Monday, July 17, 2006
Moving more towards Left-Libertarianism
I think Sheldon Richman is the reason I am moving more left-libertarian. That, and working for the government. I have come to see the modern coporatocracy of America.
Here is his explanation of Left-Libertarianism.
Here is his explanation of Left-Libertarianism.
Comments:
<< Home
Corporatism, under a strict definition, doesn't actually involve political rule by 'big businesses'.
Technically, it is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups.
Corporatism might be a fair understanding of local and State governments in America. Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development and Workforce Development Boards, along with the Department of Commerce and many others (including non-profit groups) all influence political action in the favor of business.
I used to not see it, but businesses aren't in favor of laissez faire -- just like the rest of us (well...the majority at least).
Technically, it is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups.
Corporatism might be a fair understanding of local and State governments in America. Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development and Workforce Development Boards, along with the Department of Commerce and many others (including non-profit groups) all influence political action in the favor of business.
I used to not see it, but businesses aren't in favor of laissez faire -- just like the rest of us (well...the majority at least).
You can't blame anyone (corporation, individual, interest group) for taking what's offered to them; that's just rational behavior. Madison explained the folly of fighting human nature more than 250 years ago.
So, who's to blame? The welfare recipients? The interest groups? The corporations?
No, of course not. You blame government for being for sale in the first place. The problem is always government. Anyone who takes advantage is probably opportunistic, and maybe immoral, but definitely not irrational. Furthermore, the behavior isn't illegal.
So, the fault lies with the government institutions and laws that allow corporations to wield such power. It's only the coercive power of government privilege that we should begrudge the corporations - not the power they are able to wield simply by pleasing their cusomers.
So, who's to blame? The welfare recipients? The interest groups? The corporations?
No, of course not. You blame government for being for sale in the first place. The problem is always government. Anyone who takes advantage is probably opportunistic, and maybe immoral, but definitely not irrational. Furthermore, the behavior isn't illegal.
So, the fault lies with the government institutions and laws that allow corporations to wield such power. It's only the coercive power of government privilege that we should begrudge the corporations - not the power they are able to wield simply by pleasing their cusomers.
I blame the recipients. Myself included.
How can you blame an institution? Institutions are amoral. They have no faces. Might as well call corporations evil. A man has to willfully use an amoral instrument to destroy good. Such is evil.
If such a man rises up, it is not necessary that other evil men be collected to him. All that is necessary is the silence of the good, those that wish to create rather than destroy.
We all allow the growth of government when we partake of its "bread and circuses." We have to. There is no other source of wheat, now that it has been monopolized.
What would entice a man to give up the "bread and circuses"?
If we somehow can strengthen voluntary organizations such that they could offer an alternative to government supported functions, such as roads, or schools, or welfare, etc., what incentive does the everyday Joe have to take only from private sources and not also from public?
None.
What is required is a conviction, a mentality, that refuses to partake in that which is immoral, such as the monopolized use of force on innocent individuals.
Few have such a conviction. And I fail to practice the convictions that I do have.
Nathan
How can you blame an institution? Institutions are amoral. They have no faces. Might as well call corporations evil. A man has to willfully use an amoral instrument to destroy good. Such is evil.
If such a man rises up, it is not necessary that other evil men be collected to him. All that is necessary is the silence of the good, those that wish to create rather than destroy.
We all allow the growth of government when we partake of its "bread and circuses." We have to. There is no other source of wheat, now that it has been monopolized.
What would entice a man to give up the "bread and circuses"?
If we somehow can strengthen voluntary organizations such that they could offer an alternative to government supported functions, such as roads, or schools, or welfare, etc., what incentive does the everyday Joe have to take only from private sources and not also from public?
None.
What is required is a conviction, a mentality, that refuses to partake in that which is immoral, such as the monopolized use of force on innocent individuals.
Few have such a conviction. And I fail to practice the convictions that I do have.
Nathan
I think there is enough blame to spread around -- Since the government is nothing but a collection of people. Yes, institutions are amoral but the people that run them are not.
Government can be blamed for expanding itself. Business can be blamed for accepting much of the largess and individuals can be blamed for allowing a lot of this to happen and expand over the last 200 or so years.
The individuals to blame the most are dead and those original businesses moved on or changed. So who's to blame now?
Good question. I'm gonna blame the government though, since it is difficult to see if anything in this world is not subsidized or regulated, or influenced in some way by governmental action. I think government is to blame and the desired 'free market' has not existed for quite some time.
Post a Comment
Government can be blamed for expanding itself. Business can be blamed for accepting much of the largess and individuals can be blamed for allowing a lot of this to happen and expand over the last 200 or so years.
The individuals to blame the most are dead and those original businesses moved on or changed. So who's to blame now?
Good question. I'm gonna blame the government though, since it is difficult to see if anything in this world is not subsidized or regulated, or influenced in some way by governmental action. I think government is to blame and the desired 'free market' has not existed for quite some time.
<< Home
