Libertarians are NOT about rich corporations

Libertarians are mostly about small businesses. We want the government out of business affairs so that it's easier for small businesses to flourish.

Lefties always argue that "libertarians only care about the big corporations. without the government restricting them, they will monopolize and rule the world.". In fact it's the opposite. The big corporations love these restrictions because they are making it really hard for small businesses to even get off the ground, let alone compete with them.

Basically, libertarians want to make it easier for people to start their own businesses, and have less people relying on corporations for their salaries. More businesses means more competion, and a less crowded job market which makes it a lot harder companies to overwork and underpay their employees.

>>40

the leading problems for small businesses are that the people who start them are retarded and don't know how to run a business.

>>41
So you admit that corporations are hyper efficient and necessary components of the US?

>>40
GTFO! Taxes?! Give me a fucking break. The USA is one of the least taxed nations in the fucking world. You have so many opportunities but choose to squander them. Then again, your health system is pretty fucking rooted due to low tax income...

>>40

So explain to me why a small business can compete with a MNC that has the ability to direct its labor to pennies a day when the small business is something like a small steel production firm or etc.

Farmers are even harder pressed.

>>39

LOL u fails at dialectical materialism

>>43
There is still pointless taxes though like social security.

>>44
You fail at materialistical dialecticism.

>>40
No but dismantling large corporations helps, and is always fun.

>>45

Yeah, Social Security is pretty pointless for people who already own a complete set of silverware; those without the oh-so-fine life of privilege it has a lot of worth and merit.

>>46
That would damage the economy. Let the invisible hand take care of corporations.

>>47
If immigration (especially with mexico) is banned the wages of unskilled labourers will increase due to increased competition amongst companies for labour. This is better than social security as Mexico is guilty of the crime of not keeping their populations under control.

>>47
People would still be free to save money for retirement even without social security, and it would give better returns.

>>44
Large Corporations are far better suited for heavy industries, like steel, than a small business, due to the huge amount of capital investment required before turning a profit; this is also true of some very high-tech industries as well.  Libertarianism doesn't seek to remove corporations from sectors where small business would be woefully inefficient, it does, however, seek to remove unfair advantages that corporations exploit to shut down small business in areas where they could thrive and threaten the corporations.  MNCs do use cheap foreign labor to their advantage, but small business would be just as able to make contracts with foreign businesses to accomplish the same thing; assuming that free trade is allowed.  Free trade would actually make it easier for small businesses to compete since trade restrictions are much more difficult for them to cope with than an MNC.

>>48
Firstly, libertarians knows as much about economy as christians about astronomy. They think they do, all their books sais they do, yet their is a huge gap between reality and their so called science (which is as much a science as scientology).
Secondly, wtf double standards? If the invisble hand can be trusted to dismantle large corporations through competition should  it not be equally able to lower the income level and therefore standard of living in th US so that mexicans no longer has a need to migrate? Is this not the libertarian way to solve this problem? Banning shit doesnt seem so libertarian to me, nor declaring other states inaction a crime.

That would damage the economy. Let the invisible hand take care of the people!

And by the invisible hand, the libertarians mean NO HAND. HAHAHAHAHHAA HAHHAHA HAHAHAHA.

>>50
Most people don't see mto grasp that libertarianism is not anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism, like all religions derived from their prophet Marx, are unrealistic utopias which don't actually work. Libertarianism is about preserving liberty through justice. It is unjust and very suspicious that so many Mexicans want to migrate to America, do you think it is right for the US to cater for the world's huddled masses forever? What about the huddled masses in America? Why do you hate them and want them to be subjected to the same oppression and poverty the corrupt inferior culture of Mexico forces it's people to live in? Do you hate african americans or something? I don't get your unbased hatred at all.

>>52
So there is exceptions where govermental intervention is better than the invisible hand? Or is it just blatant nationalism that makes you feel this?
Why is it unjust for mexicans wanting to migrate to america? Is all migration unjust or just when people want to migrate to the US? Is there a limit where one nation can say "no thanks, no more"? What would happen if all nations who are migration targets (no its not only the us) sais this? Mr Scientist ever thought about the consequences and precedences of his clever little armchair policies?

>>53
Libertarianism is about preserving liberty through justice. If immigration (especially with mexico) is banned the wages of unskilled labourers will increase due to increased competition amongst companies for labour. This is better than social security as Mexico is guilty of the crime of not keeping their populations under control.

>>53
Why is it unjust for Americans to have an immigration policy? Why is it unjust for Americans to expect their laws to be followed? And why should the country with the third highest population in the world accept unlimited, uncontrolled, and unidentified immigration? Do you even realize the number of illeagal alliens is between 4 and 10% of the population?

>>55
because of the prerequisite of the free market that is free mobility of the workforce. now if you don't want a free market it's all all right to tell people they can't come in, but if you do it's not all right. so what are you? for or against the free market?

>>55

Yeah, they make for liquid labor to work with liquid capital.
Capital isn't something permanent anymore, it flows from state to state and geographical region to geographical region with ease.

Libertarians like this because they can keep people in impoverished conditions poor and they can jump ship/transfer money to make more money at a whim.

Case example -- Guatemala doesn't have any labor or environmental restrictions for their foreign businesses that decide to set up work camps or production facilities to lower costs. Labor decides its bad fucking business because they're not being treated humanely or as well as a worker in a developed state would be treated. So they opt to unionize and elect a Sandanista that will force hard regulations on foreign businesses. Foreign businesses take all of their money, all of their capital, leave Guatemala and head to Nicaragua and set up shop there because they don't have any laws and they can charge lower than the Guatemalans.

This trend continues on, it's a global race to the bottom.

What happens when the economy of some state is screwed up from the IMF or World Bank/WTO (Groups Libertarians love) because they forced them into debt from loans like Mexico, it causes the workers to go scurry around finding the newest jobs the foreign producers have set up and this is why Illegal immigrants go to the United States, because they can participate in their laissez fare labor at Wal*Mart or the many large farming corps.

This is why some Libertarians like illegal immigrants, it reaffirms their position of fucking around with labor and capital to where its liquid and doesn't have any recognized state boarders at all. This means that there are no states anymore, there are only guilds and $.

>>56
I am for a free market within my borders and with countries which agree to do the same. Mexico is not one of these countries.

>>57
There is no libertarian government in the world, so how can libertarianism be responsible for these things? I can only see how the adoption of even the most simple libertarian principles would allow both a ban on forced labour, a steady realistic increase in worker's wages as the economy develops, a continuation of the free market and all this without any form of overly despotic authoritarian rule. Countless non-western undevelopped nations have followed this path since the 50s by simply choosing the path to democracy and openness over ideals completely abstract from good fair governance like communism and islam.

>>58

that's not free market, that's protectionism with uni/bi/multi-lateral trade agreements.

>>57 was making examples of how when SOME libertarian 'ideas' are implemented they royally fuck over a majority of the people in countries with less economic force than the USA. It doesn't work unless you turn the entire world libertarian at the same time, as with communism, EVERYBODY has to agree for it to work, and that just isn't going to happen.

"I can only see..." you cannot see very far.

>>59

It only takes money to buy policy makers to back the WTO for that to be a reality, it's even impacting American jobs as well.

GM is referenced a lot when it comes to being replaced.

Privatization is fine and dandy, but sometimes it exists for the sole purpose of escaping regulations and fucking people over.

>>59
It's not protectionism it is a response to protectionism by other countries. A libertarian government would offer other countries a free-trade agreement, if they refuse to lift tariffs we will maintain our tariffs on that country to compensate the tax we pay to their government. We would perpetually offer and discuss the free-trade agreement with them to make it clear it's their choice not to engage in free trade.

>>57s argument was flawed. For a start >>57 said itself that the reason businesses would want to set up there was because of the low cost of labour, thus if labour was that cheap to begin with they cannot be blamed for the poor conditions. Also one of the major factors to end the civil war was to restore the economy and attract investment.

The invisible hand is taking care of Africa right now.

>>60
>>59 is wrong about how "EVERYBODY has to agree for it to work". Of course 2 countries have to agree to free trade in order to have free trade, that hardly qualifies as the amount of "cooperation" needed for communism to "work".

>>62
The invisible hand does not exist without the preservation of justice. There is not much preservation of justice in Africa.

>>63

what i wrote was that for an ideology like libertarianism to work everybody has to agree on it. free trade isn't exactly libertarianism. there is free trade between alot of the euro countries, are they libertarian?

>>61


So the libertarian country should have taxes and tariffs because all the other countries have them, and when all the other countries removed theirs, then the libertarian country would remove it too? game theory, do you do it?

so what you're saying is, that if country A has no real government, it is a "country" run by alot of tribes, it has alot of curroption and no real economy, but you can get away with paying the people there 10 cent an hour to work hard manual labour, you should indeed do so, because you as a company has no responsibility to the people you employ or to human rights in general (since they don't apply in that country to begin with). Sounds great.

and yeah, economic pressure is great for restoring peace or settling things between different parts, we see that in politics every day, but the problem is when alot of companies have placed manual production in a country because that country has very cheap labour. That country then starts getting a better and better economy, that's great too, more and more people get educations and job training, and the wages in general increase. Now another country has the lowest wage pay, and the first country has the choice between keeping the wages artificially down(ie. a third world country subsidizing major corporations), or have their economy collapse as all the companies on which their economy is built on moves out.

Too many yuppies in America exist in a fog of delusion about what a real economy looks like.  They've fellated corporations for so long that they have ZERO understanding about the function of small business.  Hence, Libertarianism makes little sense to them.  What fills that void of understanding and acceptance instead, is a strong desire for a Corporatist State.

All through this thread one thing has been missing.

Why? Why acumulate so much that you could never, ever distribute it all before even your Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grand kids could?

Seems absolutely pointless and more to the point, suicidal for society.

>>66
Elitist much?

For all the great things you say Libertarianism is capable of, there has been not a single working modern Libertarian nation.

>>54
You seem fairly inept at economics. Let me lay it down to you. If you deport all mexican aliens (to whom you seem to harbour a special dislike) and build a israeli wall along the rio grande you will accomplish these things.
1) The jobs the mexicans took either increase their wage or are not filled, ie the company goes out of business. This is also true if the work done is to harsh for poor americans to endure.
2) Increased wages mean increased prices for the consumer, in this case most likely produce prices. Higher prices mean inflation which are NOT good for the economy.
3) Companies who earlier could do business due to low wages and now have no profitability any longer fires all their remaing employees, and all along the distribution chain this effect is noticed (less cargo to haul means less jobs for truck drivers etc). This is also bad for the economy.

Neoliberal economists have long said that an unemployment rate around 10% is healhty for an economy (since it supress wages and therefore prices and therefore inflation). I think that is bullshit but since im a communist i dont need to worry my pretty little head about it, they are not theachers i listen too. But you are a libertarian...   

>>68
The libertarian party's policies are only slightly different from the republicans or democrats. Are you saying if the libertarian party is elected in a state and they permit abortion for fetus' that cannot survive outside the womb, ban conscription and reduce gun laws the world will explode?

>>69
Only a few businesses would go bankrupt, the rest would use their land for something else or invest in machinery and skilled labourers who do the work of 10 manual labourers for the cost of 5. The result would be an economy where they average person has a better standard of living. Population doesn't matter, the US is about the pursuit of happiness not the pursuit of the biggest war economy possible.

The communist utopia is much like medieval feudalism, no technology, just a collective farm full of people working 12 hours a day in the state's fields frequented by the occasional inquisitor to persecute a few of the peasants for being evil capitali$t spies and keep them in fear. How wonderful.

machinery and skilled laborers can effectively replace the "unskilled" laborers =D

>>70
That the standard of living will increase is not necessarily true. Higher prices and inflation are detrimental to standard of living. And, why does not skilled resturant chefs work at mcdonalds. This is the same reason why the companies who presently employ the aliens have not instead invested in machinery and skilled labor. Do you think mcdonalds can replace their unskilled labor with high class resturant level labor without any other effect? Well, then you will get the economic naivité badge of honor!

And Mir space station and the T34 disagrees with you.

>>71

Heeeeh HEEEeeeh Heeeeh and we can get robot suits from JAPAN! LOL TECHNOLOGY!

Too many yuppies in America exist in a fog of delusion about what a real economy looks like.  They've fellated corporations for so long that they have ZERO understanding about the function of small business.  Hence, Libertarianism makes little sense to them.  What fills that void of understanding and acceptance instead, is a strong desire for a Corporatist State.

>>72
Your mind is fucked with a retarded marxist version of economics and you fail to understand the simple mathematics of ensuring high GDP per capita. In order to increase GDP per capita you need to balance the amount of resources per person with the amount of people needed to add value to those resources. You can have 1000 serfs for every lord, this will make the plutocrat rich but overall the gdp per capita is lower because $1000000/1001 = $999 per person per year. If you instead have 50 mechanics and technicians utilising machinery and cattle to work the same plot of land the total profit may well reduce to $500000, but the gdp per capita increases to $10000 per year per person and that's what matters.

That 5% of the population working illegally for less than the minmum wage count as much as part of the population as the democrat politicians who are paid off by fruit farms. Under a libertarian government illegals would be freed for the sake of justice and the borders shut for the sake of justice. The madness will end and America can get back to the pursuit of happiness without caterring for Mexico's overpopulation problem.

>>72
Just for the sake of clarity.

If you instead have 1 crazy dude who bought tons of land but even with tons of machinery and cattle doesn't have enough time to use it properly, lots of things go wrong and his gdp per capita is only $5000. This is underpopulation. The US is not underpopulated since fruit arms are a miniscule proportion of it's economy and it would be hardly a blip to increase their wages to minimum wage or otherwise.

Wow, where to begin?! So many fallacies, so little time.

I guess I’ll address the main issue raised by the OP.

Libertarianism is flawed only because it has no underlying philosophy. It's a hodge podge of mixed ideas and premises off a vague notion of "liberty." It's yet to define what’s the basis of Liberty, why we need it and why it works.

With that, I’m not a libertarian, but I argue for 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism. What I mean by that term is that the government's only purpose is to protect individual rights by protecting individuals from the initiation of the use of force. The government hold a monopoly on force, for the given nation in question, and it only uses it retaliatory.

This limits the proper functions of government to police/firemen, the court system and the military. These functions are used only to protect your rights, nothing more and nothing less. This would make a proper moral government. However, some countries are close to this ideal then others, which means they are more capitalist then others.

The misconception here is that capitalism and business are the same thing. Capitalism and business are not the same thing. Capitalism is about freedom for the individual, which means freedom from force -- whether by another citizen or their own government. Business functions better under capitalism because people are free to start, maintain and grow their businesses to the best of their own ability.

The State and Economy are separated like the State and the Church would be. So think of it as a wall there, and the government doesn't cross that wall unless someone’s rights are violated. Someone else already pointed this out on this thread by saying that people who commit crimes would still be punished. The wall stands there to protect you, like it would protect you from a religious group that wanted to use the government to force you to do whatever.

I'm briefly explaining my position and the concept of capitalism to make some further points about where corporations fit into all of this.

Corporations are nothing more then legal structures for businesses. It helps them function better, obviously. But something that seems lost on a lot of people is the fact that corporations start out as small businesses. They grow into corporations because they are successful at what they do. This goes back to the whole freedom then, people are free to make a product and people are free to buy that product. No is forcing anyone to do anything in this case. If I make a choice to sell you milk and you buy the milk, this transaction was voluntary and benefited both of us. I make a profit and earn a living, and you get the milk that you want or need.

This is a basic economic concept and applies just as much to small businesses as well as large "MNCs"

But what if I want to sell you a gallon of milk for 4 dollars and someone else wants to sell if for 1 dollar? Would it be unfair for you to choose the cheaper gallon? After all, it's your hard earned money, and you’re free to spend it as you want. The less you spend on milk, then the more you can spend on other things, or save it, or invest it. It would make alot of sense to choose the cheaper gallon. It's within your rational self-interest to do so.

But what about poor old me here, who wants you to pay 3 additional dollars for the milk? This says a lot about people, it also illustrates the concept of supply and demand. I want you to pay me more, you want to pay me less. We both reach an agreement or we take our business elsewhere. I, the milk seller, have options in this case. I can lower my price or I can find people who will be willing to buy at the price I’m selling. As I’ve state before, we are free to do business with each other or not.

Building from that, why can the other guy charge a lower price? Doesn't he make less profit if he charges lower? Is he doing it just to spite me and drive me out of business?

The usual answer to low prices, are low costs. People can charge lower prices because they can PRODUCE for less cost. This gives them an advantage when it comes to dealing with other firms in the same business. All costs are passed on to the consumer in some way. The if the produce can make milk for 70 cents and charge for a dollar then he makes 30 cents profit for every gallon of milk. If his competitor can only make milk for 3.70 a gallon and has to charge 4 dollars to make up for the costs, he will still make the same amount of profit per gallon, however, because his price is so high, people will buy the cheaper product and he will end up losing money and going out of business if he doesn't find a way to lower his price, ie lowering his costs. The guy charging 4 dollars might use what profits he's save up to produce on the scale of the new guy who found a way to charge only one dollar. The guy charging one dollar might use his profits to do the same and lower his price even further. He'll sell it for as MUCH as he can while still making a profit, however, he can make more by charging less because more people will be able to buy his product. This ultimately drives the standard of living up, because now more people can afford more milk.

How does this apply to large corporations? Because the corporations usually have gotten so large because they are the ones who find ways to produce at lower costs then everyone esle. Contrary to the opinions in this thread, this does not hurt you in anyway. In fact it's helpful, it raises your standard of living because you can now have more for less and this ulimately makes you wealthier and better off.

The reason people are driven out of business buy competing firms is because they are not as good as those firms. They haven't found a way to provide better products for you. It's even better for those people who lost their jobs, because as consumers, they now pass less for the products they buy...

As I’ve said before, corporations are not above the law, and they never should be. They are not their own separate entities, they are only the individuals that make them up. If those individuals violate your rights then they should be punished. Fraud violates your rights because it uses force against you through deception. Businesses can't lie about what the sell.

However, they can charge whatever price they want to for their products. Economics will keep the prices at equilibrium between supply and demand. But it's wrong to FORCE someone to change their price because you feel it should be different. If you don't like the price, don't buy the product. Don't make the government step in and jail people for it. Would you like it if the government told you that you are making too much money so you need to give it to them or go to jail? I don't think any rational person would. You should be free to make as little or as much money as you think your abilities will allow. Just don't harm anyone else while doing it.

That's what all this talk about dismantling corporations is about. It's about someone at the ballot box or a government office deciding that they have or want the power to dictate your life and force you to comply if you don't agree with it.

>The government hold a monopoly on force

O Rly? Last I heard some dude can get in a fist fight with someone else down the block

>>78


You don't understand the concept then. They hold the monopoly on retalitory force. It's used as a vechile for self-defense. Some dude can get in a fist fight with someone esle down the block, but the person he hits (uses force against) can use the government(police and court system) to deal with that person.

No, they aren't going to be there all the time, in that situation you need to defend yourself as best you can. Even if you get the shit beaten out of you, you have the power to go to the cops and have the thug arrested for violating your rights (normally it's called "breaking the law" because normally it's a crime to beat the crap out of someone if it's not in self-defense).

Holding a monopoly on force would definitely mean that no one could hurt anyone else except the government. Once someone else even can "sell" force then it ceases to be a monopoly.