Paul Bramscher wrote:
> Trypt wrote:
> > Paul Bramscher wrote:
> >
> >> Trypt wrote:
> >> Good answer -- and I agree. But the problem is that after a single
> >> generation you'll need to start over again. Some will be born into
> >> wealthy cir***stance, through no merit of their own, no merit of what
> >> they contribute to the market. They may merely try to corner it,
take
> >> from it, contort it, wreck it, etc. On the flipside, someone who
> >> inherited poverty may be an eager beaver, ready to add to the market,
> >> have some skill or service that the market demands -- but be locked
> >> out of it due to his poor birthright.
> >
> >
> > Anyone would be able to succeed. Remember, there would be no public
> > cor****ations at all, therefore cornering the market via favour with
the
> > government just wouldn't happen. If you're forced to have a private
> > company, and never go public, there will always be competition out
> > there, new names, new products, better management. This will
guarantee
> > that unless you really have business savy, there is no way your
company
> > will be eternal. There would be no bailing you out if you fail,
someone
> > else would just take over your market. Remember the fundamentals of
> > libertarianism, coercion would be strictly opposed so that avenue of
> > staying in business would also be lost.
> >
> > I think you're still clinging onto your notion of capitalism which
> > includes publicly traded cor****ations, welfare handouts from
tax-payers
> > to these cor****ations, and shady practices these cor****ations use
> > (lobbying, coercion) to stay in business and monopolize. This would
be
> > impossible if companies were purely private.
>
> We have many examples of private coercion from non-cor****ate entities.
> For example, the drug mafia, the prohibition-era bootleggers, shady side
> of the gambling industry, today's mob, etc.
Do you have an example that doesn't depend on government coercion for
it
to operate?
> I believe it's reached the
> point where CIA involvement in the drug trade, the no-bid contracts
> handed out to a highly dispersed (and largely Cayman Island's based)
> Halliburton, self-policing for environmental safeguards, etc. that
> coercion from government and private (cor****ate or not) sources are
> inseparable conjoined siblings. To separate them means the end of both.
>
> It's not possible to even conceive of a market which does not govern
> many aspects of daily life, or a government which is not run by and for
> market elites.
That depends on what you call "market elites" and "government".
>
> One noteable exception: libertarianism might flourish in a
> pre-agricultural and sparsely populated era with huge bounty of raw
> materials available to anyone for the taking.
Err... it thrived in very much post-agricultural regions like England
in the Industrial Revolution, America etc.
> For example, about
> 5,000-10,000+ years ago, depending on the world region. Though,
> curiously, it was the community unit, then, which survived.
>
> The oppression of the community began with the rise of empire.
>
> > I agree, but do you really think that if a great businessman father
> > gives up his private company to his son the company will continue to
> > thrive? Again, we're not talking about cor****ations here which are
>
> Sure, many companies -- cor****ate or not -- are run by on-site managers
> with specialized training. The owners themselves needn't even set foot
> on the premises or live in the same community (thus mining wealth out of
> the community, through no expertise of their own).
That's a non sequitur. Providing capital is productive and getting
paid for it is not "mining the community" because the community is
better
off after you do it.
> Foolish underachievers inherit and are able to preserve wealth
> through no device of their own, nor of the market's.
Well no, if they try to run a business "on autopilot" they generally
lose money. It's hard to think of a business dynasty that survived
incompetent heirs.
|
