Skip to main content

View Diary: Owners of the world, unite (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  too funny (0+ / 0-)

    Again with the "all governments are communistic!!!!!" crapola.

    But tell me please, in your nonauthoritarian free utopia, what role is played by the multinational corporations, who are not only larger, richer, more powerful and have more direct control over people's everyday lives than any government does---but are completely totally absolutely unelected and not responsible to anyone, anywhere. And according to your ideologue vision, should stay that way.

    •  Excellent question (0+ / 0-)

      What you have to understand is that your multinational corporations, in every instance, rely on the protection and favors of government, and in many, many ways--to the point of controlling the media and national conversation, and brainwashing well-intentioned people like yourself into calling for more government controls to solve problems that were created by government controls.

      Without government protection, without monopolies on currency, selective enforcement of regulations, without prohibiting a free exchange of ideas (as we're having now, thanks to a medium that resists central control), any group of people seeking to have universal control of markets will have very few devices at their disposal to make it happen.

      If a currency is destroyed through manipulations and favors, free people can store the value of their labor and property in another currency, which other free people would be allowed to offer if it wasn't for a government-imposed monopoly. If people object to Chinese quasi-slavery, they can launch competing industries themselves, provided the government doesn't throw up endless barriers to the creation of new business--as is the case now.

      The possibilities for solutions are basically unlimited, if people are allowed to apply their energies to any given problem, and if the perpetrators of the problem can't use government violence and threats to protect themselves.

      I know, I know. It's a fantasy. And your proposal of giving more power to a government that causes more death and destruction and waste than you can fathom, is brilliant. I know your whole argument. But you still can't show how it's logically consistent.

      •  so the corporations are run by the government? (0+ / 0-)

        BWAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA AH AHA AHA HA AHA HA AHA AH AHA AHA HA AHA H AHA HA AH AH HA AHA HA AH AHA HA AH AHA HA AHA  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        No WONDER everyone thinks libertarians are nutty.  (shrug)

        But if you want to disband the corporations and turn them into mom and pop shops (thereby bringing back the Adam Smithian fantasy that you love, and which hasn't existed for over 100 years), then please explain how we'll have all the things we have now?  How can small Adam Smithian mom and pop businesses build supercomputers, or international communications networks, or even jumbo jets?

        Or is it your intention to return us to the 19th century in terms of technology as well as economic structure?

        •  I think (0+ / 0-)

          he is saying that since we allowed our government to be captured by the big corporations (largely thanks to libertarians...) therefore all government is always going to be corrupt and we shouldn't see government under democracy as a model for organizing society.  I think.

          --
          Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: @dcjohnson

          by davej on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:05:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think not (0+ / 0-)

            I think he just has an ideological need to blame the big bad communistic government for anything and everything.

          •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

            Yeah, that's closer.

            Of course, I disagree with the idea that libertarians, whatever they actually are, promoted policies that allowed corporations to capture government. I would argue that the corruption had to begin in government, that by overstepping its bounds, it created power that violated basic human rights (which I take to be the rights articulated by Bastiat in "The Law"; and in fact, the process I'm describing is exactly what's descrubed by Bastiat in that book).

            The problem, begins and ends the assumption that certain rights can be negated for the "greater good." So government tries to punish business to help the poor, and it grants itself all these new powers. Now those powers, just by virtue of existing, are there to be taken over by the businesses they were intended to control, and they inevitably are. But the process began with the notion that the government should violate very basic property rights of business owners on humanitarian grounds.

            THere's always a credible argument to violate basic rights. But the eventual consequences must be reasoned out. My argument is that our present, horrid system, is the logical result of central government granting itself more and more powers over time. Of course, those control devices were seized by the corrupt and used to create and maintain power. What else could anyone expect?

            •  too funny (0+ / 0-)

              So it wasn't the corporations who corrupted the American political process by flooding it with money so they can get whatever laws they like-----it was the corrupt government (corrupted by . . . someone else, apparently) who offered it to the corporados out of the malevolence of their authoritative communistic hearts.

              And presumably that happened in every other country on the planet, too.

              And next, John will be telling us how the WTO formed itself, and how the various national governments ruthlessly appointed corporate representatives to write up pro-corporate rules that trumped anything passed by any national government, forcing the poor free market economy into it.

              Too funny.

            •  so tell me . . . . . . (0+ / 0-)

              If the big bad communistic governments had not existed back in the 1860's when corporations first began to become prominent through the 1990's when they became the dominant international powers----what would have prevented them from taking over the entire economy just like they did?

              What principle of "the free market" would have stopped them from continuously growing ever more larger and more powerful?

        •  Imbecile (0+ / 0-)

          The corporations, to the degree that they're corrupt, that they influence the market beyond voluntary participation, rely strictly on government favors and protection.

          Get that?

          That's what I'm saying.

          The mom and pop thing, and the rest of the labels, are your own sad attempts at putting together any kind of refutation.

          Corporations, or business organizations, or manufacturing interests, are great. Just don't give them the option of using selectively-enforced government regulations to protect themselves from market competition. That is the cause of the system we have now.

          Government is force divorced from accountability or consequences. Make this force available to corporations, you get one brand of corruption. Make it available to Marxist utopianists like yourself, you get another, and probably worse, brand.

          Anyway, I really feel like you have a third rate mind, and are more interested in trying to win some rhetorical battle, for which you aren't equipped, than having a conversation. Thanks for trying, anyway. I'm going for a bike ride.

          •  and vice versa (0+ / 0-)

            Or have you forgotten how thoroughly the corporados and their campaign contributions determine who gets elected and who doesn't.

            The idea that corporations can't exist without the government giving them favors, is asinine.  The corporations are bigger, richer, and more powerful than any government.  That's why they have set up the WTO, which has legal veto power over any act by any national government.  

            The mom and pop thing, and the rest of the labels, are your own sad attempts at putting together any kind of refutation.

            OK, so you can't answer.  As expected.

            Government is force divorced from accountability or consequences.

            government <------------->  corporations

            Which is elected and accountable to people, and which is not.

            Anyway, I really feel like you have a third rate mind, and are more interested in trying to win some rhetorical battle, for which you aren't equipped, than having a conversation. Thanks for trying, anyway. I'm going for a bike ride.

            I must have hit a nerve, huh.

            But then, I don't blame you for not trying to defend libertarian drivel.

            •  Okay, I'm out the door. (0+ / 0-)

              Lenny, I'll be back in an hour or so.

              Please explain how prices and values are separate, and also, if you could, please cite some instances of businesses having an ongoing, universal, and negative influence on society without the favors and protection of government.

              I'm sure you're up to the challenge. You're quite passionate about what you believe, it couldn't be that you're just wantonly expelling gas.

              Go ahead. Prove both that you understand your own philosophy, and that there is evidence to back your assertions.

              In return, I will do my best, as anyone will note that I already have, to answer any direct questions, and to back my assertions with logic. I'm not hiding behind bluster and nonsense. Are you?

              •  since I've already pointed you to several hundred (0+ / 0-)

                pages (which you of course will not read) I can do no more. Either you will read it, or you won't.  (shrug)

                BTW, it might interest you to know that I'm a former IWW executive board chairman, and have been a syndicalist for a very long time.  Most Americans, of course, can't even pronounce "syndicalism" correctly, much less know what it means.  But before you start yammering about my love of tyrannical government again, look the word up.

                SURPRISE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                (snicker)  (giggle)

                •  Okay, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

                  I take this as an admission that you're shooting blanks. Of course, if you had evidence or reasoning behind all your statements, you would be glad to show me, right?

                  Man, quit wasting everyone's time, you clown. Read your own books. See if the ideas make sense, and THEN go promote them.

                  •  ok thanks (0+ / 0-)

                    I didn't think you really were interested in the question.

                    They're still there whenever you want to quit waving your arms and just read the damn things.  (shrug)

                    •  (shrug) (smirk) (laugh) (0+ / 0-)

                      I could just provide links to several books and claim I had supported my statements. So could anyone....But it's important to process and thoroughly comprehend things. Try it --it'll save you from popping off promoting theories and ideas you don't actually understand, and then getting called out and making a fool of yourself.

                      •  um, I wrote those books, you idiot (0+ / 0-)

                        I am the author.  They are my own words. I wrote them.

                        Moran.

                        •  In that case, I applaud the effort. (0+ / 0-)

                          I didn't notice you stating, anywhere, that you were the author.

                          But, in that case, isn't it rather shocking that you are unable to summarize the most basic parts of your belief system in concise, comprehensible statements? Isn't it telling that you enjoy throwing rocks, and presuming to correct people, but you offer no substance at all?

                          And, just in point of fact, claiming you're right because you wrote and self-published a few thousand words on a subject, falls under the heading of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

                          I still haven't seen you capable of putting together a coherent defense of your version of Marxism. I don't think you actually have a clue how on earth prices and values can be different in any practical sense. The fact remains, without prices arrived at honestly, with honest currency and little or no central manipulations of the market, goods and services cannot be directed to recipients, or produced in appropriate quantities, in any sane way, over time, in a large-scale economy. It is simply how things work, regardless of Marx's, or any other economist's, assertions.

                          •  and you still didn't read it. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just as I expected you wouldn't.

                            (shrug)

                          •  btw, I find it amusing beyond measure to (0+ / 0-)

                            listen to a libertarian whose free-market mantra has led to the most catastrophic economic collapses in history--twice in the past 70 years--lecturing everyone on "how the economy works".

                            (snicker)  (giggle)

                          •  I think I'm arguing with a drunk (0+ / 0-)

                            Are you hammered, Lenny?

                            I accept that you believe "libertarian" ideas have caused economic collapses. I get it, I get it. I get your whole worldview.... So, instead of throwing out blanket statements without evidence, go ahead and illustrate how "libertarian" ideas, when put into practice, led to these collapses.

                            Then, I will be very happy to explain to you how you're ignorant.

                            I have no interest in your book, because you have no ability to put anything into concise, sane terms when you're asked a direct question. You realize, if you can't reduce ideas to principles, and illustrate the principles readily with examples and logic, the ideas are most likely crap.

      •  by the way, this is simply wrong: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davej
        provided the government doesn't throw up endless barriers to the creation of new business--as is the case now.

        In the ideal world of the free-market libertarians, the economy consists of a large number of Lilliputian small businesses, none of which is large or strong enough to dominate the others—the theoretical basis of neoliberal classical economics. In this economy of small competitors, however, there are inevitably winners and losers. In the ideal Smithian world, the losers are quickly replaced by new competitors. In the real world, however, as the losers are absorbed by the winners, the winners get bigger and more powerful, and the number of players slowly shrinks. As the number of players gets smaller through competition, moreover, the winners continue to get bigger and bigger—particularly when large numbers of small players agree to improve their power by banding together into one player, the joint stock corporation. This not only greatly reduces the number of players, but the huge amount of money that is now necessary to allow newcomers to enter the field, limits and eventually eliminates the possibility of new players. Therefore, as competition between the small number of huge corporations carries on, the winners continue to absorb the losers and get even bigger, while the number of players continues to decline as they absorb each other. If the process is allowed to continue naturally, through the free market, the inevitable result is oligopoly, where a tiny number of players own everything—and then leading to monopoly, in which one ultimate winner stands supreme.

        That is why the libertarian free-market philosophy fails. The inevitable result of competition is monopoly, and the only way to prevent that is to prevent economic winners from growing larger through absorbing losers—i.e., by massive government interference in the natural process of the “free market”. Which makes the free-market ideology itself utterly irrelevant. We simply do not live in an Adam Smithian economy. The free-market fundamentalists are defending a world that no longer exists—and indeed in their ideological fervor, most of them refuse to even acknowledge that it no longer exists.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site