....As Others See Us

Mother Jones, in examining the strange phenomenon of Ron Paul, provides a timeline of libertarian thought.

Occasionally apt, often tendentious (especially with its obsessive belief that libertarianism is some sort of philosophy of corporate power and Pinochetism), but usually interesting to see the modern left try to grapple with the strange beast of libertarianism.

For the full picture of libertarianism unfolding in time, and for the true deep roots of Ron Paul, see my book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.

Comments

sine | December 17, 2007, 10:45pm | #

So you're saying I built the Pinochet shrine in my closet for nothing then?

BOO! | December 17, 2007, 10:46pm | #

MILTON FRIEDMAN AUGUSTIN PINOCHET

Cancel My Subscription | December 17, 2007, 10:50pm | #

Laura Ingalls Wilder publishes Little House on the Prairie. Libertarians claim her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, a prominent libertarian author at the time, was the ghostwriter. In 2003 Reason magazine will praise the books for placing "community and commerce—rather than male adventure, escape and violence—at the heart of our national experience."

You never published garbage statements like this in the 1990s.
REASON really went to Hell after the January 2000 issue. What happened?

drawnasunder | December 17, 2007, 10:50pm | #

"libertarianism is some sort of philosophy of corporate power"

Think anyone at Mother Jones reads this blog? If so, fuck corporations

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 17, 2007, 10:54pm | #

"148 years before the founding of Blackwater, Gustave de Molinari reasons, in his economics treatise Les Soirées de la rue Saint-Lazare, that if trade can supply cheap consumer goods, it can also supply military contractors, rendering government unnecessary."

Anybody else see the irony in claiming a connection between Molinari and Blackwater?

mediageek | December 17, 2007, 10:55pm | #

Truly this is representative of something bigger.

Ron Paul's popularity suddenly has forced the right, left, and media to actually have to try to figure out what we're all about.

Even though they inevitably fuck it up, it's still a step in the right direction. Used to be that they all just simply ignored us.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 17, 2007, 10:59pm | #

Mediageek, you may have a point. But I do remember some time in the late 90's or early zero's that Mother Jones actually advertised in Reason. Anybody else remember that?

mediageek | December 17, 2007, 11:00pm | #

In light of my last comment, I wonder if that means I should be thankful that we've got idiots like Edward showing up here with greater regularity in order to tell all of us libertarians what, exactly, it is that we believe.

shecky | December 17, 2007, 11:08pm | #

Nice Venn diagram.

Robert | December 17, 2007, 11:09pm | #

REASON really went to Hell after the January 2000 issue. What happened?

All I know is that it used to be easier to read -- literally. And I mean "literally" literally too, of course, it's about the letters, and even more so the numbers in the typeface, plus the layout, the colors, etc. It's like they wanted to youngify their readership by excluding anyone who needs bifocals or reading glasses.

Mother Jones Fortune Teller | December 17, 2007, 11:10pm | #

2009: President Paul orders a return to the gold standard and an end to the minimum wage, causing women and minorities nationwide to have to work for $2 a day in unsafe sweatshops.

2011: Reason continues shilling for Earth-destroying big corporations.

2013: Biotechnologists release clones of Milton Friedman and Pinochet onto the world, and they start a campaign of throwing women, minorities, and bunnies out of airplanes.

2014: Global warming causes polar bears to mutate into Gaia-hating killing machines, and they swim around the world terrorizing women and minorities.

Kwix | December 17, 2007, 11:13pm | #

You know, not to rag the MJ editors too badly here, but you'd think that for a timeline, they would be able to get stuff, you know, in chronological order:

1957: Ayn Rand publishes her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged ...

1966: Sci-fi writer Robert A. Heinlein releases The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress ...

1964: Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater loses his bid for the presidency ...

For a magazine named Mother Jones, oh wait, that's our line.

crimethink | December 17, 2007, 11:15pm | #

Kwix,

Well, Heinlein also wrote Time enough for love, so maybe they're suggesting something.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 17, 2007, 11:16pm | #

Here is one to add:

2007: 10 year old girl arrested at school for brining a kitchen knife with her lunch. She wanted to use it to cut steak.

http://www.wftv.com/news/14858405/detail.html

crimethink | December 17, 2007, 11:17pm | #

If I was a 10 year old homicidal maniac, that's what I'd say too.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 17, 2007, 11:19pm | #

Time Enough for Love was IMHO his deepest novel of all. They were all great. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was very pro-freedom but Time Enough for Love covered many themes, not just political ones.

Please do not mistunderstand, I do agree all his novels were great.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | December 17, 2007, 11:21pm | #

From the story about the 10 year old:

"She did not use it inappropriately. She did not threaten anyone with it. She didn't pull it out and brandish it. Nothing of that nature," explained Marion County School Spokesman Kevin Christian.

Jonathan Hohensee | December 17, 2007, 11:21pm | #

What makes Reason such a lighting rod for Mother Jone's anti-libertarian rage?

crimethink | December 17, 2007, 11:27pm | #

"She did not use it inappropriately. She did not threaten anyone with it. She didn't pull it out and brandish it. Nothing of that nature," explained Marion County School Spokesman Kevin Christian.

They never do, until it's too late.

Have you never seen Children of the Corn?

Shannon Love | December 17, 2007, 11:32pm | #

...especially with its obsessive belief that libertarianism is some sort of philosophy of corporate power and Pinochetism

Leftism is grounded in a belief in universal elitism. They completely lack any concept of a society of equals. For the Leftist, elites, good or bad, make all the decisions. Everybody else is just sheep.

The only question for Leftist is which group of elites will be in charge. In a perfect world, wise Leftist articulate intellectuals would be the elite guiding the sheep. However, if it is not they functioning as elites it must be their mortal enemies the elites of the business world. It a black and white dichotomy. They can conceive of no other division of power.

Consequently, since Libertarians are not Leftist articulate intellectuals they must be capitalistic elitist. No other grouping is possible in their minds.

Warren | December 17, 2007, 11:37pm | #

Oh my, I haven't read Mother Jones since 1978. Nice to know some things never change. Are they really the New Left? They sound a lot like the Jurassic Left

Derrick | December 17, 2007, 11:38pm | #

Nice Venn diagram.

Thank you. I just had it stuffed.

Vinnie Boombatz | December 17, 2007, 11:49pm | #

Didn't some stuff happen in 1776, too?

Also, they forgot to mention the release of 300 last year. Give them nothing, take from them everything!!! Awesome.

bill | December 18, 2007, 12:36am | #

"especially with its obsessive belief that libertarianism is some sort of philosophy of corporate power and Pinochetism"

I'll never get it. How hard is it to understand.

Libertarian=Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative.

People are so stupid.

BakedPenguin | December 18, 2007, 12:38am | #

Very nice hitjob. Let me try: "Of course, most of the readership of Mother Jones is in favor of national health care, political gulags, and an end to the war.

See how I did that? Sad thing is, it's far truer than a lot of what they said.

prolefeed | December 18, 2007, 1:32am | #

Ron Paul's popularity suddenly has forced the right, left, and media to actually have to try to figure out what we're all about.

Even though they inevitably fuck it up, it's still a step in the right direction.

Well, MoJo got one thing right (slightly paraphrased here): "H&R -- a forum enabling people who agree with each other 99.9% to hate each other's guts."

Should put that motto over the H&R thread list.

Warren | December 18, 2007, 1:35am | #

bill,
It's easy to understand. Corporations are evil wealth engines. Therefore anyone not opposed to them must be greedy apologists shilling for them.

As for Pinochetism, Milton Friedman was once in the same room with him. It's even rumored that he thought hyperinflation was a bad thing. Therefore, anyone not opposed to Friedman's economics must be in favor of tyranny.

Paul | December 18, 2007, 1:44am | #

I've heard of Mother Jones.

eric pendero | December 18, 2007, 2:04am | #

I've heard of Mother Jones.

Who has?

joshua corning | December 18, 2007, 3:33am | #

1973: With help from the CIA and advice from Chicago School economists, General Augusto Pinochet seizes control of Chile and puts in place radical free-market reforms. He privatizes social programs, curtails trade unions, and begins to eliminate tariffs on imported goods. By the time he is forced out in 1990 a new moneyed class has emerged while the majority of workers earn less (adjusted for inflation) than they did when he took power. Reason will later argue that the economic recovery under the succeeding socialist government was due instead to the "long term benefit" of Pinochet's policies.

Reason...well? Mother Jones just accused you of coddling tyrants.....

Jonathan Hohensee | December 18, 2007, 3:36am | #

"Well, MoJo got one thing right (slightly paraphrased here): "H&R -- a forum enabling people who agree with each other 99.9% to hate each other's guts."

Should put that motto over the H&R thread list."


"Libertarianism might be a simple ideology, an aversion to big government in all its forms, but don't tell that to libertarians: "Like any movement of any size," says Nick Gillespie, editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, "it is an endless operation of trying to figure out more and more ways in which people who agree on 99.9 percent of everything can really hate each other's guts.""

Tor Hershman | December 18, 2007, 5:32am | #

PloySci aside.....
HAPPY HUMBUG TO ALL

I made a New Year’s resolution many, many moons ago and NEVER broke it.
The resolution was/is to NEVER make a New Year’s resolution again.

HAPPY HUMBUG

A great many of The Old Testament’s stories come from earlier tales (e.g., Gilgamesh, etc) and the style is, mostly, a direct rip-off of The Egyptian Book Of The Dead.

To learn more of TOT times, view this YouTube film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90

The New Testament, well . . . . . to learn more than enough of TNT’s creation, view this two part YouTube film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk

And, as a special Humbug surprise, the hit parody song
“The Little Bummer Boy”

http://www.soundlift.com/band/music.php?song_id=82930

AND, if that ain’t enough, you may join moi’s YGroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tor_Hershman/

May you all have a delightful ‘Someone’s Been Embezzling Oil And Selling It On The Side’ Eightdays, a wonderful Solstice, the happiest possible Humbug and may your Hollowdays be filled with the most joyous of pleasures.

Stay on groovin’ safari,
Tor

John C. Randolph | December 18, 2007, 6:04am | #

Let's see... A real dollar is 1/16 of a troy ounce of gold, and gold is trading around 796 units of the fiat currency, so two dollars is worth about 100 FRNs a day..

Not a princely sum, but it should be survivable.

-jcr

whiskey | December 18, 2007, 8:23am | #

They kinda left off the whole abolitionist/feminist thing back in the 19th century but whatever. I mean the modern feminist movement partially owes its roots to the same people that modern libertarianism does (Herbert Spencer et al.) but whatevah all's fair in FUCK KKKORPORATIONS

Episiarch | December 18, 2007, 8:28am | #

Sometimes I feel sorry for leftists like the ones at MJ. To have your entire world view filtered through a prism of hate, class warfare, and the desire to micromanage your fellow humans must suck balls.

Russ R | December 18, 2007, 8:31am | #

JCR,

The 'real dollar' of which you speak was never defined as a unit of gold... you're thinking of the Eagle.

A dollar was a unit of silver.

Isaac Bartram | December 18, 2007, 8:38am | #

This tells me a lot about Mother Jones:

...McBride learned to cherish freedom and blast clay pigeons with the family's 10-gun arsenal.

...

Good god, what kind of person calls 10 guns an arsenal?

Hell, that's not even a collection.

Xboy | December 18, 2007, 8:45am | #

Mother Jones: Is there any abuse of corporate power that you won't tolerate?
Reason: I dunno. Name one.
Mother Jones: Exactly.

Episiarch | December 18, 2007, 8:51am | #

Reason: Is there any abuse by socialism that you won't tolerate?
Mother Jones: I dunno. Name one.
Reason: Exactly.

Reinmoose | December 18, 2007, 8:59am | #

2006: In a race against Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Jones earns 3 percent of the don't-tread-on-me vote, which throws the election to Democrat Jon Tester and hands the U.S. Senate to the Democrats.

I bet Mother Jones thinks this is ironic.

After all, you'd think that the republicans (aka libertarians) would have voted for the republican! But no! They handed us the senate by mistake! HA!

Reinmoose | December 18, 2007, 9:05am | #

1980: Avowed libertarian John Mackey founds Whole Foods in Austin, Texas.

This is ironic, as organic lovers have a strong tendency toward economic leftism, and the owner of the most successful organic market is a libertarian. It has also found itself ranked highly in best-companies-to-work-for lists (aka, not exploiting its employees). Classic.

Fluffy | December 18, 2007, 9:05am | #

I understand the Pinochetism claim a bit more than others here, I think.

To a Chomskyite, the true defining feature of "Pinochetism" isn't the violence or the torture or the skulls turning up buried under soccer fields. It's the frustration of the levelling impulse.

Chileans "naturally" wanted a socialist and egalitarian system, and Pinochet frustrated the organic will of the people.

Americans "naturally" want a socialist and egalitarian system, and our Constitution and system of governance stands in the way - abetted by libertarians [among many others] who provide ideological justification for false bourgeois "freedoms". Thus frustrating the organic will of the people.

See? It's simple, really. Everything which frustrates the "natural" socialist impulse is "Pinochetism". We're just better at it here so we don't have to use the blunt instrument of disappearing people.

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 9:17am | #

A lot of libertarians do love corporate power. I have have followed this site regularly for a couple years and I believe that now more than when I started.

I don't know much about Pinochet, but here is all the linked article had to say about him:

With help from the CIA and advice from Chicago School economists, General Augusto Pinochet seizes control of Chile and puts in place radical free-market reforms. He privatizes social programs, curtails trade unions, and begins to eliminate tariffs on imported goods. By the time he is forced out in 1990 a new moneyed class has emerged while the majority of workers earn less (adjusted for inflation) than they did when he took power. Reason will later argue that the economic recovery under the succeeding socialist government was due instead to the "long term benefit" of Pinochet's policies.

I have no idea if that is accurate or not.

James B. | December 18, 2007, 9:19am | #

Threadjack.

A couple of days ago Mr. Nice Guy was arguing that we're all a bunch of paranoid Luddites for not wanting to fill out census forms, since the data is supposed to be anonymous.

Even if you trust the gov't to keep the data anonymous, that's still not much protection.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/12/anonymity_and_t_2.html

robc | December 18, 2007, 9:25am | #

Instead of finding reasons to hate each other while agreeing 99.9% of the time, I prefer my 2 rules of libertarianism:

1. All non-libertarians agree with libertarians on at least 1 issue.

2. No two libertarians agree on anything.

Rattlesnake Jake | December 18, 2007, 9:28am | #

"the desire to micromanage your fellow humans must suck balls."

Maybe a better name for Mother Jones would be Mother Hen.

murky lurker | December 18, 2007, 9:29am | #

The only thing missing from that timeline was when Gollum killed his cousin for the ring in the middle of the third age.

Anon | December 18, 2007, 9:29am | #

Dave W. - point someone out.

kthxbye

Taktix® | December 18, 2007, 9:30am | #

corporate power

Will someone please define exactly what "power" a corporation yields over me (eminent domain abuse doesn't count, as it is power reserved for the government).

McDonald's has never given me a speeding ticket, Coca-cola has never busted me smoking a joint, Microsoft has yet to throw me in jail for buying a Mac.

What is this corporate power? Advertising? If you're so fucking dumb that you obey every advertisement you see, then I suppose it's not difficult to believe that companies hold power over you!

robc | December 18, 2007, 9:30am | #

James B.,

My reason for not filling out the census has nothing to do with it being anonymous. It has to do with it exceeding its constitutional bounds. I got the long form in 2000, it took me about 10 seconds to fill out. I gave my address, name, age, and phone number. The last so that they could contact me if they wanted to arrest and/or fine me for violating the law.

The age question was borderline, I only answered it because all of the old early 19th century census records I have researched had age of kids on it. I figured number of adult males for militia purposes might be reasonable info to give the government.

joe | December 18, 2007, 9:32am | #

1. It would take a serious commitment to believing you're being persecuted to read that piece as a "hit job."

2. For all the complaining, I haven't noticed anyone offering any refutations about the statement about Pinochet. Heck, all these years later, when we know all the he did, we still see his defenders show up when his name comes up on a thread.

hale | December 18, 2007, 9:32am | #

Americans "naturally" want a socialist and egalitarian system, and our Constitution and system of governance stands in the way - abetted by libertarians [among many others] who provide ideological justification for false bourgeois "freedoms". Thus frustrating the organic will of the people.

Ah, yes! The organic will of the people! But you can't just leave it at that; occasionally, the people become confused about their organic will, or are deceived by external powers into accepting beliefs that are inauthentic to them. Then, you need a strong interpreter of the peoples' true will. Someone who has the courage and moral clarity not only to reflect the honest essence of America, but to protect it from the malign interference of those who would subvert and weaken the organic union of nation!

... I like how Mother Jones used a "timeline of libertarianism" to shill their writer's anti-libertarian book. To think, leftists accusing us of creating a "moral vacuum." You'd think they'd know what it's like to have that charge tossed at them.

Taktix' Boss | December 18, 2007, 9:33am | #

Get back to work or I'll throw your ass in the snow.

You don't mind if I rub you with this loofah, do you?

Episiarch | December 18, 2007, 9:38am | #

joe (as Taktix's Boss), people have power over other people in society all the time. Yes, your boss holds some influence over you. But so does your spouse, your friends, your family, and the dudes at your Elks meetings. Any one of them can leave you, kick you out of the club, ostracize you, etc.

None of them can throw you in jail. See the difference?

robc | December 18, 2007, 9:38am | #

joe,

Here is my "defense" of Pinochet:

Pinochet was a murderous dictator who tried to put in, at least parts, of a good economic system. However, an economic system of freedom can only really function properly when combined with a free political and social system.

madmikefisk | December 18, 2007, 9:39am | #

hale: You're making the fallacious assumption that Mother Jones, you know, actually is exhibiting proper thought. They don't even need a study of economics to prove why their statist proto-Marxist policy leanings would never work in the real world, just a quick recap of history of human progress in the 20th Century, something that I'm sure the liberal arts crowd at MJ would have in abundance.

They just don't care.

In that mindset, they're right because their intentions are good, their hearts are in the right place, and to heck with all the data to the contrary. Kinda like Mike Huckabee, only more insidious.

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 9:41am | #

Dave W. - point someone out.

For wide eyed innocent puppy luv of Big Business, I would have to go with T.

For fairly sophisticated corporate apologetics (which are, admittedly, helpful), I would have to go with the milk chuggin', hard luvin' RCD.

In the straight up shill category, well, we don't even have to say the name I don't think.

Untermensch | December 18, 2007, 9:42am | #

Libertarian=Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative

If only this were true. I used to explain Libertarianism this way, but it's just not so.

While libertarians tend to be socially liberal, they don't believe in the compulsion that leftists want to see as part of that, and social liberalism isn’t a core part of the philosophy.

Here's the difference:

Libertarian: “You don't like gays? Well, I think you’re a real jerk, that’s your business as long as you don’t go out and try to force your opinion on anyone or force anyone to act the way you think they should. And I support your right to be a jerk and say what you think.”

MJ-style liberal: “You don’t like gays? Well, it’s my business to strip such evil thoughts from your mind, Certainly you can’t say you don’t like gays and if you do, I’ll make sure your butt is hauled off for reeducation. First amendment? You don’t really believe they meant the right to say things I disagree with, do you?”

But even if we ignore the huge difference between these styles of liberalism, as long as you don't think government is the solution or that you have a right to enforce your opinion through the exercise of force, you could be as socially liberal or conservative as you want. So I don't see the social liberalism thing as that definitional...

I can’t make the same case and argue that libertarians are fiscally liberal in any way, but most so-called fiscal conservatives anymore don’t act much different from their fiscally liberal counterparts anyway.

VM | December 18, 2007, 9:50am | #

never mind that economics is a very common major in your better liberal arts institutions.

what you probably mean is "humanities".

either way, what's your economics training? and where?

sod off, dave w. sod off. (i didn't even read what you said, but I'm still saying that)

Untermensch - not really sure about what you're saying. or - many conservatarians hide behind the rhetoric, but the result is that gays are in certain areas legally second class.

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 9:53am | #

Let's break it down:

Coca-cola conspired with Pepsi Cola to make sure your local market does not offer sweetened soft drinks with HFCS in them. Some market somewhere may offer such soft drinks. But not the convenient one that you happen to shop at. They are also responsible for no non-HFCS soda being available at the restaurant you like to eat at. Cane sugar sodas may indeed be available at some restaurant somewhere, but not at the restaurant where you like to eat. I can make these statements with confidence despite the fact that I do not know the markets or restaurants you frequent. Even the authentic Mexican restaurants don't have cane cola anymore. That is how powerful Coke is when it teams up with Pepsi.

Microsoft: You would have more and better computer choices if it weren't for Microsoft. this despite the existence of Macs and LINUX. Better choices at both the operating system and application software level (and probably hardware, too). It is impossible to predict the exact nature of this better world. We can only know that the enhanced competition would have made it much better.

McDonald's: I don't really think McDonald's is a problem. Despite their bigness, they never had too much market share in the restaurant market. Or, looked at in a more refined way, the market share of the biggest, say five, restaurant companies was never that big. This kept the market competitive, and I luv competitive markets (being a libertarian and all).

joe | December 18, 2007, 9:55am | #

Episiarch,

The government has the advantage of being able to throw me in jail, it is true. However, the government is subject to all sorts of restraints and checks, much moreso than my boss.

Anyway, my point was simply your first statement - lots of people have power over others.

Dave W. correction | December 18, 2007, 9:55am | #

--[b]without[/b] HFCS in them--

when are they going to let you correct posts round here?!?!?

Episiarch | December 18, 2007, 9:57am | #

Anyway, my point was simply your first statement - lots of people have power over others.

Yes, but my distinction still stands. Government power includes the legal use of force. Societal and job power does not.

reinmoose | December 18, 2007, 9:57am | #

OOoooh. VM calling someone out!
Too bad I can't figure out who..

joe | December 18, 2007, 9:58am | #

robc,

Remind me never to hire you if I get popped for a DUI. Thats' a defense? ;-)

joe | December 18, 2007, 10:00am | #

Episiarch,

Government power includes the legal use of force. Societal and job power does not.

"Property rights" are backed up by force as well. My boss most certainly can have me thrown in jail if I fail to leave or violate a contract.

And "force" is certainly not the only expression of power.

Episiarch | December 18, 2007, 10:01am | #

Uh, Dave, there's plenty of non-HFCS soda available everywhere. It's called Diet Soda. And I don't know if you've noticed, but there are a bunch of new brands of soda that proudly claim "made with sugar" on the label.

Besides, Pepsi and Coke (I didn't realize they were in cahoots) use HFCS why? Because cane sugar is more expensive because of tariffs. Which are set by the government, at the request of corn growers.

If you want to hate on a corporation, many of whom deserve it for their collusion with governent to restrict the market, make it Archer Daniels Midland.

J sub D | December 18, 2007, 10:01am | #

I haven't read any comments yet because I wanted to give my impression uncolored by "Reasonoid Contamination". ;-)

I thought the first Mother Jones piece was a lot more respectful than anything you'd find in the right wing blogosphere. My estimation of Mother Jones has gone up a notch. It's still at a Death Valley elevation, but ya gotta give credit where it's due.

Now I get to read everyone else's comments. Be back in a while.

VM | December 18, 2007, 10:03am | #

rein-

wasn't my intention as such - instead, the "liberal arts" schtick is silly, and I'm not convinced about Untermensch's dichotomy.

so, yes, I was calling out Dave W. he's a twaddlenock.

and I need another cup of coffee. but to sum up:
only calling out Dave W. Cuz I can't stand him.

jkp | December 18, 2007, 10:04am | #

Jesus Christ, that bald dude on their page doesn't look like Ron Paul at all.

Episiarch | December 18, 2007, 10:05am | #

And "force" is certainly not the only expression of power.

Yes, but it is the one that concerns libertarians the most.

"Property rights" are backed up by force as well. My boss most certainly can have me thrown in jail if I fail to leave or violate a contract.

Yes, but that is a legitimate function of the government. Your boss cannot have the government throw you in jail for being late, no matter how much of an asshole he is.

carrick | December 18, 2007, 10:06am | #

Dave W:

Having your market choices limited by mega-corporations may be truly anoying, but that is not "power" in any sense that is similar to what the government may do to you.

Regardless of what you may think, you have no "right" to walk into any retail establishment and expect to find any given product that you lust after. However, you do have a right though to stand out on the street with a sign in your grubby hands and picket that establishment for not catering to your every whim.

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 10:08am | #

Uh, Dave, there's plenty of non-HFCS soda available everywhere. It's called Diet Soda. And I don't know if you've noticed, but there are a bunch of new brands of soda that proudly claim "made with sugar" on the label.

1. I like Diet Soda okay. I drink it sometimes. It is no substitute for can sweetened soda, though. Let me put it this way: If I could make a deal where Coke would give me a speeding ticket in exchange for them distributing cane soda as widely as they did in 1970, then I would gladly take the ticket. Cause that is freedom maximizing behavior from my perspective.

2. I notice that once in awhile someone tries to make a play with cane soda, eg, Royal Crown in the late 80s, (IIRC) early Snapple, noncarbonated cane lemonades that pop up in fancy convenience stores once in a great while, cane sodas that can sometimes be ordered over the Internet (but are sometimes out of stock even there!!!). These are the exceptions that prove the rule. And the rule is quite strong. I speed and get away with it more often than I encounter a cane sweetened soft drink (other than the ones I add my own sugar to).

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 10:11am | #

Did you see my VemSter 2 Boogaloo post, VM? It is part of the big fight we have going! A modern classic. In it a man drops his shotgun barrel onto the ATV of another. Death quickly ensues. Get the full scoop at the highclearing.

joe | December 18, 2007, 10:11am | #

Episiarch,

I'm not going to argue against the statement "government power is more worrisome than private power."

What I'm arguing against is the dumbassitude jof comments like Shannon Love's at 11:32, which pretend that government power is the only power and that, therefore, going to matts to defend the "rights" of bosses, property owners, and the wealthy to push around their underlings is consistent with calling other people "elitists."

Russ R | December 18, 2007, 10:15am | #

"Coca-cola conspired with Pepsi Cola to make sure your local market does not offer sweetened soft drinks with HFCS in them."

Every market in the country is entirely free to remove Coke or Pepsi from their shelves and stock whatever competing products they desire.

Fact is, they'd rather sell the big brands because it makes them more money... even with conditions attached.

crimethink | December 18, 2007, 10:18am | #

The government has the advantage of being able to throw me in jail, it is true. However, the government is subject to all sorts of restraints and checks, much moreso than my boss.

Right, the govt can't do anything to you unless you break the law (or, in view of Radley's work, have a similar address to someone who does). Oh, and the law consists of 100 phone-book-sized volumes of the US Code, plus 500 similarly sized volumes of your state's laws, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Rattlesnake Jake | December 18, 2007, 10:18am | #

"cane sugar is more expensive because of tariffs. Which are set by the government, at the request of corn growers."

It seems that that is helping Iowa at the expense of Louisiana.

Untermensch | December 18, 2007, 10:22am | #

Untermensch - not really sure about what you're saying. or - many conservatarians hide behind the rhetoric, but the result is that gays are in certain areas legally second class.

I thought it was the pretty simple point that not all libertarians would qualify as "socially liberal" (whatever that means, since you could be liberal on drug issues but conservative on religious beliefs simultaneously). You can be a socially conservative libertarian as long as you don’t believe that you have the right to force your beliefs on anyone else and as long as you allow others the right to disagree with you.

I don't see how making gays “legally second class” citizens can be squared at all with what I stated since that very formulation ("legally") implies that someone is using government to enforce a particular viewpoint. On the other hand, I don’t find many people on this list—even those who are proudly gay—who would support MJ-style hate crimes laws or argue that individuals aren't free to personally discriminate or be jerks (liberal or conservative).

To put it another way, I could be a total bigot in my personal life, refusing to associate with blacks, Frenchmen, gays, short people, tall people, Spaniards, atheists, and Mormons, yet still conceive of that as a personal choice and not want the government to enforce my preferences. I could then actively work to eliminate governmental meddling in my affairs and the affairs of others (even if said action agreed with my personal preferences) because I believe force to be wrong. So, despite my (hypothetical) personal conservatism, I could have a philosophical commitment to liberty (including the liberty to be a total jerk) and thus be a libertarian.

Therein is the problem with defining libertarianism as social liberalism + fiscal conservatism. Social liberalism (at least as defined in the current political environment) isn't part of libertarianism, not least because of what that entails.

I thought it was a simple point, but I must not have been clear.

carrick | December 18, 2007, 10:23am | #

the "rights" of bosses, property owners, and the wealthy to push around their underlings is consistent with calling other people "elitists."

Employment is a contract between two private entities. There is no god-given right that there must be equal standing between the two parties. It is a given that there are many, many bad employers in the world. Unless the employer crosses the boundary into fraud or extortion, the government should not be involved in defining the details of the employment contract.

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 10:25am | #

Every market in the country is entirely free to remove Coke or Pepsi from their shelves and stock whatever competing products they desire.

And I was entirely free to move to Canada when I didn't want my income taxes to pay for The Iraq War. Yay freedom!

J sub D | December 18, 2007, 10:28am | #

Is evryone looking to get offended today? Yeah, the timeline was snarkish assholism, but the first article wasn't that friggin' bad. Shall we go to Redstate.com and see what they have to say about the Ron Paul Revolution?

Episiarch | December 18, 2007, 10:29am | #

And I was entirely free to move to Canada when I didn't want my income taxes to pay for The Iraq War. Yay freedom!

According to Dan T, that's exactly right!

crimethink | December 18, 2007, 10:30am | #

joe,

There are power relationships besides that of govt and citizen, but with the exception of that between parent/guardian and child, they are all voluntary, "opt-in" relationships. That is, the less powerful party knew what they were getting into when they entered the relationship, and voluntarily accepted their submissive position in the relationship in return for some other benefit.

If you try to regulate every one of these power relationships, you're going to hurt not only the more powerful person, but the less powerful person. For instance, when OSHA forbids certain workplace hazards, they're actually taking away the right of workers to receive extra compensation for doing that hazardous work. Likewise, when you make $8/hr the minimum wage, an unskilled worker whose labor frankly isn't worth that much isn't free to take a job at a lower wage just to have something.

robc | December 18, 2007, 10:31am | #

Jake,

Actually, I think it helps Iowa and Louisiana at the expense of the Dominican Republic.

Iowa gets higher demand for corn.
Louisiana sells all their sugar at a higher price.
DR doesnt get to compete.

Untermensch | December 18, 2007, 10:31am | #

Re: Redstate.com:

Apparently Ron Paul doesn't exist for them. I searched for his name and got: “You must include at least one positive keyword with 5 characters or more.” ;-)

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 10:32am | #

government should not be involved in defining the details of the employment contract.

You may have said before, carrick, but what about agreements for indentured servitude and similar arrangements? Should it be okay for private employers to import employees who are willing to waive all Constitional, tort, contract and other legal rights in exchange for a mutually acceptable wage.

Should an employee be able waive the right she would normally have to leave the factory grounds? Her right not to be whipped for working too slowly?

What is your limiting principle here? That a truly free market would never allow this kind of employer behavior for competitive reasons? (talk about yer puppy luv!)

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 10:32am | #

According to Dan T, that's exactly right!

I know its exactly right. Can you guess how I know?

VM | December 18, 2007, 10:33am | #

Unter -

fine. I disagreed with the socially liberal broad brush.

and can i take it that you're more sympathetic to the socially-conservative moral police? they've their share of persecution, too.

Epi - don't spose he'd stay?

joe | December 18, 2007, 10:35am | #

If the act of refusing to obey the government carried the same economic harms that refusing to obey your boss carries, libertarians would be screaming bloody murder.

Heck, think of how much you scream bloody murder when the government, or say Al Sharpton, uses their power to get somebody fired.

But regardless of all of that, you all are getting way ahead of me. My point is that libertarians favor unequal power relationships much more than liberals, and the charge of elitism from a libertarian to a liberal is laughable.

reinmoose | December 18, 2007, 10:35am | #

So Dave W.
Let me get this straight.
Instead of removing government subsidies making HFCS "cheaper," and therefore either more profitable or giving sodas that use HFCS a pricing edge, you would.....

legally require that every goddammed restaurant and market carry cane sugar-sweetened soda?

I don't get it

LarryA | December 18, 2007, 10:36am | #

They missed July 4, 1776, when the U.S. Declaration of Independence proclaimed that governments are formed among men to secure individual rights, and draw their just power from the consent of the governed.

Libertarian=Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative

Irrelevant comparison based on the current U.S. left-right scale. Libertarians aren’t on that line, so liberals and conservatives can’t figure out where to pin them.

Both major parties believe that individuals must be controlled by government, and therefore they have lists of activities they want to prohibit. Libertarians believe that government should be controlled by individuals, i.e. “We the People,” and have no such list.

When the GLBT gunowners over at Pink Pistols look around both the Republicans and Democrats want nothing to do with them, the donkeys because they own firearms and the elephants because they sleep with their own gender.

Libertarians say, “Own a gun. Own two, or twenty. And it’s none of my business who you sleep with. And even if I personally think guns or gay sex is icky, I don’t think there should be laws against them. Live and let live!”

Understand that libertarians don’t hold these views because they particularly like or approve of all the odd behaviors out there. They do it because history proves that the only way to protect my right to do weird stuff is to protect everybody else’s right to do different weird stuff.

Time Enough for Love was IMHO his deepest novel of all. They were all great. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was very pro-freedom but Time Enough for Love covered many themes, not just political ones. Please do not misunderstand, I do agree all his novels were great.

My favorite was one of RAH’s kid books, Red Planet, featuring school kids running around with handguns, leading the revolution against the evil corporation, saving the environment, and rescuing mankind from the consequences of imperialism. Plus, it was an exciting story.

Fluffy | December 18, 2007, 10:39am | #

Some market somewhere may offer such soft drinks. But not the convenient one that you happen to shop at.

Here is the complete bollocks and despicable evil that is "positive freedom" in a nutshell:

In order to make sure that Dave W doesn't have to actually look for the products he wants, but is able to find them at the convenient store that's closest to him, we must make slaves of all soda bottlers and store owners.

Dave can never be free if other people are free to manufacture the soda they want, sell the soda they want, or drink the soda they want. Because Dave isn't free if he has to check more than one store to find the obscure niche taste soda he wants.

Scott | December 18, 2007, 10:43am | #

Leftism is grounded in a belief in universal elitism. They completely lack any concept of a society of equals. For the Leftist, elites, good or bad, make all the decisions.

Hey, better a bad elite than no elite at all. At least a bad elite gives you someone to blame other than govt. You see, government never fails, only individuals do. Both the left and right agree that Abu Ghraib was the fruit of a handful of bad apples. The right thinks it was the soldiers on the ground; the left thinks it was Bush and Rumsfeld.

It's like the fundies when you ask about evil and they claim that God is good and individuals (fallen, sinful, rebellious individuals) are the cause of evil in the world.

robc | December 18, 2007, 10:45am | #

joe,

It can be argued (and Im going to) that in an employee-employer relationship the employee has the power over the employer. I know when I left my last employer it kinda royally screwed them (which is why they offered me a 25% raise when I told them I was leaving).

carrick | December 18, 2007, 10:46am | #

You may have said before, carrick, but what about agreements for indentured servitude and similar arrangements? Should it be okay for private employers to import employees who are willing to waive all Constitional, tort, contract and other legal rights in exchange for a mutually acceptable wage.

Should an employee be able waive the right she would normally have to leave the factory grounds? Her right not to be whipped for working too slowly?

What is your limiting principle here? That a truly free market would never allow this kind of employer behavior for competitive reasons? (talk about yer puppy luv!)

Unless the employer crosses the boundary into fraud or extortion, . . .

So, mr. laywer, define extortion for me.

Chucklehead | December 18, 2007, 10:48am | #

But regardless of all of that, you all are getting way ahead of me. My point is that libertarians favor unequal power relationships much more than liberals, and the charge of elitism from a libertarian to a liberal is laughable.

What we favor is freedom of association and contract. What liberals favor is determining what's best for others regarding their personal associations and contracts.

Yes, that is elitism joe.

joe | December 18, 2007, 10:48am | #

Both the left and right agree that Abu Ghraib was the fruit of a handful of bad apples. The right thinks it was the soldiers on the ground; the left thinks it was Bush and Rumsfeld.

Really? You sure about that?

The Left believed that abuses that we could have invaded and occupied Iraq without oppressing and victimizing the Iraqi people, if only Bush and Rumsfeld weren't in charge?

I don't think you're right about that.

Untermensch | December 18, 2007, 10:51am | #

fine. I disagreed with the socially liberal broad brush

??? It wasn't my brush. I was disagreeing with the formulation presented (libertarians are socially liberal), not advocating for it. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

and can i take it that you're more sympathetic to the socially-conservative moral police? they've their share of persecution, too.

What in the world gave you the idea that I'm sympathetic to the “socially-conservative moral police”? I really don't see how that comes out of anything I wrote. All I argued is that one can be socially conservative and still committed to the principles of libertarianism. One cannot, however, approve of "moral police" and still be committed to the principles of libertarianism. One can be socially conservative and still think Pat Robertson and his ilk are wrong because they attempt to exercise compulsion.

We must be speaking a different language here. For what it's worth, since it seems that I have to spell it out in fine detail: I do not support the right of conservatives or liberals to dictate to me or anyone else how to live my life or to try to enforce a social viewpoint I agree or disagree with on anyone. Is that clear enough? I also do not consider myself terribly socially conservative, but I'm certainly not socially liberal as it is presently defined in US politics...

My whole point is that the social liberalism + fiscal conservatism puts the discussion in the wrong terms and buys into the propriety of a distinction that is the wrong one to make. LarryA above got the point without trouble...

carrick | December 18, 2007, 10:51am | #

My point is that libertarians favortolerate unequal power relationships much more than liberals, and the charge of elitism from a libertarianliberal to a liberallibertarian is laughable.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 18, 2007, 10:52am | #

For all of you who refuse to fill out the Census because it "exceeds the Constitution" I'd like to point out that the Constitution does not grant the federal government to build and maintain any roads (other than "post roads" for the mails). So, my principled friends, will you now forswear interstates?

joe | December 18, 2007, 10:52am | #

robc,

Well, like most things, the relative economic classes of the people involved play a much larger role in determining their power relationships than the formal, legal positions they hold. I'm betting you weren't earning $9/hr working in a kitchen.

What liberals favor is determining what's best for others regarding their personal associations and contracts. Uh, yeah, like when there's a strike and liberals blow off whatever the union wants, and want to dictate terms from far away.

Oh, wait, that doesn't ever actually happen. Taking the side of the weaker party in a fight is not "determinging" anything for anyone.

carrick | December 18, 2007, 10:54am | #

Should it be okay for private employers to import employees who are willing to waive all Constitional, tort, contract and other legal rights in exchange for a mutually acceptable wage.

Just got my first set of golden handcuffs, but I had to sign an arbitration agreement to get it. Exploitation sucks ;-)

J sub D | December 18, 2007, 10:56am | #

The left isn't "socially liberal". Hate crimes, speech codes, anti-smoking ordinances ...

The right isn't "fiscally conservative". War in Iraq, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, NCLB, ethanol subsidies, hell the whole damned tax code.

IMHO, the left and right both want to "improve" humanity in their own misguided way. Libertarians just want to set people free.

I'm off to read what the MJers comments were. I expect they will be hilariously ignorant of the whole libertarian movement.

P Brooks | December 18, 2007, 10:57am | #

Apart from a few silly, simpleminded, asides (like this one, many Valley libertarians are furious about the investor-protection rules of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), I thought the article was pretty a pretty fair coverage of a baffling (for Progressive types) phenomenon.

I actually read Mother Jones (and Counterpunch) irregularly, just to see what they have to say.

Reinmoose | December 18, 2007, 10:58am | #

joe:
you didn't just call unions "weak," did you?

Mr. Nice Guy | December 18, 2007, 10:59am | #

"Will someone please define exactly what "power" a corporation yields over me (eminent domain abuse doesn't count, as it is power reserved for the government)."

Taktix
I imagine you like watching tv. You are free to choose to watch whatever programming you want, but corporations decide which choices you have. Now, copy this and apply it to toothpaste, books, and all other products you regularly use. That's a bit of power...

In addition, I imagine you work a job. Many people work for a corporation and therefore face a bit of their power every day. Even if you don't work for a corporation your business probably does business with a corporation, and that corporation can effect your business (thank goodness you are somewhat protected here by anti-trust laws or they could really show you some power [if you want to know how much they could do to you look at what used to happen under UNION much less corporate secondary boycotts]). You are always, of course, free to not work for businesses that are effected by corporate power (i.e., you are free to live in the woods and eat berries and such like the guy from Into the Wild [unless someone owns that land and posts it]).

To the extent that corporations manufacture cultural products they have a significant influence on how the people around you think, vote, consume, etc.

To the extent that corporations effect the government (various rent seeking arrangements) they also effect you.

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 11:01am | #

legally require that every goddammed restaurant and market carry cane sugar-sweetened soda?

Here is a little fantasy I have:

One day there was one Coke and one Pepsi. They conspired. They lobbied. They used their economic power to do bad things to good sodas. They used the government and its willingness to tariff to help out with their plan. They also used their combined power to agree that a cane sweetened soft drink would not come from either of them. They also used their combined power to make sure such a soft drink would not come from 7Up or Snapple. They also used their combined power to buy up a substantial portion of all the store shelves to help out with their plan. The government helped with the tarriff parts of the plan, but the other parts were possible because the market was unregulated . . . or so they thought.

One day a thoughtful "Private Attorney General" named Badley Ralko brought them into Judge Dave W.'s courtroom on a Sherman Act claim. Badley said: this isn't my idea of a free market -- rather, concentration of economic power is, well it is different in nature than a concentration of government power, but it still has mega-substantial bad affects at the level of quotidian ppl's quotidian lives. It is not like an unjustified police shooting, but its net effect is as if the police inflicted 300 million hangnails, with each hangnail representing the yuckiness of modern sweetened soda taken over the course of an individual's life.

Judge Dave W. asked to break in and sed that some of his libertarian friends sed that the government helped Coke and Pepsi with their plan, so it wasn't really Coke and Pepsi's fault.

Unruffled, Badley confidently replied that he was ready for this line of questioning. He claimed the American Republic was founded on the principle of one person, one vote and not one dollar one vote -- that representation was supposed to be proportional in that way. He said that an important aspect of safeguarding against sliding into a one dollar one vote republic was to avoid concentrations of economic power that are too monumental and too iresistable -- like what happens when Coke and Pepsi (and later 7Up) combine and plan their business together. Badley said that the Sherman Act was important in the modern world because it could help insulate the political world from being bought and sold too much.

Judge Dave W. asked the lawyer for Coke and Pepsi if she had any counterarguments to make. She sed that Coke can't put you in jail. She sed that Coke won't take your gun. She sed that the government's power to set tarriffs was too tempting for her clients not to exploit so long as this attractive nuisance existed. She sed, in closing, that Judge Dave W. just had to try the brand new formulation where they used cane sugar.

How much? asked Judge Dave W.

That is a trade secret the antitrust lawyer replied.

The Judge gave permission to approach the bench with a cupful of the new formulation in hand. He took the cup and took a swig. He rolled his eyes heavenward, settled back in his chair and let his glasses slide down his nose just a bit.

I am ready to render my verdict. Coke will be split into 1,000 companies of equal size and capitalization. A like remedy is to be applied against Pepsi. Also, all the executives go to jail, because, as I learnt at HnR, in the comments section one time, Sherman Act violations are a crime.

Ron Bailey, who had been seated in the audience, blanched and fainted dead away. Somebody get the corporatarian a medic intoned Judge Dave W.

crimethink | December 18, 2007, 11:04am | #

If the act of refusing to obey the government carried the same economic harms that refusing to obey your boss carries, libertarians would be screaming bloody murder.

joe, you're not this dense. The difference is that you entered into the relationship with your boss voluntarily, and presumably understood that disobeying him or her could cost you the job. You don't have a choice of entering into a relationship with your govt.

Also, considering the fines and other monetary penalties govts routinely level at those who disobey the law, I wouldn't say disobeying the govt is free of financial risk either.

joe | December 18, 2007, 11:04am | #

carrick,

Libertarians do not merely "tolerate" the power of employers over their employees. They do not merely tolerate business owners having a much greater say over what goes on at the workplace and how people are compensated than the workers.

They define this unequal situation as the ideal, the One True Way, endowed by the Creator when he gave people certain inalienable rights over their property. They consider any attempt to alter that power relationship, whether by outside forces or by the workers themselves, to be an unacceptable assault on the proper order of things.

Now, please don't bother replying with an explaination of why this is the right thing to believe. I understand the ideological premises that lead libertarians to endorse this inequality, and am not terribly interested in rehashing that argument.

I'm just pointing out what honest and thoughtful libertarians freely admit - they favor inequality. They believe it is right and proper for a relatively small segment of society to enjoy concentrated power. I'm not even saying this is necessarily a bad thing, as anyone who isn't a devout Marxist will recognize that some inequality is necessary, even good. But it really doesn't leave room for libertarians to accuse those who are not quite so enthusiastic about quite so much inequality of being "elitists."

Mr. Nice Guy | December 18, 2007, 11:04am | #

C'mon my principled libertarian fellows, certainly those of you who have the moral courage to defy the Census can take a public oath right here to forswear the blatant Constitutional overreach that are Interstate Highways! Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice! Who wants to go on vacation if it means buckling under to such rampant socialism?

Mr. Nice Guy | December 18, 2007, 11:06am | #

"The difference is that you entered into the relationship with your boss voluntarily,"
You're right crimethink, as I noted you are always free to live in the woods and eat berries (providing you own the land the berries grow on, which means you have to work....hmmm...this is harder than I, or maybe you, have thought about...)

joe | December 18, 2007, 11:08am | #

Reinmoose,

Only in a relative sense.

crimethink,

No, I'm not that dense. Ergo, when you find us disagreeing about something, it's probably a good idea for you to suspect that our disagreement does not stem from me not grasping a childishly simplistic point. Thanks.

I can think of a lot of other differences between government-citizen and employer-employee relationships, too. None of them are any more relevant to the point that bosses and workers have unequal power than your point about the relationship being entered into voluntarily.

Taktix® | December 18, 2007, 11:09am | #

Anyway, my point was simply your first statement - lots of people have power over others.

joe,

This is a major misconception of leftists like yourself.

We do not live in a feudal society. At a job, I trade my labor in exchange for money. Some labor is worth more money, some is worth less.

True, my boss has power over me in the sense of management and coordination, but if his power becomes problematic, I can quit and get a different job.

I can't quit my citizenship and get a new government (although that used to be the case back we we actually had federalism).

Plus my boss doesn't have a gun and the authority to kill me.

Analogy pwnd!

Property Owner | December 18, 2007, 11:09am | #

Get your dirty hands off my berries, hippie!

joe | December 18, 2007, 11:10am | #

Taktix,

What just happend to you is called "pre-buttal."

Pre-buttal: the act of rebutting an argument before it is made.

P Brooks | December 18, 2007, 11:12am | #

what about agreements for indentured servitude

My recollection of indentured servitude agreements is that they had a fixed duration and clearly defined terms.

Many Americans are descended from individuals who willingly entered into indenture in order to gain passage to the New World, and learn a trade to ply there. Just because you wouldn't want to do it doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to. I wouldn't work on assembly line for $100k/ yr, but I wouldn't bother trying to prevent you from doing it.

crimethink | December 18, 2007, 11:12am | #

I imagine you like watching tv. You are free to choose to watch whatever programming you want, but corporations decide which choices you have. Now, copy this and apply it to toothpaste, books, and all other products you regularly use. That's a bit of power...

If that was ever true, it's definitely not true in the age of digital cable and the Internet, when you have hundreds of choices for TV channels and God knows how many choices for internet sites and stores. True, chances are that everything you buy or watch had something to do with a corporation at some point, but it's not like all corporations are part of a giant cabal bent on limiting the choices of consumers. The only thing that unites all corporations is their desire to make money, and that desire will drive them apart rather than together.

To the extent that corporations effect the government (various rent seeking arrangements) they also effect you.

That's a good bit of rhetorical jujitsu, MNG, disguising what is really govt power as corporate power. Did you ever think that if we didn't give so much power to govts, corporations wouldn't be able to wield power through them?

reinmoose | December 18, 2007, 11:14am | #

MNG -
While I have little to comment on the Census, my conscience is clear. I have always denounced public funding of interstate highways (at the least).

Mr. Nice Guy | December 18, 2007, 11:14am | #

"I can't quit my citizenship and get a new government"
If it is the state or county government, sure you can. Public choice theorists call this "voting with your feet." In fact, it's not impossible with the federal government (we call them ex-pats). Face it, in some sense, you've voluntarily submitted to the governments in your life...

Jerry | December 18, 2007, 11:14am | #

The only thing Pinochet can be credited with is not stuffing Chile with the same monetary policy as countries like Argentina. All else he did is pretty much myth. No free markets. No free minds.

Lurker Kurt | December 18, 2007, 11:16am | #

Good god, what kind of person calls 10 guns an arsenal?

Hell, that's not even a collection.

I call it a good start.

J sub D | December 18, 2007, 11:16am | #

I imagine you like watching tv. You are free to choose to watch whatever programming you want, but corporations decide which choices you have. Now, copy this and apply it to toothpaste, books, and all other products you regularly use. That's a bit of power...

WTF? If you don't have enough options in televised entertainment or toothpastes, I'm at a loss. Which coorporation controls television? Please, tell me so I can invest. Then let me know the one that controls toothpaste. Arm and Hammer?

Name a monopoly that is not government enforced. Please.

Taktix® | December 18, 2007, 11:17am | #

Dave W,

Don't like how Pepsi and Coke run things? Drink water, or sweetened Iced Tea. Despise Microsoft (like I do)? Use a Mac, or hit the power switch and read a book.

We don't have the "right" to Sugary Sodas or 24/7 internet access. We live in such a luxurious society that you forget we don't need all this crap to live a good life.

Turn off the TV and go walk in the woods for a day, and tell me how Coke is controlling your life...

crimethink | December 18, 2007, 11:18am | #

joe,

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Whoa.

OK, my head stopped spinning now. You don't think that whether a relationship is voluntary makes a big difference in its moral status?

Do you at least apply this distinction to consensual sex vs. rape? Employment vs. slavery?

Mr. Nice Guy | December 18, 2007, 11:19am | #

" Did you ever think that if we didn't give so much power to govts, corporations wouldn't be able to wield power through them?" Did you ever think the corporations would just create the government power through their power (they often do this today).

"The only thing that unites all corporations is their desire to make money," Well, that and the fact that most are intertwined with each other through mutual investment, common board and management, subsidary arrangements, etc. On my Cable Package I have about 80 stations which are owned, the last time I checked, by about 9 companies.

Reinmoose-I'm not sure if you were one of the ones during today or the weekend thread who proudly displayed their defiance of the Census and justified it on the grounds that they would not cooperate with it because it was "extra-Constitutional." My comments are directed at these proud, brave Libertarians who I am sure would want to display their convictions (so proudly worn) by forswearing extra-Constitutional Interstates.

Taktix® | December 18, 2007, 11:20am | #

Taktix,

What just happend to you is called "pre-buttal."

Pre-buttal: the act of rebutting an argument before it is made.

Preemption, perhaps, but not pre-buttal. You'd actually have to debunk my points for it to qualify as your made-up term.

Oh, and:

debunk: address the points and attempt to refute, not blather on about a definition of libertarians that you made up and has no similarity to the idea in question...

Taktix® | December 18, 2007, 11:22am | #

If it is the state or county government, sure you can. Public choice theorists call this "voting with your feet."

MNG,

Which is what I meant when I said "back when we used to have federalism."

joe,

That's a pre-buttal...

Dave W. | December 18, 2007, 11:23am | #

My recollection of indentured servitude agreements is that they had a fixed duration and clearly defined terms.

Okay. But what if a meat packing plant rites up a modern one that clearly defines a term binding lifetime term. Or better yet, a clearly defined term that that applies to all direct decendants of the employee and applies for their lifetimes.

I mean, corporate lawyers are smarter than they used to be. I bet they can get a modern mexican to sign away lots of things that didn't used to get signed away. I mean, golden handcuffs is one thing, but what about full bongage gear made of rusty bailing wire and highway litter? If people are willing to sign up for something that looks, to outward appearances, like chattel slavery then should we let them?

What is the limiting principle here? Carrick says only fraud is a limit (which basically means that the corporation needs to videotape it when the contract is explained in Mandarin or Spanish and then duly signed and initialed). Do you agree with Carrick's approach?

crimethink | December 18, 2007, 11:23am | #

Mr Nice Guy,

Govt-citizen is an opt-out relationship. Employer-employee is an opt-in relationship. However much certain progressive commenters may want to blur the distinction, it's a significant one.

Also, it's comical that you view changing jobs as such a hassle that workers can't be expected to do so if they don't like their jobs, but you don't view having to move to another town, or another state, or apparently even another country as that much of a hassle if you don't like your govt.

Taktix® | December 18, 2007, 11:23am | #

And I don't like watching TV in the least, Mr. Assumptions Guy...

Mr. Nice Guy | December 18, 2007, 11:24am | #

One company, for example, Viacom, owns the following stations on my cable package: Comedy Central, BET, Spike, TV Land, Nickelodeon, MTV, VH1, MTV2, CMT.
Disney owns ABC, ESPN1 and 2, Lifetime, A&E, E....

joe | December 18, 2007, 11:24am | #

Noting that the people in powerful positions are in competition with each other does not refute the notion that they are, in fact, powerful power. Feudal lords were in competition with each other, too.

crimethink,

You don't think that whether a relationship is voluntary makes a big difference in its moral status?

Jeebus, how many times do I have to repeat this? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING'S MORAL STATUS. I'M NOT EDITORIALIZING ABOUT WHETHER THI