Out of the Venn Diagram, Endlessly Rocking

Should the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers get together before we get much older? Sure, why not? I'm all for alliances that undermine the Red Team/Blue Team permanent pissing match, and if protesters can find common ground in the territory where opposition to expanding government meets opposition to Wall Street misbehavior, I'll be delighted.

A year ago I wrote this about the Tea Party movement:

The Tea Party isn't an actual party; it's an extremely decentralized movement with room for several different points of view. It is not libertarian in itself, but it has opened a space for libertarian ideas; it includes good guys like the Campaign for Liberty, and it includes its share of scamsters and authoritarians as well. And it includes a lot of people who are not pure libertarians but are motivated by a libertarian take on one or more pressing issues.

The typical Occupation probably has fewer scamsters and more authoritarians -- right-wing movements attract entrepreneurs selling snake oil, left-wing movements attract sectarians selling Leninist newspapers -- but the basic point is the same. It's an open movement. It has a lot of anti-authoritarian impulses. You can join it, engage the people there, and help make a space for libertarian ideas. To judge from the number of Ron Paul supporters who have been showing up at the marches, many people are already doing just that. At a time when MoveOn and other usual suspects are trying to transform the movement into a rally cum fundraiser for the Democratic Party, you can be one of the countervailing forces.

Two more thoughts on the general subject. First: You can chart a progression from the Netroots and the Howard Dean campaign, which were strikingly decentralized and deprofessionalized for their time; to the Tea Parties, which were more decentralized and deprofessionalized than the Netroots; to the Occupiers, which have been even more decentralized and deprofessionalized than the TPs. I'm not sure what the next step will be, but I'm going to go out on a limb and imagine that it will be even more decentralized, even more deprofessionalized, and even more closely tied to new media. It might also involve even more Guy Fawkes masks.

Second: In the wake of the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally and the Stewart/Colbert snarkapalooza, why are people still staggered by the idea of a demonstration without demands? You can't say it's unprecedented. There's a very fertile space between a protest, a carnival, and a revival, and it's getting more fecund as our increasingly decentralized activism collides with our increasingly decentralized pop culture. You should get used to it, because I don't think it'll go away anytime soon.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I wish this would happen because it would finally give the Tea Party the street creed so that Reason wouldn't feel embarassed in front of their lefty friends defending them.

    It will never happen because I doubt you can ever overcome the 20+years of educational Marxist brainwashing the OWS protesters have been subjected to.

  • Suki||

    20+years of educational Marxist brainwashing the OWS protesters have been subjected to perpetuate.
    FTFY

  • o3||

    please explain which items on this list are "marxist"
    http://occupywallst.org/forum/.....add-so-th/

  • ||

    Eliminating personhood for corporations and wildly progressive taxation for the rich are Marxist ideas just dressed up in new clothes.

  • ||

    Sorry John, eliminating the government creation of corporate personhood is not a Marxist idea. Desocialization of liability goes quite logically with libertarian desocialization of profits. Adam Smith was a critic of the corporate entity - was he a Marxist too?

  • ||

    When government does it, like the OWS crowd wants it to be, it sure as hell is marxism. Even worse, it will all but guarantee that with the added power government gets to do this that the relationship with the evil corporatists will result in the corporatists having even more influence. This cycle is self perpetuating. To break it we need to drastically reduce government's power, and the OWS crowd, based on their own demands so far, are asking for exactly the opposite.

    But people are welcome to keep seeing what they reality to be. It's not like we have any recent history where people ignored the facts and let their own personal biases mislead them into believing things would work out for the better, or nothing.... Hope & Change!

  • ||

    Yeah, the OWS crowd are generally Team Blue populist idiots, just like the Tea Partiers are generally Team Red populist idiots. Populism is naturally incoherent and attracts idiots, but both movements have valid points that can be turned into rational discourse and policies. If liability wasn't socialized and business owners thus paid for the full cost of their business, accumulation of massive quantities of wealth would be more difficult and conglomeration would be disincentived to promote competition and better/safer business practices.

  • o3||

    or nobody ever got rich on their own.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: triple asshole,

    You certainly won't.

  • o3||

    yes im included w everybody else in nobody ever got rich on their own. thanks for making that moar clearz ?

  • Sudden||

    You're right for once o3, no one ever does get rich on their own. They get rich through commerce, the act of mutually beneficial.

  • ||

    that's awesome, how did you just come up with that? someone should hire you.

  • MNG||

    Adam Smith carried water for the left, we all know that! He's a liberal, like Google.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    He did believe in Labor Theory of value, (didn't he?). That will take you a long way in the wrong direction once it infects your thinking.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietist,

    Sorry John, eliminating the government creation of corporate personhood is not a Marxist idea.


    The personhood you allude to is not a government creation, it's a contractual agreement between the owners of the organization, their suppliers and clients. Your beef is probably with the concept of Limited Liability, but that's an entirely different ball game. *I* can incorporate myself and have "limited liabilty," and still be a one-man show. So this "personhood" issue is nothing more than a red herring invented by the economics and financial unsophisticated.

  • MNG||

    What are you talking about? The suppliers and customers don't "agree" to work with corporations as persons, that's the legal environment they find themselves in. You're peddling a bizarre legal fiction at best.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    What are you talking about? The suppliers and customers don't "agree" to work with corporations as persons, that's the legal environment they find themselves in.


    Wait, what??? I don't understand what you're implying, MNG. You either trade with corporation A or you don't. You either supply corporation A or you don't. I don't see how consumers and suppliers are suddenly in this "legal environment" from which they cannot escape, if they can always withdraw their business: they would be "legally" compelled to do business with corporation A regardless of anything else! Who's being the absolutist now?

    You're peddling a bizarre legal fiction at best.


    NO, you're peddling a bizzare world yourself, MNG.

  • MNG||

    You're basically arguing "if a person does business with a corporation knowing of the special priviliges the government grants the latter then the person is voluntarily granting the corporation those priviliges over him." That's not just a silly argument it doesn't address what we are arguing about: whether the government grants corporations special priviliges it does not grant to other business forms.

  • MNG||

    The only way these priviliges would be "voluntary" and "contractual" would be if in every business dealing a corporation had it said to the other party "A term of this transaction is you hereby agree to not hold the shareholders of this entity liable for any breaches or debt that may occur as a result of our doing business" and the other party agreed. And of course that would still not cover limited liability from tortious behavior.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    "A term of this transaction is you hereby agree to not hold the shareholders of this entity liable for any breaches or debt that may occur as a result of our doing business"

    Except you could make a contract that says exactly that.

    And of course that would still not cover limited liability from tortious behavior.

    Yes, it would.

  • ||

    Funny thing, MNG. In order to enjoy limited liability, a corporation has to notify the people it does business with that it is, in fact, a corporation.

    If a corporation fails to do so, then the investors can, in fact, be held individually liable.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And of course, the alternative of unlimited liabilty was every bit as much an artificial construct of government as the reverse.

    Those who claim the corporate limited liabilty is akin to a "subsidy" are full of it.

    If they don't like the disparity between parternships and corporations, then the reform can be in the other direction.

    There's never been any legitimate reason why anyone should get stuck with 100% of the bill just because someone he was associated with who was 100% responsible for some tort had no money to pay for it.

  • jtuf||

    MNG,

    Suppliers and customers can choose to do business with sole proprietorships. An LLC is required to include "LLC" in its title so everyone knows its status. It's like having a prenupt. If your fiance wants you to sign a prenupt that exempts him from paying child support and you don't like it, then don't marry him. If you don't want to do business with LLCs, then don't do business with them. Setting up buycott movement to support sole proprietorships will get you farther than making false accusations against LLCs.

  • ||

    jtuf,

    We're all in agreement that contractual parties have recourses under the conditions of arbitration outlined in the voluntary contract. I think those of us critical of the corporate entity are pointing out that corporate actions can effect non-contractual parties, and since damages are not artificially limited to the value of corporate assets, why should these third party victims (or taxpayers) pay for damages once the barrier for corporate assets has been breached instead of the owners and their responsible agents?

  • ||

    Corporate personhood and limited liability go hand in hand, which is why I oppose the former as well as the latter. The idea is that the corporation is a separate "person" from the owners and has a specifically allocated amount of property that is legally distinguished from the property of the owners. Thus, when that property runs out due to bankruptcy and/or legal settlements, creditors and victims can't claim the personal property of the owners and former owners, and thus are forced to eat the cost of the damages caused by the corporation themselves. You can't throw a corporation in jail for violations of rights, therefore it should not be considered a person, but an association of persons with a privileged legal status and rights on third-party effects that no private contractual allocation of property could provide.

  • Suki||

    Wasn't this stripped away quite a bit with the Enron and other cases during the Bush reign over the DOJ?

  • MNG||

    Well said Proprietist.

    I guess I fall somewhere between the OSWers and others here. Unlike the OSW's I don't hate corporations, in fact quite like them. I think governments realized that in granting these arrangements certain legal priviliges they could encourage investment and capital pooling at a large stage and that this would increase the overall welfare. They were and are a useful tool.

    But they are tool, not some glorious natural right. As a tool they should be limited where they bring harm. So, for example, I support laws that restrict corporate political activity. The way corporations are set up, with perpetual personhood, management separated from ownership and infused with a legal duty to maximize profits above all else, they are not something I want too involved in the polity. Also, I would like to see the rules of corporate forms tweaked to empower shareholders vs. management more.

    So I sympathize with restraining corporations in some areas, but I think the knee-jerk hate of them I see in many OSWers is flat wrong.
    I quite like them.

  • ||

    I don't hate corporations either, any more than I hate people on welfare. Both are taking advantage of the system provided to them. But state-provided limited liability, like welfare, creates bad moral hazards.

    I don't think voluntary associations should be barred from lobbying politicians, however. I just think if politicians aren't creating arbitrary regulations and government was limited to consistently enforcing natural individual rights, there would be nothing to lobby for.

  • Fluffy||

    Don't you realize that the idea that an employee of a company is not just as much a part of the "association" as the owners is also a form of limited liability?

    If a group of men engage in a joint activity that ends up (for example) dumping a bunch of pig shit on my house, why isn't everyone involved in every way jointly part of the "conspiracy" that did that to me?

    Why can't I pursue EVERYONE connected with that conspiracy? What's this "owners" shit? If you fucking sweep the floor as part of the association of men that did this to me, you're involved, and every last thimble of your property should be available to me to let me satisfy my actionable harm.

    And since bankruptcy law is also a limitation of liability, that would have to go, too.

    So basically that would mean that I could seize ALL of your assets if I suffer an actionable harm, even if you just sweep the floor for the company that caused the harm, and by ALL assets that includes all your clothes and shoes and silverware and shit.

    Have we restored unlimited liability enough yet?

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure what you are getting at. The employee is considered jointly liable under vicarious liability doctrines for wrongs they engaged in.

    Owners fund the operation and they choose the directors of the operation. They reap the benefits of legal personhood of the operation but then want to claim government protection in ways that other enterprises are not blessed with.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm not sure what you are getting at. The employee is considered jointly liable under vicarious liability doctrines for wrongs they engaged in.

    That's still limiting their liability.

    If you have a group of men engaged in an undertaking, and that undertaking creates liabilities, if you separate the men engaged in the undertaking into two categories and say,

    "Well, this first group is made up of owners, and these guys are all completely liable, even for stuff that happened when they weren't around;

    "But this second group is made up of employees, and they're only liable to the extent that they personally did something, and not just because they were part of the overall organization,"

    - then you're "using a legal fiction" to "limit liability" and "socialize losses".

    And as we've discussed elsewhere, bankruptcy law limits liability. Any legal restriction that stops the punishment for insolvency anywhere short of enslavement and/or dismemberment for the sale of organs will constitute a "legal fiction" that "limits liability" and "socializes losses".

  • MNG||

    As you may remember I'm no fan of bankruptcy laws, a promise is a promise.

    But back to your main point, the idea that ownership is tied to liability for the thing owned is a longstanding idea in our legal system, it has to do with the strong association between owning and controlling something. The floor sweeper is recognized as having little control either managerial or via ownership.

  • Fluffy||

    But back to your main point, the idea that ownership is tied to liability for the thing owned is a longstanding idea in our legal system, it has to do with the strong association between owning and controlling something. The floor sweeper is recognized as having little control either managerial or via ownership.

    Well, yeah, dude, that's entirely my point.

    The law recognizes that different types of participation in an enterprise should convey different levels of liability.

    Allowing people to invest in corporations without assuming unlimited liability for losses beyond the level of your personal investment is just another way in which the law recognizes that different types of participation in an enterprise should convey different levels of liability.

    And if you're cool with one way but not the other, that's just a preference and not a principle.

  • MNG||

    I guess I think corporations are a way for the owners to have their cake and eat it too. Sure, they don't have the same extent of control a partner does, but they have ultimate control. That kind of ultimate control over something has usually in other areas meant ultimate responsibility. We give corporations a pass not because it is just to but because it has utilitarian value, it encourages corporate activity that enriches us all. My point is that if utilitarian concerns point us towards restricting corporations in ways, say in political activity, the same principle should guide us.

  • ||

    First, the actors who caused the action are fully liable.

    Then, the owners who were responsible for their actors are fully liable, but may be able to contractually claim damages from the actors depending on their voluntary arrangement, and can limit this risk via insurance.

    Victims and taxpayers may have to pay once the owners and actors have no more assets, or the liability insurance is exhausted. But they should be the very last resort, and still should be able to make further claims at a later date for unpaid damages.

    Seems like a fair allocation of liability to me.

  • Fluffy||

    that no private contractual allocation of property could provide.

    This is the part that I proved was wrong.

    Unless you're going to start extending liability into even more places outside of the traditional realm of "ownership".

  • jtuf||

    Proprietrist, by that logic, it should be illegal for poor people to do business, because they lack the personal assets to compensate others for any possible torts.

  • ||

    Should it be illegal for poor people to drive because they can't compensate others for wrecks they might cause?

  • goneGalt||

    Should it be illegal for poor people to drive because they can't compensate others for wrecks they might cause?

    I would posit that it already is. At least in my state. Here, while you are not required to insure your person or your vehicle, you must carry a minimum amount of liability insurance against the possibility of harm to others.

    A poor person with even an old car must carry this insurance. If they do not have a car but rather borrow or rent, the borrowed car must be insured for liability. Otherwise, the vehicle will not be registered by the state.

    Of course, there are people who game the system and drive without insurance. But that situation goes back to the illegal part.

  • o3||

    false old mex - corporate personhood was confired by the SCOTUS [RAILROADZ] decision of 1866 to wit:

    " The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. "

    http://www.ratical.org/corpora.....R1886.html

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: triple asshole,

    false old mex - corporate personhood was confired by the SCOTUS [RAILROADZ] decision of 1866 to wit


    It wasn't "confired," you iliterate boob. READ THE DECISION: The SCOTUS simply agreed that corporations enjoyed the SAME protections of the law - which is logical as corporations are made by people. They didn't invent personhood.

    You're sure one stoopid, iliterate fool, triple asshole. You can't even understand the meaning of words or concepts.

  • o3||

    no stare decisis existed before the SCOTUS RR decision of 1866. i truely admire ur shameless ignorance.

  • ||

    funny how when folks decry the personhood of corporations, they never do likewise for unions. Why is that?

  • ||

    Unions are corporations too. I'm not going to defend uneducated people who think otherwise.

  • ||

    Sorry, Proprietist, I don't think corporate personhood or limited liability has anything much to do with "socialization of liability".

    Without legal personhood, an organization can't be sued (or enter into contracts, etc.). It effectively guts any kind of freedom of association in the business arena (a libertarian notion), and opens the door for all kinds of legal and liability shenanigans.

    Limited liability protects only the passive investor. I'm not sure what basis there is for holding somebody liable for wrongdoing that they did not participate in, in any meaningful way. This would not seem particularly consistent with notions of personal responsibility (another libertarian notion).

    And, of course, if you rewrite liability law to get at passive investors, you will either (a) have to include banks and other lenders or (b) passive investment will simply migrate from equity to debt. Trust me, any corporate lawyer worth his monocle can put together a debt instrument that acts an awful lot like an equity instrument.

  • MNG||

    "wrongdoing that they did not participate in, in any meaningful way"

    Funding the wrongdoing and choosing the directors who choose the people in immediate charge isn't meaningful participation?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    I suppose that makes you a war criminal.

  • ||

    Funding the wrongdoing and choosing the directors who choose the people in immediate charge isn't meaningful participation?

    So, MNG, if funding puts your neck on the line, you would support unlimited joint and several liability for any banks that loaned money to a business?

    What if I, as a shareholder, voted for different directors, or didn't vote at all? Would I still be at risk? I didn't choose the directors, after all, did I?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    R C Dean, come on, you are missing a golden opportunity to hold MNG personally responsible for Abu Ghraib, the Bush Administration as a whole, and the Republican House.

  • MNG||

    Loaning money is not the only thing they do, they also pick the directors.

    As to voting for other directors as you guys point out all the time you could take your money and go elsewhere with it and escape liability that way.

    But look, I'm not arguing against limited liability for corporations, I actually approve of it. I'm arguing that is not some natural right via the self-evident justice of the arrangement, instead it is actually a special privilige we give to the corporate form, a privilige we grant not out of fairness but out of utilitarian value.

    I then move on to saying we can place restrictions on corporations that we might not other forms or actual persons if that has utilitarian value.

  • ||

    Let's try an analogy, here.

    Me and my buddies are on a road trip, and have a kitty to pay for gas and what-not. So we're all "funding" the activity at issue.

    After we turn in for the night, one of us goes out drinking and gets in an accident in a car that we all jointly paid to gas up.

    Are we all guilty of drunk driving?

    What if we had decided to split up the driving, and had agreed (elected, if you will) that he was the driver for that day, which is why he had the keys?

    Does that make us all guilty of drunk driving?

    Why not? How is this different than holding stockholders personally responsible because they fund and elect those in charge?

  • MNG||

    But owning an enterprise is different than putting money up for a drive. Ownership has long been equated with responsibility. Think of a person who owns an animal, even if someone else lets it out the owner can be held liable for any damage it did (along with the negligent watcher).

    In a partnership or sole propietorship you are considered liable because you own it, even if you have a separate personal account. When it does well you can take the money you make and put it in your personal account, but if something goes wrong you have to pay for it out of that account as well. Corporations get different treatment.

  • ||

    MNG, what you are missing is that control has long been equated with responsibility.

    To the extent that ownership gives control, then you are personally responsible.

    Corporations and other limited liability organizations are constructed precisely to limit the control of investors.

    And, I'm not so sure that our road trip can be so easily distinguished, in principle, from a business venture. The road trip, after all, is a joint enterprise - we are all doing it together, jointly funding it, etc. Why shouldn't we all be jointly and severally liable, under these notions of "desocializing liability" for any and all wrongs that any of us commit?

  • ||

    Driving is a PERFECT example. We purchase liability insurance to cover potential damages in accidents. This punishes bad drivers and benefits good drivers. If you don't buy insurance, you are completely exposed to liability risk and lawsuit.

    The corporation essentially is like a law saying the only amount a driver should be liable only up to the value of their own car. It would be ridiculous, but that's what special designation for particular asset uses and artificial limits on the liability for use of those assets essentially does. If businesses all purchased liability insurance instead of incorporate, risk would be desocialized but liability would still be limited in a completely voluntary fashion.

  • ||

    So, Proprietist, you think that I should be held personally responsible for anything that a driver does after I contribute to put gas in their tank?

    I mean, we don't even get to insurance and all that until we establish who is legally responsible.

    If businesses all purchased liability insurance instead of incorporate, risk would be desocialized but liability would still be limited in a completely voluntary fashion.

    So now insurance is a way of desocializing risk? I thought it was a way to socialize risk.

    And how does having insurance limit liability? Insurance transfers some liability to the insurance company, but it doesn't limit liability at all. It gives the insured a claim against the insurance company, not a defense against the injured party.

  • ||

    "So, Proprietist, you think that I should be held personally responsible for anything that a driver does after I contribute to put gas in their tank?"

    No, I distinguish lenders or grant providers from owners. It's in the interest of all such lenders to clearly delineate that they are not owners and hold no claim to profits via contract so they could not be accountable in court for actions of the business they don't own.

    But if my uninsured 16 year old son drives my car into a herd of grandmas, I'm technically liable for their damages.

    "So now insurance is a way of desocializing risk? I thought it was a way to socialize risk."

    It's desocialized because I'm paying someone else for the service of covering my risk (or assuming it myself), instead of expecting victims/society to do so once my allocated business assets are gone. Teh externalities!!!1!11!

  • ||

    So, anyone who is judgment-proof is socializing risk? That's what you want to go with?

    No, I distinguish lenders or grant providers from owners.

    Why? They are providing funding, just like any other passive investor.

    What is the magic of having a claim on the residual assets of an enterprise (which is what "owners" have) that makes them, in your opinion, jointly and severally liable for every single thing that enterprise does?

    You're hanging an awful lot on what looks to me like a very arbitrary distinction.

  • ||

    A lender gives a loan and expects repayment plus interest on pre-negotiated conditions. The lender's returns have nothing to do with how much the people who took that loan profited from its investment. It's a debt. Of course, knowingly financing criminal activities and fraud might be grounds for conspiracy charges in certain cases.

    The owner holds claim to some percentage of the business's assets minus debts. They hire the agents whose job it is to maximize their business assets, which under the capitalist market can at just about any time be converted to personal assets and removed from corporate liability. Owners thus should bear responsibility for the agents they hire to maximize their wealth.

    The capitalist system gives the agents (and the owners) incentives to reduce safety standards and shift environmental and social costs elsewhere (cutting costs) due to limited liability. Proprietism conversely creates incentives for owners to increase safety standards and avoid externalities in order to maximize profits (by reducing liability insurance costs). Whether the business provides liability insurance or the owner/investor buys it themselves could be up to the business, but it essentially internalizes the brunt of excess damages the business levies on both contracted parties and third parties.

  • ||

    I can't sue partnerships and proprietorships?! They can't enter into contracts?! That's news to me...

  • MNG||

    Is that one for me? Cuz of course I agree that you can sue a partnership and it can sue you, my point is that when the latter happens you can hold them fully responsible in ways you cannot in a corporation.

  • ||

    No, MNG, that was for RC Dean.

  • ||

    Sure you can, and sure they can, because they are legal persons.

    So, it appears that you aren't opposed to legal personhood in principle.

    Good to know. You should probably strike that off your list.

  • Brandon||

    THURSDAY!!!!!

  • ||

    They are not considered legal persons - there is no legal distinction between the property of the business and the property of the owner. Thus, they aren't considered separate "persons".

  • ||

    They are not considered legal persons

    Stop it, Prop. You're embarrassing yourself.

    Partnerships are, indeed, legal persons because they can enter into contracts, sue and be sued, etc. That's what being a legal person is.

  • ||

    Looking up the definition of legal personality I admit I was wrong about this from a legal perspective.

    Of course, there is still a very distinct difference between a corporate personhood, where the assets of the owner and business are distinguished, and proprietor/partnership personhood, where the assets of the owner and business are not distinguished. When you sue a partnership, you're really suing the owners personally, and the "person" is a name for the organization of owners, not a separate legal allocation of assets.

  • Suki||

    They are all Marxist as in the Nazi interpretation of collectivism.

  • o3||

    so "they" are marxist because "they're" nazis?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "the Nazi interpretation of collectivism"

    Can you not read a sentence, stOOpid?

  • o3||

    oh i can read it all right. but it's so poorly written it lends itself to differing interpretations. ur not the author to whom my question was addressed.

  • Suki||

    He is right. You are too stupid to read a sentence.

  • o3||

    im too something to read ur sentence which is unclear

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's so simple, my cat's litter-box contents can understand it, stOOpid.

  • Brandon||

    Well, it's not a complete list, but these stand out:
    "RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. "

    "(If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's."

    These two, besides being ridiculous, assume that government can force private companies to broadcast government messages without compensation, and assume that "Having the place surrounded" represents "Negotiating," both of which are Marxist positions. The rest are just childishly naive (#5 is just the old "If only we had the right people in charge" fallacy, and #6 completely ignores the role of congress in giving lobbyists influence) or absurdly vague (MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE, which, according to this list, is whatever we can get out of them through threats and intimidation). The only one that makes sense is the "Revolving Door Legislation," which has been suggested ad nauseum by various libertarians.

    The kicker is the last "Note."

    "NOTE 4: There needs to be a very well researched and concise addendum that contains a list of the top 50 corporate crimes / harmful actions during the past 15 years. This ought to really blow people away and will help increase support both on the ground in DC and in living rooms across America as the story unfolds. We can't assume everyone knows why these demands are necessary. We must demonstrate."

    The dipshit who wrote this list bases his entire worldview on 3 "really good" documentaries, and can't bring himself to do any further research on the matter, but strongly believes SOMEONE should, while completely disregarding the role of the government in the crimes he accuses " (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions)" (His words, not mine. Seriously) of committing.

  • o3||

    how is that different than libtoids demanding gary johnson be included in the debates despite miniscule support?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's completely different, stOOpid.

    None of us are demanding networks give away airtime for debates, for instance, which has nothing to do with Gary Johnson being included/excluded.

    Are you really that simple-minded?

  • o3||

    regardless of what i am (& am not) ur not the writer to whom the question was addressed...again.

  • Brandon||

    We're not demanding the government force the networks or debate sponsors to include Gary Johnson, we just think it sucks that they seem to be coming up with ad hoc rules to specifically exclude him, strawman.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I forgot, I'm dealing with a stOOpid poster.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: TRIPLE Asshole,

    1.CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT.


    Violates freedom to contract, private property rights. Marxism.

    2.USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS[...]


    That's not the job of Congress, but it is not indeed a Marxist idea. It's more akin to evading responsibility.

    who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions).


    Kangaroo courts are not a Marxist invention, but they're certainly Stalinist in nature. So, close enough.

    3.CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION


    The legislation would still violate the 1st Amendment. So not Marxist, just really stoopid - just like you, triple asshole!

    4.CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE


    So the anti-corporatists want to have the idea emanating from the mind of a corporatist to tax corporations. Not Marxist, just fascistic.

    5.CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace


    Not strictly Marxist, just incredibly naive and ridiculous. These guys did a Tony here. And you suck, triple asshole!

    [...]so citizens and investors are both protected.


    Protected from what?

    This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.


    Fuck me - the guy who wrote this probably works at the SEC and wants a raise.

    6.CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.


    Not Marxist, just incredibly naive.

    7.CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED.


    That would violate the 13th Amendment which proscribed slavery. Sorry, dude.

    8.ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status".


    The film "The Corporation" was created by the economics unsophisticated. If you get your cues from movies, you're already in big trouble.

  • Corporations = socialized risk||

    Why are so many self-styled libertarians advocates for socialization of risk?

  • ||

    Damn, you're stealing my schtick...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Corporations = socialized risk,

    Why are so many self-styled libertarians advocates for socialization of risk?


    Why do you put your head so far up your own ass that you make these obviously loaded questions?

  • Brandon||

    THURSDAY!!!!

  • tarran||

    Because socialization of risk is beneficial for individuals?

    There's nothing wrong with agreeing to socialize risk voluntarily (for example entering into a life insurance contract).

    It's the coercive socialization we oppose, where someone is forced to join the pool against their will.

  • MNG||

    Wait a minute, limited liability is a voluntary thing? That seems pretty funny considering all the people who try to pierce the corporate veil in suits against corporations...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Wait a minute, limited liability is a voluntary thing?


    Totally - YOU decide if you want to do business with a limited liability company or not. You may not like the idea, but limited liability actually serves a purpose: It helps the creation of more efficient productive organizations, as investors only risk their investments. That does not mean the corporation or organization is safe from paying compensation in case they violate someone's property rights or a contractual agreement.

    Instead, can YOU decide NOT to do business with the government? Have you tried NOT paying your taxes?

  • Suki||

    OM, ChonyMNG is beyond hope and a waste of time.

  • MNG||

    "YOU decide if you want to do business with a limited liability company or not."

    When I do business with a partnership or sole owner I do business with the knowledge that if they wrong me I can sue them beyond partnership assets, if I do business with corporations that is not true. That is SOLELY due to the rules the government set up, I'm not asked to sign some waiver limiting liability of the entity I do business with.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    When I do business with a partnership or sole owner I do business with the knowledge that if they wrong me I can sue them beyond partnership assets, if I do business with corporations that is not true.


    SO DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS, ninny!

    That is SOLELY due to the rules the government set up[.]


    Sure, but that has NOTHING TO DO with "personhood." And, again: This "socialized risk" supposedly derived from 'limited liability' is a red herring - you can CHOOSE to do business with corporations, or you can choose NOT TO. This very choice dissipates and debunks this "socialized risk" concept. What socializes risk in a far more pervasive and destructive way is BAILOUTS and CHEAP CREDIT, not "limited liability."

  • MNG||

    OM, this is a crazy argument.

    Imagine the government said "all white people will be able to sue over debts in court, but blacks will not." The day after that law passed if I do business with a white person I have not "voluntarily" agreed to let him sue me.

    Likewise when I do business with a corporation I am not asked as a contractual term to limit any actions I take against the corporation, that is a privilige that is granted to the corporation by the government without me having had any say on those terms.

    Since all I'm arguing is that the government priviliges corporations in various ways in their doing business with others your idea goes nowhere. See?

  • ||

    Old Mexican,

    How do you answer for third parties involuntarily effected by business decisions? A corporation that burned my house down, poisons the river I drink out of and gives me cancer due to their awful practices violated my rights. Do you believe it is just that when the corporate assets run out, the involuntary victim should bear the rest of the cost instead of the owners?

    Once a serious lawsuit is filed against a company, stocks go into selloff mode - after which these assets can not be reclaimed by the victims no matter how much profits the owner made from the cost cutting irresponsible practices that destroyed my life.

  • robc||

    Governments socialize risk.

    As limited liability can be recreated via private means, incorporation (while unnecessary) doesnt socialize risk.

    You know what socializes risk at the level you are talking about re: corporations? Bankruptcy laws.

    So, if we really want to desocialize risk, we have to get rid of bankruptcy. There are two ways that could be done:

    1. Bring back debtors prisons

    2. Dont allow government (courts/etc) to enforce any debt.

    Lysander Spooner proposed #2. Loan someone money without collateral? They can choose not to pay and you are SOL. Of course, you (and anyone else who knows about it, and with modern credit agencies, that would be EVERYONE) wont loan to them again.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If, at any time, you guys feel like not feeding the moronic fucking troll shitting all over every thread, it would be appreciated.

  • robc||

    Put him in your incif file and not only wont you see him, you wont see any of the responses to him.

  • o3||

    in this case, that would be you half-baked.

  • tarran||

    While I agree that ignoring works with trolls like Edward/Max/Lefiti/ConcernedObserver.

    I disagree that it works with Rectal/WhiteIndian/Anonnopussy/et_al, she just dials up the posting rate until she gets a response.

    Thus, another remedy will be required with her. I suggest that we manufacture an Internet boyfriend and string her along for both our entertainment and peace of mind.

  • ||

    "As limited liability can be recreated via private means, incorporation (while unnecessary) doesnt socialize risk."

    Your example on the other forum was that a straw purchaser with inability to claim profits can start a business, and I can lend money to it and purchase options for redemption at a time of my choosing, after which I immediately shut down the business and start anew. Thus I can cash in without being the "owner".

    I argued that either the straw purchaser was legally the owner and bears full liability (which would disincentivize them from assuming this role without profit in the first place), or your business was unclaimed property that anyone could claim ownership of as long as they assume responsibility for your contracts. This person could immediately close the business down and liquidate your company assets without telling you (since you are not legally the owner, nor is anyone else), and then pay back your loans. You're within your rights to risk this, but you can't retroactively claim you were robbed if you didn't own anything. I'm afraid you can't naturally replicate limited liability without the State without purchasing liability insurance for owners.

    "So, if we really want to desocialize risk, we have to get rid of bankruptcy. There are two ways that could be done:

    1. Bring back debtors prisons
    2. Dont allow government (courts/etc) to enforce any debt."

    Even in a miniarchist libertarian society, government can enforce private contracts via tort and potentially jail if fraud or force were involved. Technically not repaying a debt is not significantly different from stealing, so debts should not be forgiven except by voluntary renegotiation - bankruptcy law creates a moral hazard. Debtor's prisons should only exist for individuals who make zero good faith efforts to repay their debts - most creditors would prefer their debtors free and paying what they can instead of in jail.

  • robc||

    This person could immediately close the business down and liquidate your company assets without telling you (since you are not legally the owner, nor is anyone else), and then pay back your loans.

    The terms of the loan prevent this.

  • ||

    If the terms of the loan for all business assets prevent anyone but option holder robc from claiming ownership, then a court should find robc the owner who bears liability.

  • robc||

    Claim ownership?

    No, just prepayment penalties on the loan.

  • ||

    If the "prepayment penalties" = "all profits" why couldn't a court find that you creatively contracted with yourself to bar external ownership from property you don't claim to own?

    Even ignoring this, another catch: a competitor can claim ownership, close down your business and pay you back for all your assets and profits in full and force you to start over at your expense.

    So you hold an option to a store you loaned money to with a prepayment agreement equal to all profits. I like the location and design of your store, so on opening day I claim ownership of the store, close the business down, give you all your money and profits, rehire your workers and from that day forward reopen as a new business you have no rights to (invalidating your options), for which I do claim ownership and buy liability insurance. You get your assets back, but I took your market/location and potential future profits off your work without your permission. Entrepreneurs naturally have a reason to claim ownership.

  • robc||

    a competitor can claim ownership

    WTF? No they cant. The company files suit in the names of its owner (straw-guy) and its debtors.

  • ||

    If straw guy is the owner, he bears full liability. My example was in a case where there is "no owner" but you have contracted with this unowned entity (signed by yourself as both parties?) to receive full assets and profits if the loan is cashed early.

  • Fluffy||

    I argued that either the straw purchaser was legally the owner and bears full liability (which would disincentivize them from assuming this role without profit in the first place)

    But people would still assume that role, happily, and did so historically.

    If it paid a nice salary, many, many, MANY people would happily assume the role of stooge even in the face of this disincentive.

    Remember, the goal of the exercise is to provide limited liability for me, the guy with the money. The fact that some stooge might face liability and that I might have to pay him a nice gratuity to get him to take the risk is not relevant to the question of whether or not it's possible to set up limited liability for me.

    This person could immediately close the business down and liquidate your company assets without telling you (since you are not legally the owner, nor is anyone else), and then pay back your loans. You're within your rights to risk this, but you can't retroactively claim you were robbed if you didn't own anything.

    Possibly. Although I specified that the loan contract would prohibit prepayment.

    But let's say that I'm not successful in preventing prepayment, and the straw buyer does this. That makes my maximum downside getting back my investment. It also leaves all of my other assets protected - the straw buyer can't touch anything of mine. So while I run the oppportunity cost risk of this guy prematurely dissolving the company, I still have avoided assuming unlimited liability for the company's operations in a way that potentially threatens my other assets. Which is the point of the exercise.

  • robc||

    With early prepayment penalties in the loan contract, even if the guy shuts down the investment early, you are gonna get all the assets (assuming the penalties are large enough), not just the initial investment back.

    If it paid a nice salary, many, many, MANY people would happily assume the role of stooge even in the face of this disincentive.

    Absolutely. If bankruptcy still exists, find an 18 year old without any assets and pay for their college. Every 4 years, rotate to a new straw owner.

    If bankruptcy didnt exist and any debts lingered on, then find an elderly pauper instead and pay them enough to have a nice rental nursing home to while away the last years of their life. Even with a judgement, there isnt going to be any future income for anyone to collect against.

  • ||

    "But people would still assume that role, happily, and did so historically. If it paid a nice salary, many, many, MANY people would happily assume the role of stooge even in the face of this disincentive."

    You're right, in the regard that the "ownership" could be allocated to an assetless guy with Down Syndrome and his ability to claim profits can be internally limited. Later you can have him sign over ownership when you wish to cash in. However, the conditions of the arrangement might still lead a rational jury in a lawsuit to find that the manipulative contractual structure you designed to obscure ownership does not mean you were not the technical owner. I'd be willing to say the government's invalidation of your ownership obscurity contract is a far lesser evil than forcing victims to pay for "your" company's actions.

    Think of it in terms of another voluntary association: the mafia. Let's say I'm the retired godfather still pulling all the strings, but I name my son the nominal "head" of the mafia. If the mafia is busted for illegal activities, can I feign non-involvement and avoid liability?

  • Fluffy||

    I'd be willing to say the government's invalidation of your ownership obscurity contract is a far lesser evil than forcing victims to pay for "your" company's actions.

    Then get ready to engage in an endless scavenger hunt for "real" owners, because the example I used for our argument was purposefully simple and transparent, so we could discuss it - and it was also my first pass, given thirty seconds or so of thought.

    And even with this very simple example, you're already saying "Well, if people try to get around me on this I'll just fundamentally change the concept of legal ownership in response." What kind of crazy shit are you going to have to do to fight people who decide to get even more complicated and obscure than I have been here?

  • Fluffy||

    Also, I'd like to talk for a moment about the concept of the "victim".

    Particularly with regard to the notion of counterparty risk.

    One thing that I was pissed off about during the AIG bailout was the way in which the bailout unfairly prevented companies that had not properly assessed counterparty risk (like Goldman, for example) from suffering the losses they deserved to suffer as a result.

    I think we have to acknowledge that we as economic actors are undertaking various types of counterparty risk ALL THE TIME and that it's not always appropriate to say, "Hey, if the amount I can recover in damages is limited, I'm a victim!"

    If I go to McDonald's and buy a hamburger, I can be pretty sure that if I get sick McDonald's will have assets I can sue for.

    If I buy a hamburger from some guy cooking them in an alley over a fire set in a garbage can, that is probably not true.

    So if I choose to buy my hamburger from the guy in the alley instead of from McDonald's, am I truly being "victimized" if I can't recover the full costs of my illness from Homeless Bum #5? Or am I just bearing the appropriate costs for my bad decision in assessing counterparty risk?

    Regardless of the corporate form of the business I do business with, essentially I should know that the most I can ever recover is the capital of the business. I am taking much more of a risk going to a local restaurant than going to McDonald's, even if the local restaurant is sole proprietorship with unlimited liability - because the local restaurant probably doesn't have all that much capital for me to recover, and McDonald's does.

    The real "socialization of losses" comes from undercapitalized businesses and not from limited liability. So if your goal is to prevent situations where there are losses that plaintiffs can't recover, why aren't you out there demanding that individuals who aren't already very wealthy be banned from engaging in business? That immigrant Korean family that opens a dry cleaners might poison the neighborhood with dry cleaning chemicals and then declare bankruptcy! Wah socialization of losses!

    Hell, you should be demanding that all economic activity not undertaken by billion-dollar corporations immediately be banned, before some vendor or customer somewhere loses out in a small businessman's personal bankruptcy declaration.

  • ||

    "And even with this very simple example, you're already saying "Well, if people try to get around me on this I'll just fundamentally change the concept of legal ownership in response." What kind of crazy shit are you going to have to do to fight people who decide to get even more complicated and obscure than I have been here?"

    Here's my question: is obscuring ownership really much different from purchasing liability insurance? The straw owners taking salaries are essentially insurers illogically assuming full business liability without being paid market rates for that insurance. Why would I become a straw owner when I can be an insurer who is paid more? Yes, they can certainly get even more creative with ownership manipulation, but the market for liability protection will decrease the number of people willing to participate in complex ownership obscurity schemes with risk disproportional to profits.

    Assuming that millions of businesses currently incorporated would convince elderly assetless paupers without brains to assume full risk for an undervalued salary instead of purchasing liability insurance at market cost, it sounds like that would still be a good thing for people with nothing to lose, and would still be ever so slightly better for the victims of those businesses (who could reclaim assets gained from the salary and any future assets) than the current system where they bear full costs beyond the value of the allocated business assets.

  • ||

    "So if I choose to buy my hamburger from the guy in the alley instead of from McDonald's, am I truly being "victimized" if I can't recover the full costs of my illness from Homeless Bum #5? Or am I just bearing the appropriate costs for my bad decision in assessing counterparty risk?"

    There's always a place for caveat emptor. If the homeless guy told you you wouldn't get sick from his burgers and made no good faith efforts to provide sanitary conditions to minimize this risk, he essentially committed fraud. If he makes no such promises, it's on you.

    However, using examples of assetless business owners in circumstances where the businesses violated rights and thus victims may not be able to reclaim any significant damages does not counter the argument that such a system is still more just for the victims than the current one. Considering most owners will have some assets and will buy liability insurance to protect these assets.

    Note when I say "victim," primarily I am referring to a third party not engaged in any implicit or explicit contract with the business. A customer or employee can be a victim too, of course, and libertarians rightly agree that arbitration would be an aspect of voluntary arrangements.

  • ||

    "So if your goal is to prevent situations where there are losses that plaintiffs can't recover, why aren't you out there demanding that individuals who aren't already very wealthy be banned from engaging in business? That immigrant Korean family that opens a dry cleaners might poison the neighborhood with dry cleaning chemicals and then declare bankruptcy! Wah socialization of losses!

    Hell, you should be demanding that all economic activity not undertaken by billion-dollar corporations immediately be banned, before some vendor or customer somewhere loses out in a small businessman's personal bankruptcy declaration."

    a.) Why couldn't low capital business owners purchase insurance? In most of these cases, the liability risk is so small, insurance will be perfectly affordable. Poor people also have more incentive not to get their rates boosted due to some stupid activity like "poisoning the neighborhood".

    2.) If only billionaires can afford the high cost of liability insurance for, say, nuclear power, maybe they're the only ones who should do it in the first place. The insurance costs would push them to maximize safety and shift the price of commodities upon the full cost instead of the socialized cost. Most businesses are no where near that risky. Rates will be equivalent to scale, danger, past performance, etc. Thus essentially insurance companies would replace the regulatory state and inherently incentivize low-impact, safer industries.

  • robc||

    However, the conditions of the arrangement might still lead a rational jury in a lawsuit to find that the manipulative contractual structure you designed to obscure ownership does not mean you were not the technical owner.

    A. "rational jury" is an oxymoron.

    2. In the case of a situation where the jury goes to that much trouble, they would pierce the veil under the current structure. Once again, no fucking difference.

    The basic concept of limited liability incorporation is really just an acknowledgement of current practices and common law.

    It isnt necessary, but IT is not causing any harm.

  • ||

    The difference is that the veil never existed to begin with. This will minimize harm in and of itself. So will disincentivizing corporate coverups and incentivizing internal location of responsibility - give the owners reason to locate and prosecute/sue the real bad actors, if they exist.

    We don't have to necessarily agree on the concepts. I don't claim to be a capitalist because capitalism is too connected to the moral hazard of limited liability, but proprietism is just a different interpretation of laissez-faire that seeks to legally prioritize the rights of victims (especially involuntary third-parties) above the business owners and their agents that caused the victimization. It's admittedly a legal fiction too, but I think it's more just.

  • ||

    2.USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS
    ------------------------
    this may be my favorite one; you can almost hear the Queen from Alice saying this - punishment first, trial later. When you go into a procedure labeling the presumed defendant as "criminals", sounds a bit like a show trial. And what group was famous for those.....

  • Paul||

    please explain which items on this list are "marxist"

    o Nationalization of Student Debt.
    o Maximum Wage.
    o Nationalization of the nation's "financial system"-- whatever that even means vis a vis support of bailouts, but not supporting the bailout-ees.

    Should we go on?

    The problem with the majority of street-interviews I've listened to on both Amy Goodman's show and/or NPR is that the general group of OWS protesters want Team Blue to get a whole lot bluer.

    My warning for the tea-party/libertarian/OWS protesters is this: When marching in the street to depose a tyrant, the person next to you may be protesting because the tyrant didn't go far enough.

    And that's the feeling I get from OWS, government isn't big enough, doesn't go far enough, isn't nationalizing enough, isn't bailing out enough or is bailing out the "wrong" people-- not that bailouts as a concept are wrong, that the social welfare net isn't big and expansive enough, more free healthcare, more free schools, more free access to everything-- and in every sense, the word 'free' means "government-provided".

  • MNG||

    "I wish this would happen because it would finally give the Tea Party the street creed so that Reason wouldn't feel embarassed in front of their lefty friends defending them."

    And, just as I mentioned the other day, John paints the Reason staff as carrying water for the left. Remember that the next time John claims he is not a partisan kulturewarrior or anything.

  • ||

    I don't paint them, they paint themselves. It is not a partisan thing it is a cultural thing for them. Culturally they just desperately want to be lefties but intellectually they can't do it.

  • Funny||

    One original comment at the top and 60 responses in the thread, all competing to be seen. Priceless!

  • Paul||

    Either that or they were thread responses within the context of the original comment.

  • Funny||

    60 160 responses to the original comment. Threaded comments turn forums into chat rooms. Chat away, girls.

  • Paul||

    Ok... are you mad because you got left out? What's your point?

  • Hedy Lamarr||

    scamsters and authoritarians

    That's Hedley!

  • ||

    It has a lot of anti-authoritarian impulses.

    At best, they seem to be very selective, and aimed mainly at a misperception that business, rather than whatever State organs business has coopted, are the "authorities" who need to be "anti-ed".

  • Government is MEDICINE||

    At best, libertarians seem to be very selective, and aimed mainly at a misperception that government, rather than government created corporations, are the authorities who need to be "anti-ed".

  • ||

    Ripper:
    Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?
    Mandrake:
    Well, no I... I can't say I have, Jack.
    Ripper:
    Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
    Mandrake:
    Well I... I believe that's what they drink, Jack. Yes.
    Ripper: On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
    Mandrake:Oh, ah, yes. I don't quite.. see what you're getting at, Jack.
    Ripper:Water. That's what I'm getting at. Water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, you realize that.. seventy percent of you is water.
    Mandrake: Uhhh God...
    Ripper:And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
    Mandrake: Yes. chuckles nervously
    Ripper: You beginning to understand?
    Mandrake: Yes. chuckles. begins laughing/crying quietly
    Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure grain alcohol?
    Mandrake: Well it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
    Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation? Fluoridation of water?
    Mandrake: Ah, yes, I have heard of that, Jack. Yes.
    Ripper: Well do you now what it is?
    Mandrake: No. No, I don't know what it is. No.
    Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

  • Gray Ghost||

    I appreciate the sentiment, John, but could you find a shorter quote from Dr. Strangelove?

    Or post recipes.

  • ||

    This is idiotic. Governments don't create corporations. They recognize certain legal rights held by corporations and other business forms. As they do with other forms of human organization.

    The fact that corporations receive charters from states makes them no more government-created than we are when the state of our birth issues a birth certificate.

    Let me give our leftist friends some advice. You can remain on the left, but you'd be a lot wiser to think for yourself, rather than to try to spread extremely weak memes.

  • Suki||

    Next you will say that government did not create marriage, driving, plumbing, painting, construction . . .

  • ||

    And businesses don't slaughter people by the tens of thousands or even millions. Or imprison people. Or tax them. Or force them to live a certain way.

  • businesses don't slaughter ||

    Government is merely the delegated genocide and killing contractor for business.

    “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

    ― Smedley D. Butler

  • Suki||

    Smedley, are you wearing one of these as you type?

  • Suki goes to Parris Island||

    Suki, print that up, and then go down to Parris Island and ask that.

    Let me know how it works out for you.

  • Suki||

    SgtPI,

    Are you implying that Parris Island shares your love for Che and will be upset over the apt comparison to Hitler, or are you saying that they disagree with you?

  • jtuf||

    How does one "rape" a republic? If a rapist impregnates a republic with rape, can the republic have an abortion, or must it give birth to the new island nation? Does it then raise the new island nation, or put it up for adoption?

  • Suki||

    Ah, tossing out the "wage slave" bait already? I await the clueless responses to this.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's a trap, Suki! That's White Indian in the Dark Helmet disguise!

  • corporations= govt derivative||

    There were no corporations before government.

    There were marriages before government.

    It's that simple.

  • ||

    Yeah, libertarians get the concept that government should not be involved in marriage contracts, so why should it be involved in business liability contracts? Internal assignment of liability via contract has nothing to do with the amount of damages a victim should be able to claim from owners for violations of their rights.

    Partnerships and proprietorships are like church marriages and private contracts. Corporations are like state marriage licenses.

  • ||

    It's all a matter of where you draw the line. I'm a minarchist, and I think limited liability is valuable if not taken to an extreme. It's a bigger deal these days, too, since litigation is now a bigger business than most other things.

  • robc||

    To me limited liability is like copyright and patents.

    I oppose them all, but not enough to fight to get rid of. They arent the problem, the abuse of them by GOVERNMENT is the problem.

  • Paul||

    Yeah, libertarians get the concept that government should not be involved in marriage contracts

    No, government shouldn't have sole agency in creating the contract. People should be able to create their own contracts. Now, if a marrigage goes into dissolution then the government might proceed over the contract dispute, just as it acts as an arbitrator in other private contract disputes. The difference is subtle, but major.

  • jtuf||

    Define "corporation" and "marriage".

    Sure, our ancestors had long term reproductive relationships millions of years before they had governments, but they also had long term associations of individuals working towards platonic goals at that time. Even geese will flock so they can exploit natural resources as a collective. Have you ever seen a flock of geese in a park? Just look at the way they greedily take the grass from mother earth giving nothing but biohazard in return!

  • Anarchist||

    We're back on the left? Yay!

  • Paul||

    All good anarchists are on the left. Good anarchists want to tear down the establishment to make way for a new, better one, with the right people in charge. See: Tyrants, not going far enough etc. You libertarian anarchists just want Somalia.

    Roadz!!11!1one!

  • Corporations = Govt Derivative||

    Corporations are a fictional derivative created by the government.

    No government, no corporations, that simple.

  • Suki||

    You mean the only way for people to combine their talents and property to fill demands of consumers is for the government to give them a corporation license to do so?

  • Suki Slayer||

    I'm saying the only way for corporations to exist is for there to be government.

    Know of any corporations that have existed without a government?

  • robc||

    Sure, I just formed one, right now.

    Im not registering it with any government, so I now own a corporation without a government.

  • Paul||

    I'm saying the only way for corporations to exist is for there to be government.

    Know of any corporations that have existed without a government?

    Thousands. Or wait... do you mean is there an organization that formed that desired recognition from a government that did it without government? Of course not. You're defining corporation as a government-licensed entity. You're arguing a tautology. Government licensed things require government licensing!

    Well, yeah. Of course they do. Just like I had to register my car with the government to drive it on the road. The question is, is it necessary to, as Suki wrote: "for people to combine their talents and property to fill demands of consumers"

    I would argue not.

  • ||

    Combining talents to fill consumer demand does not demand a state-provided corporate entity. Form a partnership, buy liability insurance. Why are so many libertarians advocates for socialization of risk?

  • Government for me, not thee||

    Libertarianism is basically government for me, not for thee.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You left out "...and, they're all racist". Might as well get it out of your system.

  • Paul||

    Libertarianism is basically government for me, not for thee.

    No, that's conservatism. Libertarianism is less government for me and thee. Liberalism is government for thee, but not for me.

  • robc||

    So the thread the other day where me and Fluffy proved you wrong.

    Insert that thread here.

  • robc||

    That last comment was directed at Proprietrist.

  • ||

    Um, I answered you and you never responded. I think I proved Fluffy and you wrong.

  • robc||

    Ummm...you sure about that? I think i answered you like 6 hours later, but I didnt check after that.

    Unless you are bringing back debtors prisons, we fully answered you.

  • ||

    I answered with further examples and response to the bankruptcy/debtor prisons question. See below @ 11:47AM. Might as well pick it up from here.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Hey, can I get a link to that?

    Of course, limited liability can be enforced entirely through contract, so I fail to see how LLCs as a government-approved entity is harmful.

  • ||

    "limited liability can be enforced entirely through contract"

    How can it be enforced entirely through contract for individuals who are not parties to their contract but whose rights are violated? Am I in a voluntary contract with the chemical plant that burned my house down due to negligent safety standards? Should the owners pay for my damages, or should I?

  • ||

    Well - it can be enforced via liability insurance. But that's the ONLY way, and that's the way I advocate, because that internalizes the cost of liability instead of socializing it.

  • robc||

    But that's the ONLY way

    It isnt the only way, as we have shown you many times.

    You refuse to accept the other ways, but they exist.

  • ||

    Every example you've given can be debunked. Unless businesses operate as unclaimed property, there will be an owner.

  • robc||

    No debunked. The straw owner IS the owner.

    And, as a separate issue, why your opposition to operating without an owner? Happens all the time now, I dont think any chitable org has an "owner" and plenty of them own property.

    Or in your corporateless world are charities not going to be allowed to exist?

  • robc||

    chitable = charitable

    apparently.

  • ||

    Then the straw owner is assuming full liability at below the market's rate for liability insurance. His own stupidity.

    I have no opposition to voluntary associations operating without an owner. Businesses can, at the risk that their unclaimed assets are claimed by someone else.

    Of course charities would exist in a proprietist society, and given the scope of most charities, insurance rates would be incredibly low and likely discounted. Charities generally don't make profits, thus have no real incentive for ownership. Thus only the actors internally are liable for their actions in the name of that organization. That's still better than a system that limits victim claims to designated "corporate" property because there is no veil of security for bad actors. All your arguments can't dispute the fact that the idea that someone should claim full responsibility for organizational actions is better than a system where the victim pays starting after artificially limited resources are exhausted.

  • robc||

    there will be an owner.

    And that owner will be judgement proof.

  • Paul||

    Why are so many libertarians advocates for socialization of risk?

    We're not, we're in favor of pooling risk. We already have socialization of risk: Bailouts.

  • ||

    Pooling risk via insurance is starkly different than forcing involuntary third parties/taxpayers to assume your risk in excess of corporate assets.

  • Paul||

    Pooling risk via insurance is starkly different than forcing involuntary third parties/taxpayers to assume your risk in excess of corporate assets.

    Exactly. So we're in agreemernt, libertarians are not advocates for socialization of risk. So why did you ask why we were? Or perhaps your question was nuanced?

  • ||

    Yes, it was nuanced - the corporation is a state-created socialization of risk because once the corporate person's assets run out, victims, creditors and taxpayers pay for damages and debts. Victims and taxpayers were likely involuntary parties to this socialization.

    Liability insurance is still a privatization of risk, even if this is implemented in a privately socialized fashion (pooling of risk). Liability is a marketable asset, and assignment of responsibility can be done within the market while reducing risk to involuntary third parties.

  • Paul||

    Yes, it was nuanced - the corporation is a state-created socialization of risk because once the corporate person's assets run out, victims, creditors and taxpayers pay for damages and debts

    I'm not an expert on the legal structure of a corporation, but I don't know of any explicit construct that says that taxpayers are to be responsible for its damages or debts. That would be socialization of risk.

    If that were already explicitly part of a corporate structure, then no one would have a leg to stand on in regards to bailouts.

  • ||

    "but I don't know of any explicit construct that says that taxpayers are to be responsible for its damages or debts."

    Taxpayer socialization of liability occurs in the current system because when victims can no longer pay for the burden of the excess damages caused to them, the welfare state often steps in to help them out.

    This whole conversation is about priorities: corporate capitalism limits liability payments to 1.) business assets, which owners can cash out before they lose all value and will no longer be available for settlement, 2.) occasionally a responsible party for whom the "veil" is pierced for direct criminal acts. Once resources 1 and 2 are exhausted, the victim or society are stuck with the remainder.

    In proprietism, uninsured liabilities come from 1.) business assets, 2.) all directly responsible parties, 3.) the business owners' insurance or uninsured personal wealth and then as a last resort, the victims and society. You obviously can never have unlimited liability only because assets of responsible parties are limited, but you can add the additional buffer of the owners who hired and claimed any profits from the actions of the irresponsible or violatory agents before the burden falls upon the victims.

    Also note by "victims", I mean people who have been truly defrauded or whose individual rights have actually been violated, not people who choked on a chicken bone and died, or slipped on wet pavement and cracked their skull open, or poured hot coffee on their genitals. Tort reform and clear definitions of rights would be required so the courts are not overburdened with frivolous lawsuits. Also, private arbitration can be preset in contractual relationships to avoid excessive liability for either party.

  • Mars Attacks||

    No earth, no morons. Simple!

  • MNG||

    "Governments don't create corporations."

    They just grant them legal personhood (I mean, all agreements can sue people in court), limited liability, perpetual existence, etc.

  • ||

    What does that even mean? They treat groups of people as people in certain respects, not in others. Just like with other organizations or groupings. You could say the exact same thing about many individual rights.

    Again, a silly meme.

  • MNG||

    I don't think its a silly meme, consider the legal status of sole proprietorships and partnerships vs. corporations. It's a legal fiction at best to say that the differences are due to the voluntary agreement of all those who deal with those three types, the government sets the rules for dealing with them (and how they can deal with you).

  • db||

    Developing and enforcing a legal regime and rules by which corporations are recognized is not the same thing as forming a group of individuals who all agree to pursue some stated goal (profit) for the benefit of all shareholders. Sure, the government created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or any number of other specific instances, but it doesn't create all such instances. It creates a legal class, and teams of individuals create the vast bulk of the instances of the corporate class. This should jot be hard to understand.

  • ||

    "Legal fiction" is applicable to just about any law. We agree to treat certain things a certain way, at least in theory. As a utilitarian, I'm surprised that you'd have serious objections to limited liability, which has proved very beneficial to market growth. In fact, it's hard to see how many industries would even function without it. Who is going to risk their money if they can be held personally liable for a business they have no hand in running?

    If anything, shareholders are too weak in relation to the companies they own.

  • MNG||

    "As a utilitarian, I'm surprised that you'd have serious objections to limited liability, which has proved very beneficial to market growth."

    Dude, see my post @ 11:30. I support corporations for those exact reasons.

    I point to limited liability as an example of the priviliges that have been granted corporations because we find them useful for society. The flip side of that is we should be happy to restrict corporations when we find those restrictions useful to society. The point is that corporations are not persons with natural rights to things like limited liability. They are granted those powers, and with great power comes...you know.

  • ||

    See, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to foster market growth (only to enforce individual rights and contracts, regardless of effect on markets.)

    Especially not by essentially placing excess risk on involuntary third parties.

  • Suki||

    It means that MNG had been drinking the Noam Chomsky Kool-Aid for a long time.

  • MNG||

    John T, rejuvenated by the drums of war against Iran and his recent stint "away" returns as Suki.

    Yawwwn.

  • ||

    Fuck every single one of these useless fucks.

  • Haunted Taint||

    Hey, don't look a clothes horse in the mouth.

  • Government is MEDICINE||

    Liberate every single one of these useless libertarians.

  • Summer Kamp||

    Don't you mean "educate"?

  • ||

    No, MASTICATE!

  • Mike M.||

    Second: In the wake of the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally and the Stewart/Colbert snarkapalooza, why are people still staggered by the idea of a demonstration without demands?

    But the OWSers do have demands. Granted, it may be a somewhat disparate set of demands, but the primary demand they pretty much all seem to have in common is that "the rich" should pay more in taxes.

    This in spite of the fact that their newfound hero Warren Buffett already owes the government a billion dollars in back taxes.

  • Jesse Walker||

    But the OWSers do have demands.

    Various OWSers have suggested demands, some of them infamously silly. And various groups with demands have joined the demonstrations. But the movement itself has deliberately refrained from adopting any policy demands thus far.

  • ||

    So they are just protesting to pass time, or is there meaning to the unemployable liberal-artsy type kids of well-off parents, camping out and pretending they have a clue?

  • ||

    yes, there is meaning and that meaning is the utter failure of the public and higher education systems to adequately teach young skulls about civics, economics, and much more. The past generation saw a switch in schools from emphasis on achievement to emphasis on self-esteem. Everyone got a trophy, some schools did away with honor rolls and valedictorians, obvious truths were ignored, and this band of yoots is the result. Consider it like a system - the input from the educrats has led to this output.

  • MJ||

    "...if protesters can find common ground in the territory where opposition to expanding government meets opposition to Wall Street misbehavior,..."

    I have not seen much evidence that the driving thinking behind OWS is opposed to expanding government per se, just who they perceive the beneficieries of expanded government are. While they may perceive similar things as problems with the Tea Party, their proposed solutions are irreconcilable.

    Again hope springs eternal in the Reason writer's breast that the Left can be directed into anti-authoritarian policies. I suspect another round of bitter disappointment is store for Mr. Walker.

  • ||

    "...if protesters can find common ground in the territory where opposition to expanding government meets opposition to Wall Street misbehavior,..."

    Shouldn't Jessie attribute this quote to Ahmadinejad? I knew the folks at Reason were...slow...but, plagiarists?

  • ||

    Sorry, there can be no statist-anti-statist alliance. It's folly to even try.

  • Libertarian Statist||

    We need government to protect private property. ~Libertarian Statist

  • ||

    LS,
    how about we try your way, then, and protect it ourselves. Let's start with the privately-owned park this bunch has co-opted. Say I own and have decided I want them off of it. Who will volunteer to be the first person I shoot in order to get across the seriousness of my desire to have them leave my property?

    Since they were not invited to this patch of private land, they are essentially trespassing. Just like if they were camped out in your living room uninvited. You want them to go, but the state is not an option for accomplishing that. Your next step is?

  • Logical Progression||

    more decentralized, even more deprofessionalized...

    ...and even less coherent!

    What do we want?
    What do we want?

    You're supposed to say, "Jobs and perpetual unemployment compensation!"
    You're supposed to say jobs and perpetual unemployment compensation!

    Stop repeating me!
    Stop repeating me!

  • ||

    I've walked through a couple of Tea Parties. Every speaker I heard spoke of limiting government.

    On the outskirts of the last one was a pack of young hipsters having a little counter-protest. I don't remember the specifics of their signs - something about free stuff for goth kids. Lots of people walking by and laughing at them.

    I can't think of a single issue the two groups would agree on - including personal hygiene.

  • ||

    The only thing worse than hippies is hippie-wannabes.

    Were the protests during the 60s this boring? The protesters then, at least, did protest some things that needed protesting. Today, it seems that instead of attacking the source of most of our ills--the unshackled state--they want to bitch about some people having stuff that they don't have and why can't someone force those people to give it to them?

  • Libertarian Dog Catcher||

    The only thing worse than government officials is Libertarian-wannabes.

    How many ya got anyway? 2 dog catchers?

    LOL

  • Old Hippie||

    Were the protests during the 60s this boring?

    The slogans and costumes and technology have changed, but the anti-reason remains the same.

  • Libertarianism is anti-reason||

    With all the contradictions it holds, libertarianism is anti-reason.

  • Oh God I'm so drunk now||

    Please, for my liver's sake, fuck off, slaver.

  • Mike M.||

    This. The two groups are almost the opposite! The TEA in TEA Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already"; it consists primarily of taxpayers who don't want to pay for Obama's attempt at permanently expanding the discretionary government by 50%. TEA Partiers gather for a few hours once in a while, and then they go back to their jobs and businesses.

    The OWS folks on the other hand appear to be mostly tax recipients, the unemployed, and the lazy. They want the taxpayers to pay out the wazoo for ever bigger government than Obama has engineered, and they mostly don't have jobs or businesses to go back to.

  • MNG||

    "The OWS folks on the other hand appear to be mostly tax recipients, the unemployed, and the lazy."

    Where do you get this?

  • ||

    If they had jobs, would they be there?

  • MNG||

    Er, people said the same thing about Tea Partiers rallying.

  • Britt||

    If they did they were fucking retarded. Tea Party events are usually held on the weekend for a reason.

    Honestly, looking at the pictures I'm thinking the majority of the people at this OWS thing are college students who either have rich parents or who have borrowed a staggering amount of money for a worthless degree and now have a dim awareness of how fucked they are.

  • Mike M.||

    I get this from the fact that most of them are camping out in Zuccotti Park virtually all day and night during the week when people who have jobs and businesses are busy working.

  • ||

    ...and when did any Tea Party "protest" forcibly take over someone's private property and turning it into a piss and shit dump?

  • ||

    mostly from observation. TP rallies never lasted weeks at a time. Could be that the participants had jobs and responsibilities to return to. The employed cannot take off weeks, or even days, at a time for the sake of hearing themselves chant.

  • MNG||

    "The OWS folks on the other hand appear to be mostly tax recipients, the unemployed, and the lazy."

    Where do you get this?

  • Mike M.||

    I still get this from the fact that most of them are camping out in Zuccotti Park virtually all day and night during the week when people who have jobs and businesses are busy working.

  • Ice Nine||

    And it includes a lot of people who are not pure libertarians but are motivated by a libertarian take on one or more pressing issues.

    Heretics!

  • ¢||

    At a time when MoveOn and other usual suspects are trying to transform the movement into a rally cum fundraiser for the Democratic Party, you can be one of the countervailing forces.

    By joining a rally cum fundraiser for the Democratic Party. Cunning!

    But yeah, do that, you. Maybe you'll get lucky and they'll pick you as the token non-fascist to hoist aloft whenever dissimulation requires, to show how decentralized and deprofessionalized and totally RON PAUL! and not fascist the whole deal is. Because "End the Fed" guy is worn out from all that handling.

    Don't you want to be famous on the internet?

    For a couple days?

    As needed?

    Until you don't work anymore?

    Then TEAM BLUE! wants you!

    Or whoever. Some chump.

  • Call and respond||

    What do we want?
    To be able to argue with strangers on Hit & Run instead of working!

    When do we want it?
    Between nine and five!

  • MNG||

    I guess I can see some benefit to non-distruptive rallies for a political movement, but I think disruptive rallies nearly always generate as much antipathy for a cause as it does sympathy. They strike me as stupid.

  • ||

    I think it depends on the circumstances. If we were in the middle of runaway inflation or actually collapsing, I think that sort of protest--really, a quasi-revolt--will be respected. When things are not good but also aren't immediately catastrophic (or not perceived that way, anyway), then people watching from the outside wonder what's wrong with the protesters.

    It's also different when the protesters are focusing on a largely acknowledged wrong. Like race protests in the 60s. Those resonated at some level with a big chunk of the population. Even in the South.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I agree with that. But even peaceful demonstrations get the shaft from the media. Robert Higgs recalls a peaceful protest in which he participated, and how it ended up being portrayed in the media:

    I recall one protest in particular, where our group included tens of thousands of marchers passing through the streets of downtown Seattle. The police, as usual, were out in force, lining the streets and salivating for a chance to crack some heads. Present also were the undercover agents with their cameras; for some reason, the authorities always wanted lots of photos of us dangerous protesters—college students, hippies, grandmothers, little kids in their mother’s arms, and so forth, all obviously dangerous subversives. At this particular protest, the organizers took great pains to instruct everybody about scrupulously avoiding any kind of violence, because we all knew that the media would use it to discredit everything about the event. So we maintained absolute order, or so I thought as I made my way through the streets somewhere in the middle of the long parade. No violence whatsoever did I see. Hooray! The next morning, however, the banner headline in the Seattle Times read, “Violence Mars Antiwar Demonstration.” Someone, it seems, had broken ranks and smashed a shop window, an occurrence so inconsequential that even I, positioned right in the middle of the affair, had not noticed it. This incident illustrates well what passes for journalistic impartiality and balance in this country. Rest assured that if you are bucking the system, the system’s guardians in the news media will smack you down by stigmatizing you as some sort of dangerous hooligan or totally out-of-touch wing-nut. They’ll also minimize your group’s numbers, again seeking to marginalize and trivialize your efforts.


    What's The Point Of Demonstrations?

  • MNG||

    The key to me is mobilizing action, usually voting or something. Maybe a rally helps that, but disruptive ones cause as much countermobilization imo.

  • ||

    Just like anything else, a clearly articulated reason for the protest is a key starting point. Americans are a practical people, singularly unimpressed with vaguely stated angst.

  • ||

    "Reason" goes all JC, and implores you embrace that which will destroy you.

    When these bums and thugs coming knocking at your doors, start pissing and shitting in your front yard, and demanding all your money for...I'm sure you'll take great comfort in the ven diagram. When said thugs kill you, this article will be buried along side you.

    I'm guessing someone like Jessie Walker was whispering in Stalin's ear when he embraced Hitler in 1939.

  • Fluffy||

    I think the possibility of meaningful advancement of libertarian-ish ideas from OWS is zero.

    But I also think OWS should be encouraged. Maybe we could send them some pizzas or something. Because these guys are going to push the Democrats to the left - BIG TIME - and that will make the 2012 cycle a good one for libertarian-ish ideas when that goes down in flames.

  • ||

    Wake me up please, when someone realizes the only city in need of occupation is Washington, DC (curiously, there aren't any shanty-town, tent-city piss & shit piles on the White House front lawn).

  • ||

    I think this publication's title is misleading to the point of fraud...like the people who produce orange glop which can only legally be called cheeze - this pile of steaming nonsense should be called reazon.

  • Warty||

    HURRR I HAS AN ORGINAGAL JOKE DYRRRRRR

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    On an unrelated topic...

    Sorry dude, but your Browns will fall before Raider Nation this weeked. =)

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I'll take that.

  • ||

    4 and 1 with a punctured lung bitches!!!!

  • Brandon||

    Drink?

  • db||

    Sweet Rush lyric reference in the title.

  • db||

    Or, you know, Whitman.

  • ||

    there can be no statist-anti-statist alliance. It's folly to even try.

    Statist contacts anti-statist.

    Result: fire.

    Pure cleansing fire.

    It's worth a try.

  • ||

    It always comes back to that, doesn't it? Pure, cleansing flame.

  • ||

    this publication's title is misleading to the point of fraud

    Dude, I haven't even had breakfast yet.

  • ||

    Were the protests during the 60s this boring?

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say the sex was probably better.

    But what do I know?

  • Internet Cliche||

    The sex was probably better smellier.

  • ||

    I give this thread a hearty finger wiggling.

  • Thom||

    In the wake of the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally and the Stewart/Colbert snarkapalooza, why are people still staggered by the idea of a demonstration without demands?

    Doesn't the right to assemble require that there be actual grievances that you want redressed?

  • No||

    No

  • Thom||

    But it says so right in that there Constitution.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    It'd be fun to go to my local OWS thingy with a sign that says "End Government control of our children. End Socialized Education". I'd be curious as the %'s for how many people agree, how many people disagree, and how many people just get confused.

    Also, nobody has used the phrase "statist quo" yet today. We can't let that one die. Just a reminder.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    wow...i should have stopped by earlier. Here is my contribution:

    Mens Rea

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Also, stop confusing "Company" with "Corporation"

    They are not equal.

  • ||

    ^ this.

  • Sailor||

    You go march with those idiots Jesse if you think it is worthwhile.

  • Definition of Pointless||

    A libertarian chat room.

  • Robert||

    In the wake of the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally and the Stewart/Colbert snarkapalooza, why are people still staggered by the idea of a demonstration without demands? You can't say it's unprecedented.


    The idea of people being staggered by the lack of demands has precedent too: See the movie Meet John Doe. What the heck, just see it for any reason, it's hilarious, old and yet soooo current.

  • ||

    Not to get all "Glen Beck" on you (lol) but there's a lot more to the OWS protest than a bunch of kids in the park without any clear demands. Of course there are no clear demands other than some broad themes of discontent. It grew directly out of an effort intended solely for the purpose of turning people out that was lead by Adbusters and Kalle Lasn, a Spanish anarchist group, Anonymous, and some other similar groups. What would you expect from a bunch of culture jammers and anarchists? ;)

    Actually, there are demands and the "kids in the park" thing largely is stage dresssing. Far from a "spontaneous" assembly as it's generally reflected in the popular media, this is just one part of a decentralized but coordinated effort that has been very well orchestrated from the start and much planning by the groups involved. They include the groups above, other radical groups on the left, activists like Steve Lerner who have been promoting the "Days of Rage" movement, less radical, more mainstream union groups, etc., etc., who have been planning this specific protest long before it happened. If you don't know who these groups are then you should go look. And, again, it's not like it's some big secret conspiracy that they're hiding. You can go to their respective web sites, blogs, forums, etc., and see exactly what they're all about and that is in fact the case.

    Beyond the OSW protest itself, it extends far beyond that to a whole range of protests that have been planned for October and beyond.

    If you think this is some "spontaneous" movement related to cleaning up Wall Street, jobs, and money in Washington, then you really should do more research regarding the origins of this "movement." And for the record, no, I'm not a Fox-watching, Koch-smoking, right-winger. I'm a hard-core independent without a distinct ideological focus which permits an objective, realistic view of all this, and who was a sympathetic supporter of this "movement" until I started to peek behind the curtain a little more. Not that there aren't real issues along the lines associated with the protests that need to be addressed, but this ain't that. It's more of an attempt to leverage that. Which is why I'm out.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement