From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Fri Aug 31 2001 - 11:18:26 MDT
Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
> > Miriam English wrote:
> > > The thing that worries me is that if government is reduced to the point
> > > that many libertarians want, then they risk simply becoming lackeys of
> > > powerful business interests. This would simply result in the situation
> you
> > > describe above.
> >
> > Who is 'they'? If you mean the government, powerful business interests
> > are not able to use the government to any extent because that government
> > is limited in what it can do. In such a situation, a union, for example,
> > would always overpower a corporation because the union membership will
> > always outnumber the corporation's lackeys, where both sides can arm or
> > disarm as much as they wish. The government would not be empowered to
> > step in on the corporations side to force the union to settle, or impede
> > the union membership from arming as they see fit.
> >
> > Liberals always see themselves, as individuals, as being entirely
> > powerless in all possible situations, reliant on the government patron
> > to protect them.
>
> Regarding liberals seeing themselves as "powerless" in all possible
> situations: Do you mean some liberals? All liberals? 12.895% of liberals?
Generally most liberals, if not all, with the possible exception of
those who are simply rich bigots burdened by guilt. Victimology is an
inherent trait of left-liberals and their memetic constructs.
>
> This is part of the liberal victimological myth that
> > has evolved from common serf attitudes held by immigrants coming from
> > feudal and tyrannical systems. They don't see that if the power of the
> > government is reduced, not only is the ability of the corporations
> > reduced (since their power is given to them by government protections),
> > but the individuals regain great power as individuals, because that is
> > where the government got its power in the first place.
>
> Yeah, but ... leaving things just to "individuals" didn't work out too well
> in the past, did it? What's wrong with a checks-and-balances system?
> Accountability ... coalitions ... these are not irresponsible ideas, and
> they can certainly be part of a governing system. People (individuals,
> after all) make up government - it's not like it's some kind of amorphous
> entity of The Bad Crimson Guy with Horns.
Actually, the times that it was left to individuals in reality, things
worked rather well. Take medieval Iceland, for instance, which is
probably the first and most accurately functioning libertarian society
in history.
Iceland had some interesting characteristics. It was remote and hard to
get to, so while immigration was not illegal, there was a significant
barrier to entry in the financial and individual ability sense. Those
that reached the island were generally very capable individuals who were
highly self reliant and who respected and cooperated with others with
similar characteristics.
There was no government, but there were individuals who acted as
'umpires' in resolving disputes. There was private property, but also a
right of transit, and there was no perception of conflict between the
two, although the primary means of transportation was by sea, which was
seen as 'ownerless', or rather, the domain of deities.
>
> > Under libertarianism, laborers will gain far greater power than they
> > realize, and corporations will finally be fully exposed to the
> > retribution they earn by unjust actions.
>
> Sigh. Got any historical precedents? (when laborers had the "power," and
> corporations were very, very goooooooooood boys).
The reason that the early labor movement had trouble is that they always
had strength in numbers and won initial engagements against employers on
a tactical basis, even when the employers hired Pinkertons and other
mercenaries. Their methods were often crude (along Luddite lines) where
they destroyed the assets of the employer. It was only when the
employers appealed to the government for assistance and protection that
labor lost their edge and were persecuted with the help of unjust legal
precedents. The reason the early labor unions lost for so long after
early tactica victories is that they were simply a rabble in arms, with
no guiding intelligence, their leadership was as ignorant as the rank
and file.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:17 MST