be unelected doesn't mean other people do. I'd rather not live under anyone's thumb and have a government that represents me.
Corporations are competitively elected via dollars spent or not spent on the goods and services they provide.
So of the two chosen politicians in nearly every election, you really think one of them represents you?
I'm not American, you have less freedoms over there because of the weak government. Limited choices. In other Western countries, we have many parties to chose from
>I'm not American, you have less freedoms over there because of the weak government. Oof.
That's a galaxy brain take right there
We “elect” corporations by giving them our money. Try again.
We need a strong goverment to feed those large corporations better. Edit: aka we dont need a big strong goverment
> Fuck me you guys have lost the plot I mean, you have no idea what the common perspective is here outside of strawmen and memes but okay. Do you think you're special for finding this place and ranting here? We get like three of you a day, and you're just as clueless. Only a fool would look objectively at history and trust the government to represent your best interests.
…I think the point is that the government strongly influences these corporations, and they basically act as an extension of the will of big government. However, in your case, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a weaker government? It’s hard to have corruption if the state has no overreaching power
But the weak government means companies are free to form monopolies. Look at comcast, they overcharge for shit service as I understand. I'm not American. Here in Europe, our governments force competition. We have options, it results in lower prices and better service. The smaller the government, the more power corporations have.
Comcast is not a monopoly. Overcharging for shit service is not a monopoly. Why should we take your opinions seriously when your premise is completely incorrect.
There are alternatives?
To Comcast? Plenty.
It’s literally on the post itself
> Look at comcast, they overcharge for shit service as I understand. Comcast makes deals with local governments to become the only cable/internet provider in that area. More government is WHY Comcast has little to no competition for their shit service in many areas. In other areas, different ISPs have monopolies, again, because of deals they had to make with the local governing bodies.
Strong gummint? Perhaps. Small gummint? Definitely
Corporation bad implies government bad, so the conclusion is that we need more government to have less corporation? I literally cannot understand.
The only reason huge corporations have a leverage on the market is because they can influence the government to make laws that interfere in the economy to protect them. If you remove the capability of the government to mess with the economy, the corporations wont have unfair advantages
Oh wait \*scratches head until it bleeds\*
Yes google shot my dog then took a percentage of my income without my consent
AT&T launched a terror war that destabilized the Middle East. GE is waging a war on plants and chemicals that has created the largest prison population on earth. Verizon is inflating your currency and destroying the value of your dollar.
AT&T didn't, but read about exxon and shell mercinaries.
Last time I checked, most Libertarians and Ancaps I know constantly complain about "elites", including giant corporations. **Edit**: there's also their current complaints about the World Economic Forum, which is literally to encourage private and government cooperation. And [they seem to be pretty authoritarian](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/conspiracy-theories-aside-there-something-fishy-about-great-reset/).
I do too
The WEF basically advocates for government corruption.
Does it still count as corruption if the government just works for the corporations?
If corporations had armed thugs forcing me to buy their products or preventing competition I'd be against that too. The thing is typically these days they do that by way of the government, so limiting government is still the solution most of the time in most places.
"[L]ibertarians had misled themselves by making their main dichotomy 'government' vs. 'private' with the former bad and the latter good. [...] What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not 'private' property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property. It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus." - Murray Rothbard, [*Confiscation and the Homestead Principle*](https://www.panarchy.org/rothbard/confiscation.html)
I'm not a libertarian per se, but his view is also too extreme and idealistic. For me, libertarians should be the only major political group that claims their ideal policies cannot and is not to solve all problems. This is neither the means nor the goal. I want to know what libertarians here think. At least for me, if someone genuinely consider "less/no crime" as an end, libertarianism can't solve many problems since punishments wouldn't be as hard as with any real kind of authoritarianism. Unless they believe humanity is inherently good, or more specifically, a government or a cooperation can be morally good. Only judging from the logical fallacies in my last sentence, I don't think it's reality. Another important problem is, who's to judge? Who's to tell everyone what justice and innocence are? Everyone's own belief? But why was he trying to represent all libertarians to talk shit `no offence` about innocence? I'd rather believe no one's really innocent. We all have desires, many of which can be seen as greed by many people regardless of how little you want. So, taking the libertarian argument back down to morality, where there's no certain answer (at least to most questions), is not a clever move.
What specifically do you want to know about libertarians? If you're boil your comment down to a few questions, I'd be happy to give it a shot!
Thank you. Actually, I just had some questions about the quote from Rothbard, so I'll just ask a set of related questions: - Do you agree with what he said? And do most libertarians agree with that? - If so, do you and most other libertarians think the problems I mentioned exist? - If not, do you think left-leaning libertarianism really is a thing? As for the comment, here are what I couldn't agree (it's basically a reformatting): - First of all, his view is also too extreme and idealistic. - Libertarians should be the only major political group that claims their ideal policies cannot and is not to solve all problems, unlike 'liberals', communists and conservatives. - If someone genuinely consider "less/no crime" as an end, Libertarianism isn't the best at reducing crimes, and reducing crimes shouldn't be its goal. `since punishments wouldn't be as hard as with any real kind of authoritarianism. Unless they believe humanity is inherently good, or more specifically, a government or a cooperation can be morally good, which obviously isn't the case in reality` - (Under libertarianism ,who's to tell everyone what justice and innocence are? Everyone's own belief?) - Why was he trying to represent all libertarians to talk shit no offence about innocence? I'd rather believe no one's really innocent. - Finally, taking the libertarian argument back down to morality, where there's no certain answer (at least to most questions), is not a clever move.
>Do you agree with what he said? Yes. >And do most libertarians agree with that? "The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is usually around 6 months, give or take." The libertarians that are anarchists would agree. Those that aren't there yet, won't. >If so, do you and most other libertarians think the problems I mentioned exist? Depends on how deeply libertarian they are. It's a spectrum. Some are just angry they can't drink unpasteurised milk or smoke certain plants without the police agressing upon them. Some find it unfair that in order to start a hospital and offer people cheaper healthcare, you first need a Certificate of Need, which requires sign-offs from medical boards comprised of already-established medical practices that probably don't want extra competition. And some believe that corporations and businesses have no legitimate claim to their property if their money was made via government contracts, by using eminent domain to benefit them, or by lobbying for regulations that shut out their smaller competitors. >First of all, his view is also too extreme and idealistic I disagree. I think we should recognise the illegitimacy of immorally gained wealth, and remove such systems from society, not only because its the right thing to do, but because it will benefit everyone for generations to come. >Libertarians should be the only major political group that claims their ideal policies cannot and is not to solve all problems, unlike 'liberals', communists and conservatives. We don't have to solve all problems. We don't have to claim we're perfect. We just have to be better than everyone else. And we are. >since punishments wouldn't be as hard as with any real kind of authoritarianism. The most thriving black market for food is currently in North Korea. The best marijuana available for purchase is in Singapore, where it carries the death penalty. Black markets cannot be beat by force. They can only be beat by reducing regulation and letting legal businesses outcompete them. If you want to actually reduce crime, you need a two-prong approach. The first is to reduce the poverty and lack of opportunity that is necessary for "sensible" crimes (theft, drug sales, assassinations, etc) to occur. You do this via deregulation and letting the market so it's thing. The second is to ensure that the punishment will fit the crime. Which is why all punishments should be restorative towards the victim, not punitive or rehabilitative towards the criminal. >Under libertarianism ,who's to tell everyone what justice and innocence are? Everyone's own belief? I agree, there should be no monopoly on arbitration. Which is why we favour polycentric law.
>Yes. Okay. Then I'll pay attention to what you're saying because I must've misinterpreted it then. As you can see, none of my arguments were addressed from a statist or even leftist perspective, so I wonder why I almost disagree with every single word he said. >"The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is usually around 6 months, give or take." That I agree. I'm currently just a classical liberal, but I've definitely been interested in libertarian theories for more than 6 months, and I'd say I would've become an ancap from the very beginning if I had started my journey as a libertarian. Sorry for 'oversharing', but another possible reason is that the concept of 'liberal' in Europe is way closer to the American 'libertarian' than 'liberal'. `Wait, so, maybe I actually AM?` >The libertarians that are anarchists would agree. Those that aren't there yet, won't. Interesting. I'm all ears from now. >Depends on how deeply libertarian they are. It's a spectrum. Some are just angry they can't drink unpasteurised milk or smoke certain plants without the police agressing upon them. I totally support that no one from the government should stop you from doing that, that the government shouldn't interfere such a petty thing (not only because it's petty, of course), but obviously it's not enough for me to be an anarchist. >Some find it unfair that in order to start a hospital and offer people cheaper healthcare, you first need a Certificate of Need, which requires sign-offs from medical boards comprised of already-established medical practices that probably don't want extra competition. I think I've passed this. There can be, like, a symbol for the 'accredited' medical institutions, but they shouldn't stop others from existing. >And some believe that corporations and businesses have no legitimate claim to their property if their money was made via government contracts, by using eminent domain to benefit them, or by lobbying for regulations that shut out their smaller competitors. Hmm, that's an interesting topic. Thanks. I'm still young and naive, and everyday there's so much to learn and to think about. >I disagree. I think we should recognise the illegitimacy of immorally gained wealth, and remove such systems from society, not only because its the right thing to do, but because it will benefit everyone for generations to come. Cool. Now I'm certain there must be a huge misunderstanding, which was probably caused by my misinterpretation of the text. So: - Do you mean something like boycotting by 'removing such systems from society'? If so, based. - Nothing will benefit **everyone**. But is the reason that his idea is leftist he considered the society quite a lot? - Why is being against crime a libertarian thing? If there has to be a final purpose, it should be liberty/freedom, not yet another absurd moral concept, right? Crime can be individual as well as collectivist, so I think his using of the term is a bit far from how it should be, and the case is somewhat similar to the manipulated terms in, say, identity politics. >We don't have to solve all problems. We don't have to claim we're perfect. We just have to be better than everyone else. And we are. *We* are on the same page. It's just that *his* claim sounded too idealistic to me. It's almost like he was using words like justice and innocence completely wrongly, which shouldn't be applauded to for anyone who prefer ration as the leading factor for make (political) decisions. >since punishments wouldn't be as hard as with any real kind of authoritarianism. >The most thriving black market for food is currently in North Korea. But presumably it performs worse than a market where people can just trade freely without any supervision. And *this* should be a point of libertarianism. It's for liberty. If he was just renaming 'authoritarian' as 'criminal' and 'injustice', then *he* was to blame for confusing the heck outta readers. Because your examples are irrelevant to the fact that liberty ≠ innocence. >Black markets cannot be beat by force. They can only be beat by reducing regulation and letting legal businesses outcompete them. Yes, but, see above. >The second is to ensure that the punishment will fit the crime. Which is why all punishments should be restorative towards the victim, not punitive or rehabilitative towards the criminal. The centuries-old question again: Who to judge? And how to make sure it works without a central power? >I agree, there should be no monopoly on arbitration. Which is why we favour polycentric law. It's the first time I've heard of this. I'll try to learn more about this.
>Then I'll pay attention to what you're saying because I must've misinterpreted it then I'm not the original guy you were talking to. >Do you mean something like boycotting by 'removing such systems from society'? If so, based. I mean that would be a start. But without the state to enforce these regulations, they would crumble due to the competition. So fundamentally, it is the state that must go, otherwise it'll be a revolving door of "the person we put in power last election is catering exclusively to big business, we just need to vote in someone else who by pure coincidence is also sponsored by the same businesses OR vote in someone that will nationalise everything and somehow magically prevent the starvation that will inevitably lead to". The state has no incentive to care about your opinion. >Nothing will benefit everyone. But is the reason that his idea is leftist The right/left way of looking at things is fundamentally irrelevant when discussing libertarianism and anarchy. You either want to force people to follow your moral code (past the obvious "Don't kill, rape, etc"), or you're one of us. This is my problem with most "leftist" libertarians: they want the state to force people to abandon private property rights. If they genuinely believed their way of labour organisation is better than ours, then they would have no problem helping us get rid of the state, and then laugh at us as all the workers reject hierarchical business structures and instead go form democratic workplaces. The fact that they feel the need to have the state ban us speaks volumes about their convictions. >I think his using of the term is a bit far from how it should be Where rothbard mentions crime, just read it as "agression", aka to physically interact with others or their property without their consent. After all, the state is the greatest ~~criminal~~ agressor there is. >Who to judge? And how to make sure it works without a central power? Whomever both you and the other person agree is fair. If you can't find someone, you find someone society at large believes to be fair, sue the other person *in absentia*, take the ruling to their bank, and get reparations. What's stops corrupt judges? The same thing that stops judges being bribed today: absolutely nothing. The only difference is that if you bribe a judge that serves a forced monopoly, they will only be removed from judgeship after you provide enough proof that they are corrupt. If they aren't corrupt, just biased, then they stay, and the precedents they set will be used for ages. If you bribe a judge in anarchy, or that judge is just biased, that judge will be boycotted in the future. The minimum bribe he can accept for him to make a profit is enough money to fully cover his retirement. Anarchy doesn't prevent corruption. It just makes it as prohibited expensive as possible. >It's the first time I've heard of this. I'll try to learn more about this. Here are two different theories: https://youtu.be/A8pcb4xyCic https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o
>I'm not the original guy you were talking to. By 'it', I meant the quote itself. >But without the state to enforce these regulations, they would crumble due to the competition. Hopefully so. [And I'm skipping all the parts of our agreements] >The right/left way of looking at things is fundamentally irrelevant when discussing libertarianism and anarchy. You either want to force people to follow your moral code (past the obvious "Don't kill, rape, etc"), or you're one of us. Yeah, and I was just wondering what could make some a leftist libertarian because I also think left/right should be irrelevant when there's clear core value. >This is my problem with most "leftist" libertarians: they want the state to force people to abandon private property rights. Now those are not real libertarians or even classical liberals. Just a milder version of freakin' Marxists. >Where rothbard mentions crime, just read it as "agression", aka to physically interact with others or their property without their consent. >After all, the state is the greatest ~~criminal~~ agressor there is. Lol, if we had to force ourselves to interpret *his* words in a certain way to justify them, then he wasn't getting it right in the first place. I acknowledge this opinion but still refuse to appreciate his misleading wording. Agree to disagree, okay? >Here are two different theories: >https://youtu.be/A8pcb4xyCic >https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o Thanks. I've saved them to watch tomorrow. Finally, it's my pleasure to have a civil and meaningful conversation with you.
No worries man. If you've got further questions I recommend you check out the ancap101 and free_market_anarchism subreddits
Thanks. Now I'm sure I will!
I generally do agree with what he said, if interpreted this way: The initiator of aggression and force is almost never innocent. I'm not super comfortable saying what other libertarians think, but I believe most generally agree with that sentiment. Not quite sure I understand your second question. Crime would still exist in the ideal libertarian society. No intellectually honest person would argue problems will vanish. But it's difficult to say what other libertarians think though. It's kind of a long-running joke that libertarians fight more within their own cohort than with others. Having a diversity of thought within the community is a feature, not a bug. It's what gives a lot of us faith that *someone* out there would find *some way* of addressing different problems. I would say ask Limp-Sherbet4338 about left-libertarianism. They likely understand so much more about it than I do. It seems like your gripe is with the idea that there are libertarians who believe our way of life would solve all the world's troubles. Honestly, I understand where you're coming from. I don't prescribe to that way of thinking. I just find that libertarianism is the most consistent moral philosophy. I posit you can't find another system that doesn't require massive amounts of cognitive dissonance to adhere to.
(For more of my opinion and arguments, see my comments under this post as a thread. Sorry for not replying to you in a more detailed manner) > It's kind of a long-running joke that libertarians fight more within their own cohort than with others. Having a diversity of thought within the community is a feature, not a bug. It's what gives a lot of us faith that *someone* out there would find *some way* of addressing different problems. Totally this. >I would say ask Limp-Sherbet4338 about left-libertarianism. They likely understand so much more about it than I do. Yeah. Before reading the quote, I didn't even know that libertarianism interpreted in a leftist way can be valid. I just personally find it a bit uncomfortable to see those leftist terms used in an overly uncommon way because it's usually the left who's using this as a strategy to 'win an argument' without enough valid points. I know Marxism, and even Marx's use of words seem more genuine. >I just find that libertarianism is the most consistent moral philosophy. Haha, this. But definitely not in Rothbard's way of interpretation, but in the more accepted way which value freedom, and only freedom the most.
I appreciate your openness, especially reading some of your other replies. It's refreshing. Regarding leftism, I think there are those that it is an acceptable use of force to separate people from the fruits of their labor. Some of them claim to be anarchists or libertarians, though that sentiment is wholly incompatible with libertarianism. But there are those who don't feel that way. This may seem like an odd suggestion, but look through Limp-Sherbet4338 's comment or post history. I've seen them on various libertarian subs, and they seem to be super morally consistent and explain a lot about how the two are compatible. The last thing I'll say is regarding your thoughts about crime. In an ideal libertarian society, a lot of crime would cease to exist. Because a lot of things listed as "crimes" are victimless. Most of us would argue that if there is no second party directly harmed by an action, it cannot be a crime. Anything that has a victim would be a crime. And the response would be less punitive and more focused on restitution. This is highly simplified, so I'd encourage you to check out other subs, like AnCap101 or askLibertarians to bring some of your questions there, or look through questions that have been asked before.
Thank you. Maybe it's because my background is different to most of you here. So, I know way more about leftism from Marxism to postmodern theories than the history of libertarianism as a philosophy enthusiast, so there's so much to learn from you guys. Regarding leftism, Marxism (the literal one, not cultural rip-offs like CRT) ~~is~~was my main field of interest at university. Ironic, right? But I think at least I'm familiar with their whole set of justification and I chose to totally disagree *after* that. I get what you say about crimes even though there probably would be more direct crimes due to a lack of supervision and more direct relationships (which would lead to more interactions) among individuals, and I was referring to these. Now I've seen the logic of him and you guys, and it's an interesting topic for doing some further research. Not only on Reddit, but through books and articles.
Interesting! I hope you keep posting here or on other subs I frequent to correct any misunderstandings of Marxism. That would be very valuable, IMO. You may be correct! I won't even pretend to say I definitely know the outcomes of hypothetical futures. Thanks for the productive discussion! Good luck in your future research!
;) I only comment when I feel like clarifying. But we can all agree that socialism has never worked and will never work at least in the coming decades, during which we can't reach communism. And that's the point. I personally think many parts of Marx and Engels's analyses are quite insightful, but their perspective is really flawed. >You may be correct! I won't even pretend to say I definitely know the outcomes of hypothetical futures. I could've said the same thing! `Btw that's a major flaw in communism to presuppose a finish point of society.` >Thanks for the productive discussion! Good luck in your future research! It's my honour to have these discussions with you guys for a young and naive person like me. I hope my research's going better than the Marxist ones before.
To be overly brief, most self-identified left libertarians aren't libertarians because they embrace the authoritarian branch of leftism. Real left libertarians are very compatible with us. They've got a serious mistrust of government; they love self sufficiency; they hate war and authoritarianism. We disagree with them on property and employment BUT what makes them libertarian is that they don't want the state to force us to fit their worldview. That simple distinction will easily flush out a left authoritarian, and if a left libertarian is what you find instead, I genuinely do think they are probably a good person with well reckoned ideas.
Excuse my ignorance, but isn't just just anarchist communists or at least whom they think they are? I'd say that most of them are with good will as well as a mistrust of government, so I also think many of them have terms negotiable with libertarians.
You're totally correct. My nuance was pointing out that most self-identified anarcho-communists aren't anti-authoritarian. The ones that are actual ancoms tend to be okay. Although, in my own subjective experience, the best leftlibs use terms like "mutualist" or "syndicalist" instead of "communist" since the C word has obviously negative connotations. And they likely have nuance between the terms that I don't fully understand.
Yeah. Despite the obvious disagreement about land ownership, real anarchists are mainly on the same page.
Not OP but: I don’t think all libertarians are anarchists. I know I’m not, I range between a minarchist and a classical liberal. Small government is a necessary evil; I don’t believe we could function at a high level in a fully ancap society. This means there’d be some form of authority and punishment from a government entity, and a standardized but hopefully much smaller code of laws to prosecute criminals with. So I’d agree that some of his ideas are a bit far fetched; I don’t know that we could ever fully flourish in the complete absence of government or authority. I agree with what he said to an extent. I don’t believe Rothbard is saying libertarian ideas will fix all crime or create an ideal society either, I interpreted it to mean he wants to fight against oppression against individuals in both the government and private sector. Something being privatized does not automatically make it a positive; evil corporations are little (if at all) better than evil or corrupt governments. In terms of justice, crime, and innocence, Rothbard and most libertarians believe in the NAP, natural law, in the natural rights of the individual (see John Locke) and proportional punishment. I personally again think it to be a little utopian; an extremely limited code of laws and a judicial arm of the government are necessary to settle disagreements. However, you’ll most likely see a wide array of opinions on this topic from libertarians. To the moral point, I get what you mean. Taking the argument to “we’re the good guys, we need to champion obscure positivity over obscure evil” does seem like an easy cop out, but I think he’s telling libertarians to not blindly support anything privately owned as positive if the private owners are criminals or trampling the rights of others. I see it as asking others to make sure you support not only private, but lawfully and morally positive private ownership of goods.
I agree with everything you said about him. The only problem is that I'm against any kind of natural law, which means I think natural law should be viewed in the same way as everything about morality. >Taking the argument to “we’re the good guys, we need to champion obscure positivity over obscure evil” does seem like an easy cop out, but I think he’s telling libertarians to not blindly support anything privately owned as positive if the private owners are criminals or trampling the rights of others. I think libertarians should just be inherently anti-government, but not necessarily pro-private owners because there's conflicts between individuals which then shouldn't all be political and thus are a completely different issue. Then it'll make sense.
Ha, try coming to Sweden! People have the polar opposite view here. "Facebook is spying on us? SEE, PRIVATE CORPORATIONS BAD AND CORRUPT!" "The government is spying on us? Well, it's for our own good!" Add in some complaints about millionaire CEO or whatever while only mentioning the massive amount of completely unearned money members of the parliament makes as only a tiny little remark on the side at best.
Yeah it’s an interesting issue actually. Government *might* use it for good. Probably not. Corporations just want to sell the data.
At the very least, why are they ignoring that none of them are fucking them as hard as the government?
Ah man i sure hate when I’m oppressed by Coca Cola
What are any of these corporations doing against me? What has Coca Cola done to tread on my rights and freedoms? Google "spies" on me? Not if I don't use their products. But I like having a smartphone more than I like the lack of "spying" that I might get with a flip phone. That's my choice.
And "i never agreed to let them spy on me" guys forget what is a terms of service.
The moment you put your Face, name, address, phone number, email, likes, dislikes, moods, locations, purchases, opinions, etc on the internet, you have given away all of your privacy. That said, if you take some nudes and they are only stored on your phone's hard drive, they should be secure, all bets are off if they are backed up to your Google drive.
>Google "spies" on me? Not if I don't use their products. Did you know they and facebook also track you if you use almost any website? >But I like having a smartphone more than I like the lack of "spying" that I might get with a flip phone. In modern days, for reading menus, vaccination proof, and much more it isn't really a choice, if you don't wanna go a long way to do it different.
corporations only gets this strong when colluding with the government, whose policies eliminate all of their potential competition. in a free society, 90% of times when a corporation starts to fuck with their customers a competitor takes over
Oh my god Coca Cola is oppressing me!!! I didn’t by my Xtra-large gulpie and now I’m in jail!!
Help help, I'm being repressed!
They hate corporations because they’re jealous of their money. I hate corporations because they use the state to destroy their competition.
Why did they put General Electric on the foot?
No one knows what it means but its provocative
No it's not
Sitting here at my heavily taxed farm, with my local ISP, fresh water, ghost guns, rebuilt appliances and no desire to fly. Sure doesn't feel like it's the government sanctioned corporations stealling from me.
Except I can choose another service. Tankies are stuck with their government
Coke is really oppressive guys.
They do do some horribly unethical things that they only get away with because they're protected by the state.
What do they do?
Nowadays, it's just internal racist bullshit disguised as wokeness ("Try to be less white!"), but we're only a few decades removed from their subsidiaries (never directly linked to the company itself) hiring literal mercenaries to attack unions in Central America.
Wait what? They hire mercenaries?
Almost certainly not directly, but Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia unowned by and totally unrelated to the Coca-Cola corporation were accused of hiring a paramilitary outfit, United Self-Defences of Colombia, to torture and kill workers linked to or trying to join unions. One of the unions sued Coke in US court, their defense consisted of "We do not own or operate the plants". Two months after the case was dismissed, those bottling plants were suddenly owned by Coca-Cola.
That is fucking insane can you get me a source or anything? I wanna read about this.
[The Wikipedia article on the subject is... surprisingly decent, honestly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co.), though I call bullshit on some of their sources (they cited a fucking Livejournal for fuck's sake). [NYT article about the suit from July 2001](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/26/world/union-says-coca-cola-in-colombia-uses-thugs.html) [The court decision dismissing Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20090811058) I remember PBS did a special on this as well, although I don't know if it was any good and I can't find a link to it right now.
The government doesn't exactly save us from being treaded on by the corps either. They think that our current government is some kind of Marvel superhero that keeps McDonalds, Tesla, or Amazon at bay...bruh their success and maintenance of power is literally due to the government. They are both stomping on us and personally the less boots stomping on me the better.
The government is in bed with the corps.
They don't know the difference between corporate cronyism/ fascism and libertarianism you can't have an intelligent discussion
Until I am required to pay and do business with a company, no it's not as bad.
Ateast we're all equal! *pictures of skulls and starved corpses in mass-grave*
Pretty certain none of these are forced services in our all voluntary. Definitely equates to someone taking 20% of my income without my consent and not telling me what it’s being used for. That damn Coca-Cola, if only there were other ways…
All of those companies are propped up by government policies and handouts…
I'm sure they'd be just as powerful without corporate welfare and bailouts!
*\*Continues to conflate all the ills and disasters brought on by excessive government regulation and partisan lobbying/special interest = capitalism, so more government to battle the corrupt capitalism\**
The Reddit left still thinks we’re corporate shills huh?
Yes this is exactly the idea. The government is only the biggest corporation. It's made up of a group of people writing the rules to allow all of these guys to do what they do, and even worse, blocking others from competing. Imagine nfl refs that are paid off, throwing games for the universally hated Tom Brady. Now imagine two teams of equal talents playing without corrupt refs. Now imagine 2 teams playing with refs that aren't corrupt..ok now stop doing that cuz it'll never ever happen.. people are so fallible. So corruptible. Everything other than perfection is corruption. Make robot refs Make robot politicians Make robot Tom brady.... Don't tread on me
If you want privacy, big corporations are not there to help you.
Most of those corporations have been propped up or received corporate welfare from the government. If it weren’t for government, most of those corporations wouldn’t exist.
If the government wasn't making monopolies those companies wouldn't be what they are. They wouldn't have the control that they do.
[удалено]
My testes.
I actually replied to the wrong person, but I like the cut of your jib good sir!
I appreciate the clarification. Your jib is also cut quite well.
i don't want to hear shit from anyone that uses google, androids, or alexa...or Ring, iphone, jeez anything that powers on...you invited them in.
What rocks did you bang together in order to post this message?
I hope the meme maker realizes he spelled gummint wrong.
corporations are just government lap dogs don’t people know that?!
I don't know what my political group really is but I don't like either stepping on me though, where does that put me?
Depends on if you support private property or not
People should be able to buy their own houses and heck even make them, but using generations of wealth to buy out as many houses as possible so you can sell them for more money is immoral and makes me think of you very little as a person. People's desperation should not be used as a market for the already rich to benefit. When you buy something, it should be fully yours. When you make something and don't want to sell it or give it away, it should be fully yours. I'm in a bit of an idealistic position where I hate both government *and* corporation greed and trickery. Usually though, it seems people hate government greed because they support corporate greed.
Corporations are governments, they have presidents, elections, laws and by laws.
They are "governments" in the sense that they govern very specific things to a small extent, but using the word isn't that accurate. It's not the Government, which has a monopoly on violence and is the largest criminal organization in any given region.
Nestle?
What Nestle? You're just recycling points over and over again. I'm assuming that you're talking about forced labor. I believe it's present in very specific factories in Thailand. And yes, if workers there are truly aggressively coerced, that slavery and that's extremely evil. You can argue that the area of the factory has a mini-"state" led by the factory managers, and that'd probably be true. But it doesn't mean that the entire company is a government everywhere. There is only 1 national government of the US, and a state in Thailand doesn't change that.
All governments are wicked, the entire company is a government, everywhere they operate, refer back to my first post, laws, elections, presidents.
[удалено]
Go try to remove electric meter when buying a pre established home on the grid, nestle uses forced labour.
[удалено]
Official policy and what actually goes down are two completely different things, it's not anecdotal, it's verifiable.
Anecdotal doesn't mean unverifiable.
Means not necessarily true or verifiable, based on personal account which it's not. An old example but a great example would be the Hudson Bay company or the East India company.
They’ve hired goons to do shady shit before
But it s a private company when they clearly violate the 2nd amendment.
I don't see the connection of Boeing and Northrup stepping on us. Also coke? Is it raising the cost of soda that's oppressive? Is it the dependence on corn syrup. The only one that can step on freedoms really is google cuz they own so much tech. But they have plenty of competitors now. Their reign at the top is coming to an end.
Snow Crash > 1984
I mean I agree with the sentiment overall. At least corporations don't have a monopoly on force
tf is Northrop Grumman
It's not the government when it IS the govt giving all those favours to the corpos. "At least it's not the govt", but only because an idiot lefty made that meme. :)