Forums | MacLife

Freakout Jackson wrote:

All I need to know is if the guy's wife is a smurf or not.

She didn't even call me the next morning.
I feel so used.

resedit wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I still don't understand the appeal of the gold standard and why so many people want it back.

It is believed it would force fiscal responsibility.

I'd rather have the government cut a few trees than strip mine a mountain side when they need to add some currency.

Dollars are made out of cotton and linen I think. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

What really strikes me about Ron Paul is that he would probably do something against this stupid overly huge buildup of government that was not part of the "original intent" of the founders,

Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party
I am sure that the federalists would support the build up of the federal government in response to changing economic, global, and social factors over the past 125 years.

When does it stop? I mean, these factors are only going to continue in the direction they're in. Technology and globalization are only going to become more prevalent. Would the founders see that we are becoming the oppressive government we broke away from? Who's to say? I'm not an anarchist, so I don't believe there is no role for federal government. It's hard to speculate that they would support what we have become because of a few first steps.

How do you feel about it? Do you like the direction we're in? Not a simple question by any means, but just to get the gist of where you're coming from. I feel like the government needs to take a step back. I don't like this American empire one bit.

But a key tenet of Libertarianism is that the government doesn't have the power to make the corporations stronger.  They have to get there on their own accord and that means the people have to give them that power.  I think it gives the people much more power than the current "elect people and hope they don't go back on their word" policy.  Yes, it requires more coordination among the populace in order to effect boycotts, but you also don't have the government handing corporations power.  Frankly I put a lot more trust in my fellow humans as a whole than I do a small group of officials.  Those officials I do trust should have as little power and influence as possible.

The only tricky bit in my mind is how do you get to that ideal from where we are.  You can't just auction off every current government service tomorrow, you can't just kill the programs and give the money back in an instant.  It has to be a more gradual shift such that the infrastructure can be built up.  All the while killing the laws which grant power to the corporations.

I had the discussion one time where the statement came up that it seemed that "[i] want to give more power to the big corporations and less to the small Mom's and Pop's".  I countered that it wasn't about the size of the corporation, I just wanted them to all have the same opportunity.  You don't have that when the government tries to level the playing field.  In some fashion they'll end up handing a victory to someone while trampling on someone else's rights.

You can't give something to someone without taking it from someone else.
And that's what it comes down to for me.  I don't want a company to have more rights than I do.  I won't have more rights than the company, but they also understand that they need the people in order to exist.

Last edited by Fracai (2008-07-18 7:37 pm)

Fracai wrote:

But a key tenet of Libertarianism is that the government doesn't have the power to make the corporations stronger.  They have to get there on their own accord and that means the people have to give them that power.  I think it gives the people much more power than the current "elect people and hope they don't go back on their word" policy.

The counterclaim to that is that if you start with things as they are today and reduce the power of governments, then the power of corporations will expand to fill the vacuum -- and the primary function of corporations is explicitly to produce value for their owners/shareholders and not care what happens to everyone else, while governments are at least theoretically obliged to look out for all of their citizens.

user wrote:

The thing that I just don't understand about the OP is his concern that Ron Paul is being called a bastard.

I was just inquisitive as to what people thought of him on here and why. Not sure what's wrong or confusing about that.

Last edited by niggs0026 (2008-07-20 12:57 am)

Fracai wrote:

Yes corporations would expand, but with the government around to physically protect the citizens and administer the courts I think those citizens would have more power to fight back against real corporate abuses.  Corporations are interested in generating value for their owners and shareholders, but if the consumers start being trampled on and start standing up for themselves (boycotts, protests, alternate corporations) the shareholders can only worry that they'll start loosing this wealth.  These things already work today and I can only see them becoming more effective with less government intervention.

Here, instead of looking at it as giving companies more rights, look at as taking away the extra protections that some companies enjoy over others or over consumers.

I think part of the problem is that the government isn't just looking out for all of it's citizens.  It's also now trying to make them all happy.  And for every portion that is made happy another portion is made unhappy.  I think this progresses to the point where in trying to protect one group another is harmed.  And it all becomes a matter of which group gets to decide who is happy.

We need more restrictions on corporate power, not less.
We have already tried and discarded the Libertarian approach.

user wrote:

niggs0026 wrote:

user wrote:

The thing that I just don't understand about the OP is his concern that Ron Paul is being called a bastard.

I was just inquisitive as to what people thought of him on here and why. Not sure what's wrong or confusing about that.

http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/overhead.gif
That's OK, I get that a lot.

Sorry! I don't have to tell you how plain text comes off on a computer.

Pariah wrote:

Corporations naturally evolve into monopolies if unchecked by regulation. We have already seen this in how things went right after the industrial revolution.
The only way to level the playing field between individuals and corporations would be to eliminate corporations or to return them to their original, temporary status. This is simply not possible given the reality of globalism.
Libertarianism can not scale to accommodate a global economy.

I'm trying to understand, Pariah, so forgive me. Is my original post wrong or were you just expanding on your original post?

What about corporations make them naturally evolve into monopolies in a free market? Isn't it the consumers? Isn't that what Libertarianism relies on, the consumers preventing it from happening? My point was that you can't rely on today's consumer. They will buy what is cheapest without consequence. Is that wrong?

For example once a corporation reaches a certain point it become essentially "judgement proof" because it's assets are so great that no law suit would have any effect on it.

Furthermore - when they become big, they can often bury upstart competition in legal feed - and what's sick, sometimes they way they do it (at least in tech) is to buy a patent portfolio and sue the upstart, or some other BS tactic that hurts the consumer.

Microsoft did it, and I really hate to say it - but Apple is headed that way too.

Pariah wrote:

Libertarianism assumes an equality of power that  does not exist. For example once a corporation reaches a certain point it become essentially "judgement proof" because it's assets are so great that no law suit would have any effect on it. Thus nulling any check in the system.
Corporations are naturally drawn towards monopoly because there is the economy of scale to be taken advantage of. One needs only look at the consolidations of the last 20 ears to see this. When very few players dominate the market the notion of consumers having much influence is wrong.
I live in a great plains state where Wal-Mart has all but eliminated any competition. To get to a competing retailer I have to drive over 25 miles and during that trip will pass 7 Wal-Marts along the way. Where my parents have their cabin it is even worse where Wal-Mart is the only major store within a 75 mile radius. Consumers in areas like that don't have a choice in practical terms.

"Consumers in areas like that don't have a choice in practical terms." 
Except they did have a choice.  They should to buy from Wal-Mart because they could get more product for cheaper price because Wal-Mart is more efficient.

As for "judgement proof" corporations, ask Big Pharma here in the US, or Microsoft in Europe.

Pariah wrote:

niggs0026 wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Corporations naturally evolve into monopolies if unchecked by regulation. We have already seen this in how things went right after the industrial revolution.
The only way to level the playing field between individuals and corporations would be to eliminate corporations or to return them to their original, temporary status. This is simply not possible given the reality of globalism.
Libertarianism can not scale to accommodate a global economy.

I'm trying to understand, Pariah, so forgive me. Is my original post wrong or were you just expanding on your original post?

What about corporations make them naturally evolve into monopolies in a free market? Isn't it the consumers? Isn't that what Libertarianism relies on, the consumers preventing it from happening? My point was that you can't rely on today's consumer. They will buy what is cheapest without consequence. Is that wrong?

Libertarianism assumes an equality of power that  does not exist. For example once a corporation reaches a certain point it become essentially "judgement proof" because it's assets are so great that no law suit would have any effect on it. Thus nulling any check in the system.
Corporations are naturally drawn towards monopoly because there is the economy of scale to be taken advantage of. One needs only look at the consolidations of the last 20 ears to see this. When very few players dominate the market the notion of consumers having much influence is wrong.
I live in a great plains state where Wal-Mart has all but eliminated any competition. To get to a competing retailer I have to drive over 25 miles and during that trip will pass 7 Wal-Marts along the way. Where my parents have their cabin it is even worse where Wal-Mart is the only major store within a 75 mile radius. Consumers in areas like that don't have a choice in practical terms.

The people let them eliminate all competition in the first place by choosing to buy from them simply because their product was cheaper. Even in a regulated market like today, that principle is alive and well. I think that's also what everyone else is trying to say. That was my original point in the first place, you can't rely on consumers to have the resolve, or foresight, to see how their buying actions are going to affect the future marketplace.

Farmerkev wrote:

niggs0026 wrote:

That was my original point in the first place, you can't rely on consumers to have the resolve, or foresight, to see how their buying actions are going to affect the future marketplace.

Huh?
Prices are slashed across the board to compete with Walmart.
Are you trying to imply that the govt should have forced higher prices on everyone for "our own good"?

Hmm, yeah, you're right. Obviously, that's not what I wanted to say, but that's what it implies.

Isn't the argument against Walmart though that they cut prices so much that nobody could compete in that respect? Nobody that didn't have the assets Walmart had?