I, and i think CP would agree, counter that even through your exaggeration, no coercion has taken place. The only way that such a thing would be true would be through a monopoly. But it is only through government sanction that monopolies exist. Your simple fact is nothing of the sort, especially if we stay on the topic of medicine. Throughout history, medicine has progressed from superstition to religion to scientific inquiry. The only time during this transgression that medicine has ever been perceived as a right, was very recently. It is through someone else's labor that advances in medicine have become possible. So I again I set up a hypothetical:

If I am a scientist and I come up with a cure for some disease, do you have a right to my property? Do i have the right to sell that product at whatever price I deem necessary to compensate my labor or do you have the right to take that product paying whatever it is you think is reasonable? But please keep in mind that if you answer the latter, you in effect destroy one's right to property and the creative spirit. If I am going to toil and sweat and labor to create a product only to have it taken away from me without just compensation, what incentive is there for me to continue production of that product or to create new products?

What kind of person would you be if you gave a parent a choice between letting his child die or paying you 100,000 dollars to give her some medicine you had onhand? Honestly? If you were such a person, I'd suggest that since you live in an emotional society, you had best not share your discovery with others until you can hire a good bodyguard.

The root question deals with whether or not the private sector can engage in the bad things that government has been more than guilty of. In the case of segregation and other forms of racial discrmination, the private sector is just as guilty. Can we say the government is guilty of it, while excusing it when the private sector is equally culpable? The private sector has a free pass on racism but not government?





Do we really?, if the market was so grand at "self-correction," the labor and reform movements in this nation would not have had the widespread success that they did. Business handed them an agenda on a platter practically on every issue from wages, to workplace safety, to child labor laws.



Of course, we disagree about what constitutes failure. I have provided more than a few hyperlinks about the various abuses that workers have faced from their empooyers, however, that isn't enough when compared to platitudes. once again, the real and the ideal seem to clash-just like any converstion about communism.



Who is the business owner to tell everyone else that he/she is not bound to conform to basic standards of operating? Who died and made them omnipotent? You better believe society has the right to dictate rules about not discriminating, as well as who can be hired and between what hours.



We are, but when the boss sexually harasses a subordinate, or when a minority is passed up for promotion, then the referee(i.e.-the government) has to step in to make things right.



We would have anarchy without any rules. We can't have islands without any rules amidst a nation of laws.



Your speaking of the alleged rights of the corporation and business person. The employee has rights to. Racism and punitive punishment in the workplace for non-workplace activities of speech are examples of abuse on the part of the private sector. Once again, we can't have totalitarian islands of share-cropping "freedom" amidst a nation of laws and rights.



Everyone has the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of their race, gender, or age-period. That is a fact, as encapsulated by federal law. That doesn't mean that I(or anyone else for that matter) can't be fired for a legitimate reason. It's only when it's an illegitimate reason, that law comes into play here. The government more than has the right and responsibility to act when the private sector violates the rights of an individual worker. Yes, a person can "terminate" employment and leave, but in the case of share-cropping, you are just free to go somewhere else where the conditions are the same, not a real improvement.



Yes, I acknolwedged that in some circumstances, the government and private sector do have that right. I believe I started out by stating that fact. However, the Hewlett-Packard case clearly shows where this can go overboard and obviously, they got a whuppin' in court over it. Just as the government can be overzealous in monitoring for the peoples' own good,k so too can companies.



The debate question wasn't about the same "level" of abuse, it was about "the same kind" of abuse. I have provided many hyperlinks where discrimination occured to the individual citizen on the part of private business. I also gave a similar example as to how that worked with government as well. Platitudes and ideological platforms don't negate those real life examples.

Let's review.

We don't need child labor-obviously we do as I hyperlinked about minors being injured. For us not to need child labor laws, you would have to prove that no one has gotten hurt on the part of a given businesses's practice. Since the word "impossible' has been used, the standard for proof is rather low.

Personal rights can't be violated-Yes they can. HP and other companies routinely spy and there have been abuses in this realm.

Private sector economycan't discriminate -they obviously have as women and minorities have filed various lawsuits to settle unfair situations.

I understand that you may be tired of going around in circles about this, but I think that so far, it has been a good exchange and it's what AD is all about. I've been around here long enough to see lulls in action, believe you me, this is much better than that. While we may nto convince one another, I think we have learned more about what the opposition believes, as well as what we believe more thoroughly.

That is not an answer to the question. What kind of person would I be if I sold the medicine at a price lower than its value and forced myself to go bankrupt, thus not allowing me to produce more medicine? You see my position as cold and inhumane, but I assure you that its the opposite. If I am coerced to sell my product at a price lower than I deem it is worth, than there is no incentive for me to continue to produce the product. This would cause the deaths of more children and more people. If producing a product is not profitable, it will not be undertaken. An example would be the flu shot. Why was there a scare years ago about the US getting its flu vaccines from the UK? Because US companies did not deem it profitable to produce a vaccine. People who had the vaccine and sued the company because they still got the flu created a disincentive for companies to produce the product. Because of this, how many more lives were lost?



Don't talk to me about the root of the question...it specifically asks if the private sector can result in the same violation of rights as the government. The answer is unequivocally no. The private sector does have a free pass on racism. The KKK can spout racist speech as protected under the 1st Amendment. Its the same principle.



Thats your interpretation. Special interests are never fully satisfied with their position, even if it is relatively better than others.



I don't know about you, i am dealing with the real and the real. You produce a few links about isolated incidents where some dopey fast food manager said something racist. How can you actually compare that to the systematic abuses perpetrated by government throughout history? Such a comparison is laughable.



No right...unless you VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to work for that owner.



Oh they have to make things "right". According to whom exactly? Oh, I hear those majoritarian footsteps again.



I am getting pretty tired of the strawmans. Where exactly did I, or anyone on my side of the debate call for anarchy? Just because I believe in one less law than you do doesnt make me an anarchist.



It is a legal fact, nothing more. Forcing people into involuntary contracts is also a legal fact. Freedom means responsibility. It means having the choice of who I do and do not associate with.



So once again you are putting your isolated incident against the systematic abuse of government power by states all over the world?



I believe, and we can ask CP for clarification, that the level of abuse is implicit when talking about the "same kind." How we could ignore the drastic differences in magnitude boggles the mind.



Atleast we can agree on one thing

I've stayed away from this thread so far because it's paper-writing crunch time but I have to pop in and say I think you and CP simply prefer to avoid admitting the free market can be exploitative, is not guaranteed to yield Pareto efficient outcomes in a functioning price system, etc., because yours is a sacred cow. Believing economic generated inequality is not part of a free market system—it's all the government's fault; the only force with the means to abuse labor—takes a leap of faith.

Similarly, both of you (and deng) deny hiring practices can be discriminating in the negative (skipping black job applicants, for example). You can't budge from the line that only the government discriminates. Is that the best defense you can muster for freedom of association; deny real world consequences of discriminating employers exists? Economics, like political science, is a soft science. How many mainstream economic monetarists do we have?

Beuller?

P.S. Oligopolies are the new monopolies.

Whoa, whoa whoa. I certainly have not said that inequality isn't a natural part of a free market. Never have I said that. What I am saying is that a free market cannot violate the rights of individuals within it.

Define exploitive. Your hypothetical is not exploitation as I see it. Someone created something. It is their own. You need it. They name a price. You call the price ridiculous. It's not your item, the very fact that something that you need is on sale is a positive. If the price is too high, it won't sell, and the price will be lowered by the seller or not sold at all.

No, he said nothing about 'all their decisions', he speaks only regarding political philosophy.

He didn't say humans conduct business that way, he said libertarians and capitalist philosophy relies on cold logic as opposed to the emotional appeal of socialism. You're misinterpreting his statement and making it far broader than it is.

Again, you're misinterpreting that statement. Liberalism [libertarianism] and capitalism appeal to logic while socialism appeals to emotion...That's all Von Mises said and that's all he meant. He does not mean that the market functions in a way that is rational, only that the ideologies he mentioned follow a rational thought process.

And once again, Von Mises is not claiming that humans should be 'androids' nor stop feeling emotion. He is only saying that liberalism in the classic sense and capitalism follows a logical structure of thought whereas socialism appeals to emotion. And for the record, what I'm advocating is nowhere near Randian. She believed that selfishness was moral. I don't, I simply do not believe that self-lessness should be enforced by law.

.Nebraska, it is a fallacy to assume that in a state of anarchy there would be no rules. There would be no state.
Yes, my question did pertain to the severity of harm as well as it's general 'type'.

CP

For the record to call strict libertarianism logical is laughable. Logic is employed to seek the truth from data.

...but that has no inherent purpose. It is emotion or ethics one might say, that drive all political reasoning. Libertarians still believe in personal and property rights.

There is no objective reason to believe in any right, including one's own right to life.

It is impossible to take ethics out of politics.

And 'strict libertarianism' [anarcho-capitalism, perhaps] allows individuals to decide for themselves what 'rights' are. It allows individuals to determine their own ethics and moral code. As opposed to forcing those individuals to accept a universal one.

CP

Note exactly, the universal code is simply limited to "positive harm," many (admittedly sociopathic, but only by majoritarian definition) individuals would decry that as unnecessarily restrictive. The Marquis de Sade for instance.

Not to take this off-topic into a discussion about anarcho-capitalism. But if an individual did not believe that doing no positive harm was 'moral', what could he do? Essentially the same thing he can do now. But again, if you'd like to discuss anarcho-capitalism with me, I'd be up for it, but I don't want to derail my own thread

CP

If a government manager at a given agency passes over a woman or African-American for a management position, that person can be sued and held accountable. What you are advocating is that in the private sector, that any and every wrong be treated differently. That is a double standard. People are discriminated against in the private market based on race, age, and gender. That is a fact. That is an example of the same kind of abuse that government does.

nebraska29:


lederuvdepac:

And your belief is merely your interpretation. However, even if we accept that special interests are constantly looking for new issues to exploit, their ability to do so is based on whether or not they can convince people that there is a legitimate problem. Once again, the reform movement and labor movement would've spun their wheels and not have accomplished a thing had there not been a concerna bout wages, child labor, workplace safety, the eight hour day, and pensions. The fact that those items contributed to workers beign shafted led to the rise of unions. We don't see a big movement towards unionziation today because those items are rather moot points, accepted as something that is a given now.





Actually, I provided proof through hyperlinks, you produced grandiose pronouncements of the ideal from the likes of Friedman, Hayek, etc. Individaul cases show that it is not "impossible" for the private sector to be guilty of the same kind of abuses that governmetn commits every day-from deaths on the job, to injuries, to illegal spying(as the HP case shows) and discrmination based on race, age, and gender. Those things do happen.





That voluntary choice occurs when their need is met with your skills and abilities, every other consideration is below the table and thus, out of bounds for them to consider. That is what a right and moral society dictates, lest the standards of fairness and decency descend to the lowest common denominator.

Nebraska29:


lederuvdepac


We are based on the notion of majority rule correct? I mean, that's what the pilgrims and every other major group that created a document favored right? So everyone is covered under that, except for your extreme free-market ideology where business and economics is above everybody else, even if their product kills someone, if someone is killed/injured on the job, or if the boss egregiously violates an employees rights through discrimination or harassment. Yes, the private sector can make their decisions, they just have to do it based on fairness and on merit-ideals which business supposedly possesses, though "business ethics" is perhaps a contradiction in terms that rivals "government efficiency" in terms of contradiction.

Nebraska29


lederuvdepac
I am getting pretty tired of the strawmans. Where exactly did I, or anyone on my side of the debate call for anarchy? Just because I believe in one less law than you do doesnt make me an anarchist.

Is everyone covered under majority rule and laws or not?

Nebraska29


lederuvdepac


Yes, and if you base those decisions on ability, merit, and fairness, the government and the rest of your fellow citizens won't have a problem. However, a given business entitity can't allow employees to be harassed, discrminated against, or their rights violated at a whim based on the notion of some "self-correction" ideology.

Nebraska29


lederuvdepac


These "isolated events" smash the notion that it is "impossible" for the private sector to discriminate, spy, or harm citizens. I could stick to ideological philosophy and speak of generalities and some vague notion of how things are, but what would that accomplish? You may not like my examples, but the corporate world is run by people and thus-is prone to the very same kind of abuses that government is guilty of. The same flawed humans that bring greed, corruption, and nepotism in government, also bring that into the business world. For every Elliott Richardson or Barry Goldwater, there is a Richard Nixon or Alcee Hastings. In the private world, for every Lee Iacocca, there is a "Kenny Boy" Lay or some management chauvenist who hates women and who helps to hold the glass ceiling in place. That is a fact that has been proven through specific examples. You don't like it because it doesn't mesh with your ideology. My examples prove that philosphers and economists not withstanding, when the ideology hits the ground, the real world doesn't hold to that same high ideal standard. Quite interesting that the free-market bears a similarity to communism in this regard-the disconnect between what the leaders and advocates for hte ideal advocate, and what regular people experience.

As I have already said, the private sector is supposed to have discrimination...it is a necessary aspect of the marketplace. It is not a double standard because the private sector and the government are not held to the same principles. The purpose of government is to protect individual rights and ensure healthy competition in the marketplace. It is not the job of the government to dictate morality or decide how I should or should not judge other people. It is completely arbitrary.



There was a concern about wages, child labor, and workplace safety. And in order to see their interests met, they used the coercive arm of government. But this was not necessary. The private sector was already learning ways in order to be more productive. A grand example is Henry Ford:



Ford was a pioneer in labor philosophy and he didnt need any government to tell him to do so. He knew that incentives such as a shorter work week and higher pay would increase overall efficiency and productivity. Even today, would corporations act differently if those same laws were repealed? It is highly unlikely. There are plenty of studies conducted by corporations to discover how to motivate their workers and increase productivity. Thet data shows that if you work your employees too long for not enough compensation that it follows the theory of diminishing returns.

.

I did provide examples although I mentioned them as I thought they were common knowledge (warrantless searches, secret wiretaps, imprisonment without trial, suspension of habeas corpus). I never stated that the private sector wasnt capable of certain abuses. I stated that when in comparison with governmnet, the private sector can NEVER result in the same amount of abuse. You are comparing a handgun to a tank. I submit that both are lethal but that one could do a hell of a lot more damage with a tank.



Whenever someone uses these grandiose terms like "right and moral society", I become suspicious. Such subjective terminology is dangerous to a free society. What you mean to say is what you think constitutes a right and moral society. How is this any different from the Religious Right wanting to impose their views of a "right and moral society"? Or any radical ideology for that matter?



Majoritarianism is the most rational way that we can have a free society work. However, majority rule can also be a recipe for tyranny if we are easy to disregard the rights of the minority. Individual rights are what is to be protected, especially from majority opinion. The Founders did not value Democracy, they valued Liberty. Democracy is merely the means.



Wow, strawmans in back-to-back posts. Is it possible we could go for a hat trick?



Completely arbitrary. Fairness is another one of those words that just irks me. Who is to decide what is fair? A majority?



See above.



Your examples prove nothing. Again, you are comparing a handgun to a tank. I didnt deny that private sector abuse is possible only that when in comparison with government (which is what the topic question asked) that the score isnt even close.

As is the prohibition on murder or theft, all values are arbitrary in that sense.

Discrimination based on factors that have nothing to do with job performance is not a necessary part of the market.


Often times productivity and humane treatment don't go hand in hand, sweat shops are darn profitable.


Congo Free State proved that false on a massive scale.

Why must I continually go in circles here turnea? You know full well that my response rests on individualist principles.



Sure it is. Here's an example. Let's say that I own a business and some guy walks in looking for a job. Lets also say that he is of the same race and/or ethnicity as I am so that there is no mistake for racism. What if I just don't like him? What if he has great qualifications, has a Harvard MBA and I just plain do not like him? Is he discriminated against? Should I be prosecuted because I didn't want to hire him? OR should I have the ability to make my own decisions with who I will and will not work with? I apologize if I do not live in such an ivory tower.



Often times people are forced into working into sweatshops by warlords and coercive government. However, sweatshops put in place by corporations usually offer better wages and better treatment than any other job in the country. The sweatshop is not the fault of capitalism, but a fault of the rule of law in the given country that does not protect individual rights.



Please. I just read about the Congo Free State and to say that this was a private entity working in a free market is just laughable. You are telling me that the King of Belgium, who set up a phony private organization with money from his own treasury, who proceeded to gain ownership of a territory in Congo in order to enslave the populace and rape the country of its natural resources was the free market at work? I mean are we serious here? Even when the other European governments also tried to chop up African lands and profit from the terror and misery of the populace? To say that Congo Free State was a private corporation working in a free market is the very height of intellectual dishonesty and is easily refuted by any cool head who just reads about: Congo Free State

Principles which are ...arbitrary.

So why use that argument against someone else?


The social affects of discrimination against an entire group is large enough to make it a concern to government.

Individual cases like this would, I hope, simply subject someone to firing by their higher-ups.

This is a false comparison, we have a long documented history of racial and religious discrimination to battle against. Comparing that to "someone you don't like" is apples and oranges.


...comparatively. On an absolute scale workers are often abused unnecessarily.


It was a private organization, the article itself says so. (I mean the first words "a corporate state")

Where is the dishonesty?

Turnea...How, in the name of all things sacred, is a coporate STATE a free market at work? As Leder said, the King of Belgium took money from his own treasury, established a nonsense private entity and began systematically opressing Congo Free State. A monarch using taxpayer money to fund the creation of his own puppet state is no where near a free market, I cannot believe that the notion that it is has even been proposed to be perfectly honest.

CP

You suppose some sort of essential difference that arises when a thing is called a state when it was clear Leopold viewed and ran it as a commercial enterprise even to the point of selling it to the Belgians government when it became less profitable.

Leopold borrowed money from the government as an individual and proceeded to exploit the natural resources of the Congo.

As an 'individual'? How many individuals were given access to the treasury of Belgium? How many people were given access to its Parliament to solicit such a 'loan'? He was the King of the country, Turnea. To say that he was acting as an 'individual' is ridiculous. In addition, and as I've said, in a free market, the government doesn't loan money, that consitutes 'involvement' in the economy. With loans comes restrictions etc. etc.

CP

Only under absolutist government, Belgium was a constitutional monarchy, Leopold was a figurehead.


What restrictions were placed on this loan? They just lent him money, cash from anywhere is the same.

It isn't arbitrary to say that everyone's individual rights are to be protected. Meaning that everyone's life, liberty, and property are to be protected. Saying that I shoudl judge someone based on merit or some metaphysical ideal is arbitrary. One should be free to make those choices on their own, when they do no positive harm to others.



Oh, the social effects? The social effects should not be a concern of government, only the individual effects. I really hate to quote Ayn Rand because I don't like a big chunk of her philosophy but she said something that I agree with:" The greatest minority on earth is that of the individual. Those who do not protect the rights of the individual cannot claim to be a defender of minority rights."



Then judge the situation on its own merits. Should I be able to pass over someone if for no other reason than I do not like them? Maybe the guy just has a quirky personality that I do not like. Is that discrimination? I know you see where I am going with this.



Oh I agree, but like I said, sweatshops are faults of the governments failing to protect individual rights...not so much capitalism. Markets working under such conditions are fascist in nature.



Democratic People's Republic of Korea

I guess North Korea is a Democratic republic also? It's name says so. First of all, there is no such thing as a "corporate state" in the free market. Secondly, your example is by no means a private entity. It was operated by the King of Belgium! He used money from his own treasury to finance it! He had an army to terrorize/coerce the populace! Let's read more of the article shall we?

Congo free State



Doesn't sound much like a private corporation to me turnea.

I see you went went the Locke version as opposed to Jefferson's "pursuit of happiness"

In any case, yes it is. what gives it any more objective value that the right to be judged on merit?


Well let's disband the military then.

Again, arbitrary.


Hands-off government allows such treatment to occur, that's why the hands need to be on.


Armies can be private, this one was.

That he had diplomatic relations to legitimize his private conquest changes nothing.

Slavery is another example of people on a national scale being abused by the private sector.

For two reasons. First, merit is subjective. Who is to say that I worked as hard or harder than you did in school? How can you possibly quanitfy that? There are only two ways such a thing can be judged. By an arbitrary government power or by the free market which leads me into the second reason. Value, and not merit is to be judged. I have used this example numerous times and it is still pertinent: Lets say you and I open bakeries on opposite sides of the road. We have approximately the same space, same machines, same amount of workers. We put the same amount of effort into making our bakery a success. However when we open up, you receive more business than I do. Maybe you bake cakes better or have some sort of pastry people prefer. Maybe the name of your bakery is just better. It doesn't matter. If we judged on merit, we would be equal. But it is value that is important. The consumer saw more value in your merit than they saw through my merit. This isnt arbitrary. Another example would be if you and I are scientists. You work all your life on a cure for cance while I stumble upon a cure while working on something else. In this situation, your merit far outweighs my own, but the value placed on my merit is higher. In both situations, we were judged not by some arbitrary third party, but by consumers who freely chose one of us based on value.



No. Its the breakdown of the rule of law. Many third world countries lack a strong legal framework or a way to enforce those laws. That is what leads to sweatshops, not capitalism.



You are grasping at straws here turnea. A private army led by the King of Belgium huh? There was nothing "private" about the Congo Free State. It was European colonization at its worst.



And back to the slavery example which has been debunked several times.

No, it isn't. That's exactly the point. That's why the market (when regulated correctly) works to improve practices and technology. Because merit is objective, better is better.


No. I'm better marketer or baker.

Now if they just liked me better even though I sold the same goods and treated them the same way... then we have a meritless difference.


Merit is what you do, not what you intend to do. There are plenty of Nobel prizes born of accidental discoveries, I don't think they are meritless.


The law here is government regulation of the private sector.


Yes, the private army of the constitutional figurehead King of Belgium he payed himself, not out of governmental funds. Mercenaries, not government troops.

The historians are on my side.

Check back, even CP admits it applies.

Oh it isn't? Than who is unequivocally the best baseball player of all time? I assume the answer you come up with will be the same as everyone else's since merit is so objective.


Thats what i said. The merit is the same, but the value is different. That is why value, not merit should be what is judged.



Oh i don't either. But as i said, merit is not as important as value. The merit of your work is no indicator on its value. Value is an objective principle that can be determined by consumers freely choosing to buy your product. Merit is a subjective principle because nobody can objectively quantify if one person works harder than the next.



Oh the King of Belgium paid for the army himself? With his own funds? Where exactly did the son of King Leopold I acquire such wealth? He win the lottery?

It doesn't matter if it was trained troops, militia, or mercenaries. They were directly financed by the King of Belgium using money from the Belgian treasury. This was the case of a government entity establishing a phony private organization in order to colonize an African nation. Leopold was the sole shareholder and chairman of this dummy organization. How can you possibly turnea, with all your knowledge and wisdom, contend that Congo Free State was an example of an independent, private corporation working in a free market? Is it not more akin to fascism than capitalism?



I believe CP said the following:

Let's not confuse the multi-faceted nature of the question with subjectivity.

Best at what?

We have a home-run record for a reason, Barry Bonds has merit. He hits pitches, they leave the stadium.

Drawing crowds? no man does that alone, but teams certainly can.





Irrelevant. He ran it without government interference. Money is just money, when an individual calls the shots, it's private.

No, fascism is submission to the state and society, Leopold acted in capacity as a shareholder and CEO, not government official. It's not just me, historians agree, even Leopold's page on Wikipedia is under the heading "Private Colonialism." Link

On slavery the discussion continued further. On a day to day basis it was private plantation owner that provided the force behind slavery not government.

What you call the free market has never existed, I merely have a view unconstrained by the Modern American context.

When the private sector has guns they can violate rights.

Is that so hard to believe?

I'm sorry, what did I admit?

I admitted NO such thing, Turnea, no such thing. What I said, and what Leder rightly quoted was that the a free market cannot exist if a given race is unequal before the law.

Turnea, come on. If President Bush asked Congress to include in its budget $20 billion in order for him to purchase the country of Mexico, his doing so would not constitute the act of an individual, nor would his ownership of the land occur within the parameters of a free market.

We should stop assuming that the 'private sector' is one large, cohesive body filled with like minded individuals. The private sector is composed of individuals. The private sector 'has guns' now. Unlike the government, it is unbelievably difficult, if not completely impossible to concentrate absolute power in a free market...Impossible. So again, statements like the above quoted make it appear as though the private sector is this thing that walks around and does things [Lewis Black reference...anyone?], it is a mass of individuals, not a cohesive unit.

CP

President Bush is not a figurehead, but an actual head of state.
Leopold II was more like Queen Elizabeth. He got a loan from the Belgian government, which itselfrefused to be involved in the running of the colony.

All of his actions after gaining the extra cash he needed were pure private sector.

Again if this were the action of the Belgian government is would make no sense that when it lost profitability (and caused bad publicity) he turned it over to... the Belgian government.

Again you are imposing a definition of free market that has never existed. If you wish to invalidate all historical examples on this basis, we can talk about that.


Monopolies are impossible?

Since a there essentially cannot exist a market without government's very active sponsorship and oversight, and since there has never been a government that has failed to represent the private interests of the most powerful and wealthiest parts of society, the ones who essentially determine the activities of agriculture and industry, this question is founded on a category mistake of the first magnitude.

First, markets simply cannot exist without government, which regulates terms of trade, provides security, and enforces contract law. In a modern context government also maintains the medium of exchange and regulates the credit system necessary to essentially all trade, and regulates the labor market.

When Rome fell in the late 400's, there was a radical lapse in government, and the result was that significant markets disappeared for close on 1,000 years. There was a general absence of goods being shipped any distance, either by land or by sea, in Western Europe. That is why we see that in the "dark ages," there was a very high degree of reliance on home production (and correspondingly on home defense forces). When the city states of northern Germany, the Netherlands and Italy rose in the late middle ages, there was a certain reappearance of markets, and a notably proactive regulation of them. This expanded as the city-states were consolidated into nation-states, and government of oversight and maintenance of trade expanded to a national scale. "Property" does not occur in nature but is something that is conceived of in books of law, and these books are written by governments. Governments make markets; that is the long and the short of it.

If you want to see what a "free" market looks like, go out and buy some heroin. But even that statement is misleading, because international trade in heroin could not exist without the broader context of security, banking and money that only governments can supply.

That markets could somehow exist "free of" government is the first fatal confusion of Libertarianism.

Second, there has never been a government from Rome down to the present that did not represent essentially the ruling class of the given society. Just look at how laws are made today, for example, and at who benefits. So it is quite absurd to theorize about what government is capable of on the one hand, and the "private sector" on the other, when these things are essentially just the right and left hands of the same group people. This is the second fatal confusion of Libertarianism.

Which was "responsible" for slavery, the state and federal governments of this country, or the plantation aristocracy and commercial interests that benefitted from it? The answer is, since these two things were essentially the same, only a Libertarian ideologue would even propose such a question. Slavery, obviously, could not exist on a commercial scale without a set of laws and regulations governing trade in human beings, their treatment in the workplace, manumission, rights of ownership to offspring, and so on and so forth, and a system of security against slave escape or, still worse, insurrection. Equally it could not exist without many powerful private interests able and willing to profit from it. Neither of these two things could precede the other, any more than a person can precede himself; the same interests that profited from slavery wrote the laws, and developed the systems of systematic repression, that made it possible.

Turnea, perhaps the quote your referencing would make sense if you put it into the context of what it was in response to. You said that the 'private sector' could violate rights if it 'has the guns', as if the private sector is this single entity that gets guns and then oppresses at will. I responded by saying that the private sector is not a cohesive body and 'the guns' cannot be concentrated within it. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with monopolies, which, by the way, I have already acknowledged are a very rare part of a free market.

I really don't think we're going to get anywhere with this, but, as I've said: it cannot be 'pure private sector' if it is backed with GOVERNMENT money.

Right, except your own article claims that the Beligian parliament, and I quote, 'compelled the King to cede the colony.' That's the problem with being given a government loan, the government then has leverage some degree of power over how you use it. The parliament 'compelled' Leopold to cede the colony, he did not decide from the goodness of his heart to sell it as a result of bad publicity.

CP

Firstly, value and merit are two seperate and distinct things. They can be considered synonyms but they are certainly different in the context that I provided for you. Merit would be the amount of effort made in producing a product. Value would be what the consumers deem the appropriate worth of the product you produced.



Because he was the government. A government figure used government funds to colonize an African nation.



Surely you know better than to use Wikipedia as your claim to historical authority. Its a useful tool in referencing various subjects, but you can hardly say that "historians" agree with you because Wikipedia has a heading. Furthermore, Leopold acted as a the ONLY shareholder to his organization which was financed through government. That is fascist, not capitalist. He did not operate in a free market of buying/selling goods.



Which as we said only occurred because government allowed and perpetuated the practice. If the government protected individual liberty (the entire point me and CP are making), it would not have been possible.

I fully agree that some participants in this debate are essentially fantasizing about a "free" market that not only never existed, but could not possibly have existed. But it is useless to try to draw a distinction between King Leopold of Belgium, or any other prominent member of the ruling class of Belgium or any other country of that era, and the states which these people controlled and which, with full vigor, operated in their interest. It's a system of oppression. Ownership and rulership are essentially the same thing. The same people who have the private wealth and power are the ones who write the laws, and command the army and the police. Under capitalism, capital and state power are essentially the same thing, at least until the working class takes some degree of power for itself.

There is a difference between discriminating between coke and pepsi, and discriminating against a person up for promotion based on race, age, or gender. Do you not accept that there is a difference? There is a clear difference there, and it's a great example of how the private sector is equally capable of discimination, just as government is. However, you are arguing that discrimination is a fact of life for the private sector and that it isn't bad-I'm glad that we agree that like the government, the private sector does discriminate like the government. Once again, for it to be "impossible" for the private sector to infringe on the rights of people, you would have to show that unjust discrimination against minorities and women in the workplace does not exist. You can't possibly do that, and my hyperlinks clearly show otherwise.

The purpose of government is not at issue here, the question deals with whether or not the private sector is capable of the kinds of abuses that government is guilty of.



Ford's move made him very unpopular with his peers, he was definitely in the minority in that regard. The effort for an 8 hour day began loooooong before him.



I thought scope of abuses on government was greater, I have to admit-I'mg wrong. Comparing the federal government to corporations is an unfair comparison. A better example would be to compare state or county governments to certain businesses. In that regard, I'd take most state governments over Arthur Anderson, ENRON, or any business driven by Leona Helmsley, or an '80s venture by Michael Milken any day of the week. That would certainly be the case in more than a few examples, but once again, no institution is inherently flawless. People run them and as such, the flaws contaminate government and the private sector.



So discrimination based on age, gender, and race are not wrong? How is that possible? I'm all ears.



How is barring discrimination based on age, race, or gender tyrannical?



In principle, do you believe that corporations should be subject to government laws?




I'm glad that we agree that it isn't "impossible" for the private sector to ever violate the rights of citizens. As for the scope and size of the problem-if we compared county and state governments to business, I think you would find the level of abuses to be roughly similar, if not greater on the part of say-Arthur Anderson versus the state of Vermont as an employer.

The naivety of this remark, and its abounding ignorance of history, is stunning. Nothing, apparently, is characteristic of capitalism except for a free market idyll that exists only in your imagination. If any of its actual, historical or present harms are brought to capitalism's doorstep, you say, these are the result of state power, not capitalism. Well, in whose interests were the repressive systems of labor organization that were characteristic of the early 19th century (and later) in Europe, and even today in other parts of the world? In whose interests were slavery? Colonialism? Fascist ideologues? What, in the age of Dickens? On the contrary, the people supporting these legal systems, serving as legislators, presidents, judges, newspaper publishers and university professors were and are the very same ones who own the sweatshops!

One person here, I'm not sure it was you, even said that there could be no free market so long as there was any form of racial discrimination. Well then, apparently there was no free market before 1865; there was no free market during Jim Crow; there possibly is no free market even today. When, precisely, has the free market that Libertarians rhapsodize about so much actually existed?

There is no capitalism without state power; and until some class besides the capitalists have power, there is no state power without capitalism. Except, that is, in Ayn Rand's theories and your fantasies.

Vladmir, I'm not sure how you've confused statism with capitalism, but you have. The state is not necessary [and in my view, not preferable] for a market to exist. In fact, what I have been arguing is just the contrary, a free market void of the state. You say that a market cannot exist without the state; no, government regulation cannot exist without the state.

You are again, reducing the entire market into the 'ruling class' and 'everyone else'. This is the fatal flaw of marxism/communism. The private sector is too decentralized [in general] for it to be logical to say that the same people running the state [which in my 'fantasy' does not exist] are the same 'running' the private sector. The private sector is too vast and diverse. Are those individuals prominent members of the private sector, sure. But again, in my 'fantasy' the state doesn't exist, so the point of those running the government simultaneously comprising the 'ruling class' of the private sector is moot.

CP

So how exactly would one enforce contract law without the state? How would one enforce property rights? For that matter, what would give money its value in the first place?

In order:

Arbitration, mediation and negotiation. If need be, through a system of privately established courts and police.

See above.

The people who use it. Value is subjective and artificial, if two people believe that a photo of myself is valuable, it can be used as currency. It wouldn't be, but this is a dramatic example.

CP

nebraska29 first...



For the purposes of pursuing self-interest in the marketplace, there is no difference. Just as I choose coke as my beverage of choice, I choose who I want to work for me. Its about the freedom to make a choice and not have that choice dictated to you by somebody else.



I never argued otherwise.



Wrong. As I have already stated numerous times, and as per the question...the magnitude of abuse is what is important. Do you agree that in terms of pure volume of abuse that the government is worse than corporations by a longshot???



And the answer is no, not on the same magnitude, not even close.



You prove my point for me. The US did not pass the eight hour work week into law until 1916. Ford instituted his program in 1914. Other movements that involved no government intervention occurred before that.



I'm glad to see that you concede comparing the federal government to a corporation is unfair. Perhaps comparing to muncipal governments is more apt...but it is ultimately futile due to the size and power of the federal government.



I hope you're all ears because I hope this is the last time I have to repeat myself. Discrimination is wrong. But just because my morality dictates that we should treat people as individuals DOESNT MEAN that this morality is shared by others. The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. The ability to pursue your own self-interest is a part of that. So if i have a piece of property and ir efuse to sell it to someone because of race, age, gender...that is my choice. And i should be free to make that choice and not be told by big daddy government that my choice is wrong.



Absolutely. Laws that outlaw fraud and lying to the consumer is essential to the success of a free society. Furthermore, corporations that dump toxic waste or send dangerous pollutants into the air should also be subject to legislation. However, when it comes to market decisions such as who to hire and who not to hire...that should be the decision of the manager.

And on to Vladmir, ill bite...