11 Responses to Cordial and Sanguine, Part 4

  1. Jane March 23, 2011 at 7:25 am #

    Capitalism is Anarchy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rjhJcUBRKg

  2. Samuel March 25, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    Do you people ever tire of your pointless semantic battles over word usage and archaic definitions/sources?

    • Anon March 25, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

      Might I ask which words and definitions you use?

    • Brandon March 25, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

      Obviously not.

    • R.J. Moore II March 26, 2011 at 12:48 am #

      “the economic system we have now is one from which peaceful, voluntary exchange is absent.”
      This is patently false. There is no middle ground between a market economy and a socialist economy. The government distorts and sabotages the economy in various ways, but if the such extravagant claims as the left-libt’s make were true we wouldn’t be able to be as wealthy as we are.

      Absolutely speaking, this is one of the freest and most prosperous economies in history; even though they take over half our money and use it against us the half that remains allows us to be far freer in an absolute sense than anarchy in Iceland ever did.

      • Mr Civil Libertarian March 26, 2011 at 10:00 am #

        There is no middle ground, but there is government intervention in some things?

        That’s what I would call a “middle ground”.

      • James March 26, 2011 at 11:43 am #

        Perhaps there is no middle ground between a market economy and socialism, if so then there obviously must be a middle ground between a free market and socialism. Simple.

  3. Bob March 25, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    Yeah, man, words are meaningless. Just say what you mean. Whoops.

  4. AndyJ March 30, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    I’m confused. A Left-Libertarian would be someone who wants to be left alone but also wants to re-distribute the wealth of others-?

    Without the force of government, how can you force people to distribute what they have earned to those -you- consider needy and worthy-? Don’t they, by success of their own efforts, earn also the right to se or distribute their wealth as they see fit-?

    How does “Left-Libertarianism” work in real life-?

    • Roderick March 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

      A Left-Libertarian would be someone who wants to be left alone but also wants to re-distribute the wealth of others-?

      No. For what left-libertarianism means as used here, see here and here.

  5. AndyJ March 31, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    Thank You for your note and links. My reaction/response is that famous British term “Bollocks”….

    If one does away with the force of government to protect the monopoly associations, then the Libertarian-Left is simply another variation on open market entry capitalism. If your co-op, employee-owned shop can compete and provide better goods and services at a better price point-then- come on into the pool. Competition and open entry to the market place provides a better value to the consumer…ultimately, the marketplace is about consumers -not- as our European friends would have it, protecting jobs, wages, and neighbors at a sacrifice of ingenuity and inventiveness… and ever higher prices.

    Govt power provides the protection that -all- monopolies need to allow them to abuse the consumer. Whether the monopoly is a private-for-profit enterprise or a union and co-op all need the protective power of govt force to raise prices and reduce quality.
    They must limit, restrict, handicap the competition from providing a better value proposition to the consumer.

    IF such an enterprise can exist competitively by providing better quality and lower prices, then why does the Libertarian-Left need to write an op-eds, publish scholarly papers and books or advocate for public support-? The whole gambit seems to be a bit of bait-and-switch on the old Lefty re-distribution of what others have created and earned tricks.

    Nothing stops a group of fellow believers from forming or buying a company and running it according to such principles as stated in the article. Should such a form prove more economical, competitive and innovative player in the marketplace then there would be many others who would adopt that model.

    The world of business has not always held the quasi-military structure that most corporations now follow. The advent of the high volume manufacturing and necessity to provide for a growing market simply made it work best. There is nothing to stop any changes in organization that a business chooses to adopt.

    Unless the government protects and enforces restrictions on competition it is an open marketplace… Many internet companies have started with similar ideals and structures. However success forced changes as did failure. People -individual- employees, members, associates, communities are inherently only concerned with their own selfish self-interest.

    Social engineering keeps running into the basic commonality of all humans, at all times and in all places; “What’s in it for me?”

    Yes, the govt and sweet talking religious/political leaders can get a temporary set-aside as people pull together to enforce a monopoly of ideas and methods. Yet, in a few short years, each individual will be asking why they are not getting more, why their individual unique talents/efforts are not recognized and rewarded above and different from others. Ultimately, each worker must also answer to the spouse who is raising the children. The care giving spouse will be asking why the needs of the children are not being met. Why the working spouse is not bringing in more rewards, recognition, etc.

    The link’s references to the origins of feudalism seems rather simplistic and naive… but that’s off topic. References to
    European historical examples are interesting but ignore the unique status of America and Americans as a bumptious and riotous group of yahoos, who will do things our way and choose our own time/place/methods.

    The last twenty years of the high tech and internet have shown that -no- company/corporation (of whatever size) has a guaranteed right to exist further than it’s value to the consumer. New companies can and do arise to meet needs with new technologies and new processes. Where there is no barrier to entry, there is no guarantee of survival. Every day is a “Day on the Serengeti” where each creature comes awake running. Each day one is either prey or predator in need of a meal and earning another day of life.

    The chaos and stresses of such creative destruction are no fun for the company or employees -but- the consumer wins. The consumer benefits with higher quality, more features/benefits at an ever lower price. Companies that arise and then die throw their employees out of work… for most Silicon Valley employees this was a 48-hour inconvenience. Good talent is always in demand. Even higher wages come about from the demand for talent. “There may not be any talent available -at this wage- but raise the wages and the will come”… If you need good people hire them away from others or train them up yourself and let others steal them from you. Lumps of human mush have little value in such a marketplace as there are many who do that job and technology will replace them eventually. The more skills one has – the more valuable they are. (Skills, not credentials. There is a difference.)

    Re-distributive unions and co-ops all seek to mitigate the effects of competition. They do not stop competition. They delay it by political protection and government might. Ultimately, the company/enterprise/nation is hidebound, archaic and no longer competitive in the world marketplace.

    Americans love success. But even more we love to strive and win. Hiding from the competition does not work. One may as well build a cabin on Walden Pond and watch the leaves change colors.

    The world has changed. EACH individual member of the workforce -must- adopt a continual learning lifestyle. Those who depend on their employer, union, co-op or such to provide the training will be left behind. Humans want more pay for every year we are alive. The marketplace says “Keep providing value”. There is no resting point. No place where one can sit back and enjoy the fruits of others labor -unless- one is an owner. Only an owner gets the rewards. But then the owner placed something of value at risk many years before and that willingness to risk should bring rewards. Employees place nothing at risk. They arrive and are paid. As they grow and the company grows they get paid more. No matter how much a person is paid, unless they earn that much and more every day, someone will be asking “Why are they still here?”

    The bursting of the internet bubble threw many tens of thousands of very talented and educated people out of work. MANY returned to the small towns and communities they had left to enter college. Quite a few had seen how capital was formed and learned the lessons. They came home to speak with friends, preachers, bankers etc and for new pools of -RISK- capital. The recent financial meltdown wiped out a lot of equity in homes and retirement accounts. I do not doubt these individuals will rise again. The wage-slaves who are old and whose talents are no longer current need to either adjust to a lower standard of living or get busy learning new skills.

    As long as a person can formulate and idea and find the capital they will continue the American dream of carving their own future as their own boss (becoming an owner). Take away their ability to enter the marketplace and you restrict human ingenuity. That is the one true universal natural resource that can be found in all places around the world…

    I still say “Bollocks”…but if I am wrong “Show Me”…
    Come on in and compete… Buy a company (place capital at risk) and run it along the described methods. All one has to lose is that risk capital.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes