Id like to see a transition or replacement from how it stands to newer technologies, driverless cars, electric cars, accessories for these IF they could be viable and profitable ventures. There have been multiple hand outs to the Australian car industry over the last few decades to no avail...I see the main reason being they didnt correct their business model and the cycle of poor business practices/ cry for handout continued. A great case study for what happens with government intervention, the removal of said intervention and the adaptation thereafter is the East India Trading Company. For 200 years they had carte blanche on all trade between India/China and England, thanks to British Govt charters allowing a monopoly. The Charter Act of 1813 removed that monopoly in India and declared sovereignty over it . The East India Trading Co adapted by becoming administrators of India whilst maintaining monopoly of China's trade. The 1833 Charter Act Ended the East India Company as a commercial body yet it continued in its administrative form. It died out eventually due to multiple poor decisions as administrators of the colonies, not due to removal of government protection. On the other side of the equation. Merchants were the driving force of the 1813 Charter. With said charter it opened up a lot of opportunities. More ships were needed, sailers, merchants, etc etc A wider variety of goods became available and prices were no longer controlled by a monopoly.
I, for one, have great respect for you for this very reason, and the fact you keep trying to bring up relevant and important topics for discussion. We don't all have to agree but if more people had your positive attitude we'd be in a much better place. Sometimes I see you get treated very harshly, but you always seem to bounce back with class and in champion style. Apologies for my part in taking your thread off course.
:lol: Depends on who you ask. Initially I'm more interested in seeing human rights being upheld before spending too much effort on animal rights. Broadly I'd say that it comes under the heading of "social norm" and it would seem to be entirely possible for a community to treat animal torture/maltreatment as a legal crime but more likely to be considered a socially moral/immoral thing to do addressed by peer pressure. Obviously extreme forms of animal torture are completely different to everyday issues of their treatment in the standard food chain. Unless there's arguments I've not heard of, animals do not have equal legal rights with humans. This is because the fundamental philosophical basis for having legal rights respected by others is an understanding and respect for other people's rights (ie reciprocity). In the main, animals do not have the capacity to do this therefore they do not have equivalent legal rights as humans. If an alien species did then they would/should be treated the same as humans. Depends on who you ask and depends on what you mean by "strict and rigid code". There's obviously the "I'm more Libertarian than you" crowd who call other Libertarians "socialist scum" littered across the internet. In person however, they're generally just everyday people who are more interested in being left alone to proceed with their peaceful projects or lives as they see fit without an overbearing nanny threatening to lock them up in govt-funded rape rooms. Most people just want to proceed toward increased liberty through pragmatic changes recognising that things could be better. In terms of the legal codes - a big part of a civil society is simply having recognised dispute resolution processes where people can come to peaceful solutions without resorting to violence. Like most things in life, there would only be a relatively small number of specialist people involved in drawing up legal codes. In many versions of Libertarianism there would be true competition between the legal codes on offer and people would essentially choose the ones that they liked best. Not sure if I have answered your questions.
For thousands of years, humans have developed philosophies that allowed for systems of rights and responsibilities which, at the time, seemed perfectly reasonable but which were later decided to have been wrong. All men are equal, where "men" includes "royalty and the noble classes" and excludes all the peasants. Well, okay, have a Magna Carta and all mean are equal. Except for slaves, obviously. Actually, keeping people in chains is a bit unfair. All men are equal. Except for anyone who isn't Christian, 'cause those people are just, like, wrong. Although, on reflection, there are some heathens who are still pretty nice guys, so yes, all mean are equal. Except poor ones, and nobody really cares what they think anyway. Oh, well it turns out there's actually a lot of of them and they're somewhat annoyed about not being listened to. So all men are equal. And we'll just forget about the women. Ah, they're not happy about being excluded as well. Okay, fine, all people are equal. Except children, who occasionally need a good beating so they grow up properly. Geez, alright already! No bashing kids. Everyone is equal. All the people. Everywhere. Now, lets go hunt some endangered species... Having moved through the millennia from times when it was perhaps necessary to have a top-down power structure that couldn't be questioned to now, where we're capable of having a noticeable effect on the entire planet's ecosystem, how long before all life is considered equal? Maybe you and a fish can't have a mutual respect for one another, but if our norms and customs are based on the philosophies we develop to make sense of the world, wouldn't it be logical to include the plants and animals we rely on to survive as deserving of rights? Perhaps in some circumstances even rights that are of greater importance than our own?
^ Oh look, the history of the world is an ever greater movement toward libertarian philosophy in the general mindset. Don't tell Newtosilver. But seriously, once the political systems finally catch-up with where the liberal philosopher's have been for centuries (i.e. all people have equal authority) then no doubt ideas around what are the appropriate legal rights of animals will also become part of the Zeitgeist. I'd note that since all animals have the natural right of self-ownership it presumably implies that they should have at least some legal rights even if they can never have equal legal rights and can still be food. It'll probably be one of those things that technology will make a non-issue at some point in the future (probably after I am dead). Edit: Grammar. Edit again: Oh, and turtle plants. They have no more rights (legal or natural) than a rock or the bacteria in my poo.
Appreciate the response. Hard to define which animals understand and respect legal rights. I think Dogs are libertarian, and we don't eat them, but some might bite you. I'd like to consider myself a libertarian sympathiser, but find it hard to adhere to some aspects that fundamentalists espouse. Guess it derives from a gut feeling that a corporation has potential to be as restrictive upon my freedom as the state, and that the labour vs capital relationship generally favours capital. The result is that those who only have labour to offer are beholden to those with capital, and thus the relative liberty between the two groups is unequal. Whether under a state or corporate structure, this appears to be true. I'm happy to pay no taxes, but what if capital fails to value labour to the extent that labour is unable to afford self provision of services traditionally offered by the state? I understand the profit motive of capital and it's efficiency compared to state, but don't trust capital's willingness to share profit adequately enough for labour to become capital beyond the hamster wheel of subsistence living unless compelled. This would be why unions formed in the beginning, though they've evolved into something beyond the original intent, with all the associated violence of scab bashing and union busting, whether organised by the state, the mafia, or the Pinkertons. There is no true liberty if some people are born into a life where they lack the resources to gain education or the ability for self sufficiency, where others are born into a life where they have the resources to thrive without having to trade hours of life to maintain a lavish lifestyle.
I'd prefer the weapons to protect myself. Outsourcing just allows a higher bidder to turn your protector into an oppressor. Give me 40 acres and a mule, and I'll have the resources to be self sufficient. If from there I choose to sell my labour that is a choice I'm not compelled by hunger to make. Alternatively if I'm responsible from my own healthcare, and beholden to a landlord for shelter, with a free market labour contract the only thing between me and an empty belly and, if lucky, a spare coin for schooling; with many other hungry mouths competing for the contract, I'd expect capital to withold the lions share of the profit from my labour. This might be less so in a market where there are more SMEs than duopolies. My social liberty is also affected in this environment as capital is free to discriminate so employ-ability relates to compliance with the prevailing moral code of the capital class. Again, not so much of a problem where capital is spread widely enough in SMEs for a diverse choice of employer, but more difficult when the captains of industry all go to the same church and are members of the same secret societies. I don't think a corporatist version of libertarianism is effective unless capital is far more decentralised than it is under the current system. Assuming government is the apparent protector, it has already been sold out to capital, and sufficiently disarmed labour to disallow self defence. Even with the right legislation, how does an individual compete with an army of corporate lawyers in front of a judge who has a history of service upon the boards of capital?
There's no shortage of capitalists willing to lend you capital. Ironically in a freer market there would actually be more of the SME-large businesses rather than very large businesses hence the problems naturally become less.
@smk, I can't allay your fears or concerns, I can only suggest that they may not actually eventuate. Your fears are not grounded in the reality of what constitutes free market transactions ie conducted either by choice or not at all. They are grounded in the system we presently have. Economic transactions are not zero-sum gains, they benefit both sides. In a free-market any corporation that fails to understand that (highly unlikely as they wouldn't rise to corporate status in the first place) is inviting the opposition to stick the knife in. Well if we are discussing a possible future free-market scenario, then my answer to that would be to not find yourself in that position in the first place. If it were under an anarcho-capitalist structure then you and the army of corporate lawyers would firstly have to come to an agreement on which court/judge you would mutually agree to hear the case. Naturally, you wouldn't agree to stand in front of a judge that doesn't have a history of impartiality. But if it were under a government system based up libertarian principles (minarchist) then the legislation would protect you - it is the government's job to ensure that. So, if you don't trust the government to protect your rights, then you really have only one alternative.
All for it. Much of libertarianism appeals to me, but not where freedom increases for capital at the expense of labour. The relationship is unequal now and always has been, and the fiat/fractional lending system (which I know libertarians also dislike) protects this regime. Friendly societies and philanthropy are great, but I'm consider it dubious to rely on the benevolence of capital to maintain the freedoms labour bled to secure during the period of limited government during the industrial revolution (the irony being that government agents backed capital when the time for violence was at hand). May as well hope for benevolent government? The current tech revolution, particularly the sharing economy, has great potential to liberate labour from the excesses of state-supported capital, but both remain as puppets paying tribute to those who control monetary policy and the issuance of currency. IMO this needs to be resolved before disbanding the state or else we will continue to serve the same masters with less potential for oversight and participation. Lacking an avenue to meaningfully & peacefully influence policy will inevitably lead to violence, whether in resistance or enforcement. I think the combination of a "free" market with fiat and fractional lending is dangerous and as much a potential path toward greater fascism than the current fear-based fantasy fueled by plutocratic puppeteers who deftly pull the strings of the elected so-called representatives (and by extension the useful idiots who elected them) toward enabling the violence needed to protect business interests at home and abroad. Until labour and capital are given equal treatment, liberty is no more than an ideal. Capital flows to jurisdictions where it enjoys greater liberty in terms of tax and labour policy, and is lauded for it's profits. Labour has restricted movement, and if attempting to flow to jurisdictions where it is granted more liberty and ROI, it is decried as "economic refugees", while capital manipulates the infighting of labour. Seems to me that libertarianism often places the freedom of capital higher than the freedom of labour. All individuals are capable of labour, but not all have sufficient capital beyond that required to make it though to next week, or afford a ticket to get off the hamster wheel. As long as capital exists enjoying greater liberty and power than labour, most individuals will lack freedom.
And no capitalists have sufficient labour to make it beyond next week without a willing workforce. It is the labourer that owns the capitalist, not the other way around.
You know that the underlying capital that counts is fixed and is generally less mobile than labour once it is installed? Pretty much every single business is only a month or two away from insolvency and labour holds a great deal of power in the face of large amounts of unfairness that you are worried about. Sure at certain times in certain places there's a shortage of capital and an excess of labour at the previously offered prices but far more often than not there's a shortage of decent labour. Labour has always been the scarcest factor of production. As someone who's labour price shifts month to month I am fully aware that the price I rent myself out at needs to vary as market conditions vary. Capital owners have to deal with such volatility as well (generally even more than I do). Many people however do not want the volatility and want a fixed wage and consequently they are more than willingly to pass the risk (and rewards) onto the capital owners. If however, any fixed salary person who currently works for me wants to move onto a volatile income and bear the risks then I am more than prepared to remunerate them more (and, in fact, they are). RE Your comments regarding fiat currency in the presence of central banks - fully agree. This is why I became a stacker in the first place. It is in fact one of the most egregious areas of intervention into the market that I can think of. The RBA should be abolished along with all laws that give an effective monopoly to any given currency.
