The big government vibe I get everywhere.

Tnu1138

You know with the social right and economic left it seems eveyrbody wants big uathoritarian systems of government to prevail over small government. over the ideals of freedom? the right to property and person.  between authoritarian economics sucha s socialism where you ahve not the right tot he fruits of your labor and social authoritarian systems like reactinaryism where you don't have the right to your life and your person. I've only seen a handfull of polliticans vouchign this and people seem to dismiss them as insane or evil. Since when was advicating freedom evil?

RedEyedAbyss

So naive. Associating capitalism with freedom. Well, ideally yes, but in practice, corporations control affairs way more than you think.

GLORIOUSLeader

No. 

Tnu1138

because they ahve a hand in government the two work side  by side and t he bikggger government is the more they ahve to exploit. they do this by passing favorable legislation and removing competitions. So in order to be free I need a centralized authoritarian body to force me to giv eup the right ot my property and say they own all my shit?

Iaculus

Incorrect. Most corporate interest in government is in making it smaller, removing regulations, and so on.

There are certain markets that are naturally monopolistic, see, meaning that one company (or a few big ones, in an oligopolistic system) can achieve ascendancy and shut out competition through high barriers to entry (the business is expensive to get into due to high resource costs, et cetera), economies of scale (bigger company = more worker specialisation and better equipment = better at producing things than small companies), and dirty tricks like cutting prices to a level where you're operating at a loss, forcing out smaller companies who don't have enough cash-reserves to survive the price-drop. In a monopolistic market, one company has all the power and all the wealth, necessitating government intervention in order to ensure some measure of competition (for instance, subsidising new companies so that they can afford the start-up costs, or taxing companies over a certain size). There, it's in the dominant company's best interests to reduce regulation so they can sit pretty right where they are, resulting in them campaigning for smaller government.

You follow?

Tnu1138

so to combat monopolies you take taxpatyer mo ney and give it to special itnerest group;s via subsidies and vailouts? That's bullshit!

Iaculus

Special-interest groups, no. Smaller companies, yes. And the reason you do that is because the lack of competition present in a monopolistic market lets the monopoly in question exploit its customers through price-hikes, inferior products, and shady business dealings that end up forcing them to pay quite a bit of money for the company's services. This is especially bad if you have a monopoly in an essential market, like medicine or food supplies, where the choice can be between buying the company's products and death.

Basically, pro-competition regulations, when they're working properly, are about spending a small amount of the citizenry's money so that they save a great deal of money in the long-term. The citizenry, meanwhile, have their say in this by voting for representatives with economic policies they like, by petitioning and forming special-interest groups to influence representatives' decisions, and so on.

That's how regulation works, and why folks are often in favour of it depending on the market in question.

Noimporta

What are we defining as "small gonverment" here? No government at all? a government that only provides for collective needs (justice, etc.)? a government that ensures the proper flow of the market?

Tnu1138

a government that only provides for collective needs and it depends on what yo u mean by the last one.

CommandoDude

Before I even clicked!

glennmagusharvey

^ Stop it.

> so to combat monopolies you take taxpatyer mo ney and give it to special
itnerest group;s via subsidies and vailouts? That's bullshit!

Tell me, how would you combat monopolies?

ninjaclown

Or would you feel they worked hard to earn that monopoly and they should get to keep it?

Tnu1138

what i'm saying is that I wouldn't stop a monopoly by hiking taxes for specific portion of the population or anyone for htat matter in order to create a state-run monopoly.

Iaculus

So how would you combat monopolies?

Gelzo

You're missing the point, Iaculus. We can't in good conscience have an imperfect solution, so it's best to have no solution at all.

Tnu1138

I'm calling Strawman on that Gelzo. it's the fact that this system relies on extortion and creation of a state monopoly to repalce rthe one you supposedly prevented.

Gelzo

Of course it's a strawman. At least I hope it is. I was just sarcastically pointing out the problem behind complaining about the issue in a solution without proposing an alternative. You were asked a question that you aren't answering.

Tnu1138

ah yes I would stop monopolies by removing state backing and subsidies to the orginizations as wella s regulations from orginizations like the FDA that are halting progress and impeding competition.

glennmagusharvey

@Tnu1138: Taxation has been around for several thousand years.

In fact, any time you pay into a pool of money that's used by a group, that's basically taxation right there.  Club dues and association fees are just another form of taxation.

You can live in a place without a society, and thus be untaxed.  Well, then either you're living on your own island (or planet, heck), or you're living in anarchy.  It's hard to live by yourself like that.  So most people live in a society, and have to pay some dues to keep it from falling apart--minimally, as you have observed, military defense and civil order-keeping (i.e. police).

In addition, most places also have lawmakers and a court system.  This is when people run into disputes they can't solve on their own.

Tnu1138

but when people orginize other people get hurt collectivism is dangerous because it implies that we should be treated as collectives and catagorizded we are all unuique individuals and should not submit to the will of any collective.

glennmagusharvey

> but when people orginize other people get hurt

Huh?

> collectivism is dangerous because it implies that we should be treated
as collectives and catagorizded we are all unuique individuals and
should not submit to the will of any collective.

No, working with and helping other people doesn't mean that you lose your unique identity.

You're thinking of an extreme form of collectivism which turns people into machines.  It doesn't even exist in real life, because people cannot be machines anyway, and people are unique.

If you live with any other people around you, you'll have to inevitably get along somehow.  This includes basic ideas like, say, not barging into your neighbors' houses unannounced, not running over their dog, stuff like that.

Just because there are some reasonable rules of common decency doesn't mean that people are being treated as mindless, faceless, identity-less cogs in a collective machine.

Iaculus

ah yes I would stop monopolies by removing state backing and subsidies to the orginizations as wella s regulations from orginizations like the FDA that are halting progress and impeding competition.

OK, that stops government-created monopolies. Now, how about the naturally-forming monopolies I described in my first post? How would you prevent them from exploiting their customers?

glennmagusharvey

Oh, by the way, here's commentary from Wikipedia about horizontal vs. vertical collectivism:

Collectivism can be typified as "horizontal collectivism", wherein
equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation, or
"vertical collectivism", wherein hierarchy is emphasized and people
submit to authorities to the point of self-sacrifice.^[11]
Horizontal collectivism is based on the assumption that each individual
is more or less equal, while vertical collectivism assumes that
individuals are fundamentally different from each other.^[12] Social anarchist
Alexander Berkman, who was a horizontal collectivist, argued that
equality does not imply a lack of unique individuality, but an equal
amount of freedom and equal opportunity to develop one's own skills and
talents,

equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . .
Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the
forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies
freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink,
or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner.
Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes
differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them
that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens
the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development.
For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free
diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free
opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of
natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in
anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political
and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary
to a truly human existence.^[13]

Indeed, horizontal collectivists argue that the idea of individuals
sacrificing themselves for the "group" or "greater good" is nonsensical,
arguing that groups are made up of individuals (including oneself) and
are not a cohesive, monolithic entity separate from the self. But most
social anarchists do not see themselves as collectivists or
individualists, viewing both as illusory ideologies based on fiction .^[14]

Horizontal collectivists tend to favour democratic decision-making,
while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command.
Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and
sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group
(e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice
themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition
between different in-groups.^[12]

Tnu1138

Ah I see Horizontal collectivism makes the most sense to me in this situation. but the ideal sitaution would be one in which you can mix Voluntaryis and Mutualism.

 I found so me quotes on this that I really like.

• One difference between libertarianism and socialism is that a
  socialist society can't tolerate groups of people practicing freedom,
  but a libertarian society can comfortably allow people to choose
  voluntary socialism. If a group of people — even a very large group —
  wanted to purchase land and own it in common, they would be free to do
  so. The libertarian legal order would require only that no one be
  coerced into joining or giving up his property.
  
  • David D. Boaz, in "The Coming Libertarian Age" in Cato Policy Report (January/February 1997)

• What are the reasons we are libertarians? Here are a few of the many different reasons…
  
  1. Moral: because we believe no person or group has the right to initiate force against another.
  
  2. Pragmatic: Freedom works.
  
  3. Utilitarian: Freedom produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
  
  4. Self-Interest: Freedom benefits you. It's in your self-interest.
  
  5. Altruistic: Freedom benefits others.
  
  6. Big Government Doesn't Work. Freedom does.
  
  7. Personal Responsibility: Freedom rewards personal responsibility and punishes irresponsibility.
  
  8. Choice: freedom maximizes choice. In fact, freedom is choice.
  
  9. Prosperity: Economic freedom creates prosperity.
  
  10. Tolerance: the free, competitive marketplace makes bigotry and prejudice very expensive. And very widely known.
  
  • Michael Cloud, in "Why Are We Libertarians?" in Liberator Online (25 May 2006)