Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

Am I correct in assuming that acts such as nepotism should be OK (whether they are private or public organizations)?

Nepotism is obviously fine in private organizations. For public organizations it is a little trickier - which is why it's important to have appointees and contract selections carefully reviewed. Congressional review makes it difficult for George to appoint Jeb to the supreme court, for example. Still, if nepotism goes on in public organizations, those who are elected have to face their constituents the next time an election comes up.

I don't think that it should be impossible to hire (or give contracts to) people who are related to you in a public office, but those choices should be justifiable to the public.

 

[Duke]

Am I correct in assuming that acts such as nepotism should be OK (whether they are private or public organizations)?

Public, NO, except as indicated in danoff's post above. Private, sure. no questions asked.

 

[Swift]

Public, NO, except as indicated in danoff's post above. Private, sure. no questions asked.

That makes good sense.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That makes good sense.

Is it right for a publicly-traded corporation to declare bankruptcy in order to break union contracts, lower wages and benefits by 70%, and eliminate pensions without a shareholder vote?

 

[Swift]

Is it right for a publicly-traded corporation to declare bankruptcy in order to break union contracts, lower wages and benefits by 70%, and eliminate pensions without a shareholder vote?

Nope, but at the same time. It's not my company.

Is it right for the government to move around jobs in the deptarment of defense without giving the employees an option? Nope. But it happens far to often.

 

[Danoff]

Is it right for a publicly-traded corporation to declare bankruptcy in order to break union contracts, lower wages and benefits by 70%, and eliminate pensions without a shareholder vote?

That depends on the terms by which the shareholders own stakes in the company. One of the difficult things about this scenario is the whole concept of declaring bankruptcy - which is something very abused and in need of an overhaul. <- Again, this is the government protecting businesses from their creditors... and it causes problems (imagine that).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Nope, but at the same time. It's not my company.

If you are a shareholder, then yes, you do own (at least a fraction) of the company. You should be able to have a say in whether or not the company should file for bankruptcy.

That depends on the terms by which the shareholders own stakes in the company. One of the difficult things about this scenario is the whole concept of declaring bankruptcy - which is something very abused and in need of an overhaul. <- Again, this is the government protecting businesses from their creditors... and it causes problems (imagine that).

If someone owns shares in a company they should have a say in such matters as bankruptcy etc... that's democracy. One share should not equal one vote. One shareholder should equal one vote.

And Dan, I know where you're going with the "government protecting businesses" rap... more insidious anti-government propaganda.

Let me guess: you think we should privatize bankruptcy proceedings? 💡

Care to explain why that would be a better idea?

 

[Swift]

If you are a shareholder, then yes, you do own (at least a fraction) of the company. You should be able to have a say in whether or not the company should file for bankruptcy.

I agree. Now, are the laws setup that way?

 

[Danoff]

If someone owns shares in a company they should have a say in such matters as bankruptcy etc... that's democracy. One share should not equal one vote. One shareholder should equal one vote.

Who said businesses were democracies? Publicly owned or otherwise. Publicly traded is a bit of a misnomer. The business is not owned by the public - but peices of it are for sale. You can buy them, and thereby own a share in the company. I don't know what the rules are about shareholders - I assume that they're set up by the company. You should know what you're buying when you purchase a share of a company. I would say that yes, a shareholder should get input into the decisions of the business - however, one share should equal one vote. The guy who owns the majority of the business gets the most say. That makes sense.

Let me guess: you think we should privatize bankruptcy proceedings? 💡
Care to explain why that would be a better idea?

I'm not totally convinced that a shelter such as bankruptcy should exist, but I'm not sure that it shouldn't either. At the moment I'm thinking that some kind of bankruptcy should exist. However, businesses abuse bankruptcy in a major way. They do things like split their business in two, transferring all of the debts to one of the two, then have that one declare bankruptcy.... a nice way to sidestep your debts. The bankruptcy code needs to be written with more personal accountability rather than business entity accountability.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I agree. Now, are the laws setup that way?

No, but that's no fault of the SEC or any government organization for that matter. The corporate executives make the decision on their own to file for bankruptcy. Personally, I would have voted AGAINST the bankruptcy if I had owned shares in DPH. I know the REAL reason why Delphi did what they did -- this was a strategic bankruptcy.

Who said businesses were democracies?

I never did. I just think that publicly-traded companies should have more of a democratic (rather than a plutocratic) element to their proceedings.

Publicly owned or otherwise. Publicly traded is a bit of a misnomer. The business is not owned by the public - but peices of it are for sale. You can buy them, and thereby own a share in the company.

I know that.

I don't know what the rules are about shareholders - I assume that they're set up by the company.

Correct -- like little dictatorships now that you mention it. The top executives have little to no incentive to actually run a company -- this is exactly why corporations (or at least publicly-traded corporations) should be run democratically. Accountability would be restored faster than a top fuel dragster's run at the strip.

You should know what you're buying when you purchase a share of a company. I would say that yes, a shareholder should get input into the decisions of the business - however, one share should equal one vote. The guy who owns the majority of the business gets the most say. That makes sense.

Yes, a plutocracy does make sense.

I'm not totally convinced that a shelter such as bankruptcy should exist, but I'm not sure that it shouldn't either. At the moment I'm thinking that some kind of bankruptcy should exist. However, businesses abuse bankruptcy in a major way. They do things like split their business in two, transferring all of the debts to one of the two, then have that one declare bankruptcy.... a nice way to sidestep your debts. The bankruptcy code needs to be written with more personal accountability rather than business entity accountability.

The best way to elicit personal accountability would be to force corporations to change their rules by allowing one vote per person rather than one vote per share (via the SEC). If a CEO knew that his chances of staying in that position were slim or that his bonus would be deferred (just like dividends are deferred sometimes) as voted for by the majority of the stockholders (and not the majority stockholder), they would be more inclined to make the company work.

 

[Danoff]

No, but that's no fault of the SEC or any government organization for that matter. The corporate executives make the decision on their own to file for bankruptcy. Personally, I would have voted AGAINST the bankruptcy if I had owned shares in DPH. I know the REAL reason why Delphi did what they did -- this was a strategic bankruptcy.

Two things.

1) Abuse of bankruptcy is the government's fault for not writing the code properly or revising the code in response to abuse. It's also the corporations fault for taking advantage of an opportunity to do something bad just because they can get away with it.
2) Know what you're purchasing. If you buy a share, you should know what kind of say in the company's business that purchases you.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

1) Abuse of bankruptcy is the government's fault for not writing the code properly or revising the code in response to abuse.

The government won't revise the code because corporations lobby against its revision.

It's also the corporations fault for taking advantage of an opportunity to do something bad just because they can get away with it.

Agreed. Now knowing this, why would you want to remove restrictions on business?

2) Know what you're purchasing. If you buy a share, you should know what kind of say in the company's business that purchases you.

All shares of common stock work the same way. One share = one vote. Preferred shares have a different set of parameters. Exchange-traded debt securities and bonds have their own set of parameters as well.

...I've edited my previous post...

 

[Danoff]

The government won't revise the code because corporations lobby against its revision.

Then our elected leaders are failing us.

Agreed. Now knowing this, why would you want to remove restrictions on business?

It's all about making the law as complete as possible while protecting property rights.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Then our elected leaders are failing us.

Aha! One thing we can agree on in this thread!

It's all about making the law as complete as possible while protecting property rights.

Sadly, that's not enough. Not nearly enough.

 

[Swift]

Sadly, that's not enough. Not nearly enough.

I'm curious. What else is needed?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm curious. What else is needed?

Regulation.

 

[Danoff]

Regulation.

You have yet to establish that.

 

[Swift]

You have yet to establish that.

That's the challenge with the current political parties. The DON'T address the heart of the issues like the Libertarian party does. Now I'm not saying I'm a libertarian or even support them. But it would be nice if a republican or democrat were as straight forward as the libertarians are.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That's the challenge with the current political parties. The DON'T address the heart of the issues like the Libertarian party does. Now I'm not saying I'm a libertarian or even support them. But it would be nice if a republican or democrat were as straight forward as the libertarians are.

The "complete laws" Dan is referring to are laws that protect negative rights (and completely ignore positive rights, though that's another discussion).

Big business and the rich stand to benefit the most from these "complete laws".

I initially said [government] regulation because they are needed to prevent abuses caused by "complete laws".

I don't see how I can get any more straightforward than that.

 

[Danoff]

The "complete laws" Dan is referring to are laws that protect negative rights (and completely ignore positive rights, though that's another discussion).

Big business and the rich stand to benefit the most from these "complete laws".

I initially said [government] regulation because they are needed to prevent abuses caused by "complete laws".

I don't see how I can get any more straightforward than that.

Huh?

Ok, look every law is going to benefit one group more than another. Laws against drugs benefit non-drug users more than would-be drug users. Handicapped access laws benefit the handicapped more than the non-handicapped. Minimum wage laws benefit nobody, but they hurt the poor more than the rich. Child pornography laws hurt Michael Jackson more than everyone else.

But this is an effect of the law, and NOT justification for it.

Passing a law with the intent to harm one group or help another simply for the sake of helping or harming that group is the wrong thing to do. Laws are (for the most part) and should be based on what is right and wrong .


Let me say this carefully. I don't care if the law benefits the rich or the poor or the middle class or bankers or restaurants or smokers or non-smokers. That is not justification for the law. What I care about is whether it is right or wrong. That's it.

I initially said [government] regulation because they are needed to prevent abuses caused by "complete laws".

Laws do not cause abuses, people do. Bad laws ARE abuses, and taking advantage of loopholes is an abuse.

Morality is not prescribed by law. Do not assume that what is legal is a good idea, or the right thing to do. Do not turn over control of your actions to your government, do not let them tell you the difference between right and wrong - and do not assume that the government must tell people what is moral and what is not.

Society functions because people manage to govern themselves to a great extent. The purpose of the law is to protect rights.

Is it illegal to walk up to an old lady and say that she is ugly? That she is old and probably near death? Is it illegal to walk up to a blonde person and tell them that their blonde hair is hideous? Is it illegal to tell someone that they are too poor? Or too rich? Or that you would not have sex with them if they were the last person on earth?

No, none of these things are illegal. But that does not make them the right thing to do.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok, look every law is going to benefit one group more than another.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can have regulations in conjunction with those laws that way the costs and benefits are distributed equally among everyone.

Laws against drugs benefit non-drug users more than would-be drug users.

Correct. But we allow nicotine, morphine, alcohol etc. to be legal. So you see? We have laws that benefit non-drug users, but we also permit the use of some drugs. Everybody shares the benefits and the costs.

Handicapped access laws benefit the handicapped more than the non-handicapped.

Correct, but we're not excessive about it. Meaning, there is no law saying that you have to make your own home hadicapped accessible. Therefore again, the benefits and the costs are shared equally.

Minimum wage laws benefit nobody, but they hurt the poor more than the rich.

No, Dan, minimum wage laws hurt the rich, small business owners, and low-skilled workers such as teenagers (who should stay in school to develop marketable skills and increase human capital rather that becoming cheap laborers for aforementioned small businesses and the rich). They benefit the working poor just like labor unions -- though you'd probably do away with them too...

Besides, look no further than Chile (circa 1973-1990) to see what happens when minimum wage laws are eliminated. Why do you choose to ignore past mistakes? I'll be the first to admit that rent control (among other government regulations) hurts the poor (but that's beside the point). Even if the US were to eliminate minimum wage laws and the end result mirrored Chile's experience, would you continue to advocate the lack of a minimum wage as "the right thing"?

Child pornography laws hurt Michael Jackson more than everyone else.

You'd probably legalize that too in the name of negative rights. "Where there's a market there's a way!"

Passing a law with the intent to harm one group or help another simply for the sake of helping or harming that group is the wrong thing to do. Laws are (for the most part) and should be based on what is right and wrong .

And who determines what is right and wrong? What if what I consider right you consider wrong and vice versa?

Let me say this carefully. I don't care if the law benefits the rich or the poor or the middle class or bankers or restaurants or smokers or non-smokers. That is not justification for the law. What I care about is whether it is right or wrong. That's it.

And it's your admitted lack of compassion for those who are hurt by your "complete laws" that makes you a minority in this country. Terrifyingly enough, though, the Liberpublican Party shares many of your views (on economics) and an increasing number of representatives who espouse these views are getting elected.

Again, who determines whether a law is right or wrong?

Laws do not cause abuses, people do.

And knowing this, why would you want to remove restrictions on business?

Morality is not prescribed by law. Do not assume that what is legal is a good idea, or the right thing to do.

Do not assume that I assume that what is legal is a good idea/the right thing to do. At one point segregation, slavery, and public executions were legal... obviously I'm totally against that.

Do not turn over control of your actions to your government, do not let them tell you the difference between right and wrong - and do not assume that the government must tell people what is moral and what is not.

More anti-government propaganda...

Society functions because people manage to govern themselves to a great extent.

If this were the case, we wouldn't have a Civil Rights movement, we wouldn't have a minimum wage, we wouldn't have the EPA or FDA, we wouldn't have welfare, we wouldn't have Social Security, we wouldn't have the SEC (believe me I could go on, but by now you should get the idea). If businesses managed to govern themselves to a great extent, we wouldn't need Progressive/liberal/socialist regulations at all.

The purpose of the law is to protect rights.

Both positive and negative, yes. Ignoring either one will result in abuses. A good law finds the balance between the two.

Is it illegal to walk up to an old lady and say that she is ugly? That she is old and probably near death? Is it illegal to walk up to a blonde person and tell them that their blonde hair is hideous? Is it illegal to tell someone that they are too poor? Or too rich? Or that you would not have sex with them if they were the last person on earth?

No, none of these things are illegal. But that does not make them the right thing to do.

I'm not talking about restrictions on the freedom of speech. The topic at hand is restrictions on business. Is it illegal for a business with 97% market share to lower or raise its prices? Is it illegal for a business to pay a worker $.50/hour? Is it illegal for a business to ship jobs to other countries in an effort to evade paying workers what they should be paid for a particular job? Is it illegal for a business to engage in "strategic bankruptcy" in an effort to break union contracts and force workers to accept small wages and no benefits?

Yet again, why would you want to remove restrictions on business?

 

[Danoff]

It doesn't have to be that way. We can have regulations in conjunction with those laws that way the costs and benefits are distributed equally among everyone.

That's not the goal of government. The goal of society is not to make sure that everyone ends up equal. It's to provide a framework within which civilized people can acheive what they choose without having to worry about protecting their basic rights.

Correct. But we allow nicotine, morphine, alcohol etc. to be legal. So you see? We have laws that benefit non-drug users, but we also permit the use of some drugs. Everybody shares the benefits and the costs.

What? Start making sense. I think you've lost track of your own point.

You'd probably legalize that too in the name of negative rights. "Where there's a market there's a way!"

Low blow Brian, that was supposed to be funny. You know my stand on child pornography. We've been down that road in this thread.

...the Liberpublican Party...

After reviewing this thread you should know better. I believe I called you on this one earlier. You still haven't learned. There are far fewer differences between democrats and republicans than republicans and libertarians.

Again, who determines whether a law is right or wrong?

I believe that job has been given to the supreme court. But ultimately the constitution - the founding fathers and the philosphy of freedom with which they built this nation - is what determines that.

And knowing this, why would you want to remove restrictions on business?

Knowing that people will do bad things why would I remove restrictions on business? That's like saying, "knowing that some people will use knives as weapons, why sell knives?" The answer is, it's the right thing to do.

Both positive and negative, yes.

Brian, establish that "positive rights" exist.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That's not the goal of government. The goal of society is not to make sure that everyone ends up equal.

That's not what I was trying to say... that's Communism.

It's to provide a framework within which civilized people can acheive what they choose without having to worry about protecting their basic rights.

That's not the only purpose of government. From 1776-1929, it was. Not anymore.

What? Start making sense. I think you've lost track of your own point.

I haven't. Instead of distributing the benefits to one group and leaving everyone else to deal with the costs (externalities), distribute the costs and benefits equally among everyone. Environmental regulations for example. The costs are distributed among everyone (corporations endure the cost which inevitably get passed along to the consumer) but everyone benefits. Rather than the paper company reaping billions of dollars revenue at the expense of the environment, everyone pays, and everyone wins.

Low blow Brian, that was supposed to be funny.

I didn't take it that way at first... sorry.

You know my stand on child pornography. We've been down that road in this thread.

I know, I know...

After reviewing this thread you should know better. I believe I called you on this one earlier. You still haven't learned. There are far fewer differences between democrats and republicans than republicans and libertarians.

I agree. However, I was talking specifically about economics. Libertarians and Republicans both believe in small government, low taxes, privatization, and deregulation. Clearly Libertarians and Republicans are at odds when it comes to social policy, individual rights, war etc...

But ultimately the constitution - the founding fathers and the philosphy of freedom with which they built this nation - is what determines that.

More on the founding fathers later... I know I said that before, but I'm still compiling information on the topic.

Knowing that people will do bad things why would I remove restrictions on business? That's like saying, "knowing that some people will use knives as weapons, why sell knives?" The answer is, it's the right thing to do.

This is where we can't agree.

Brian, establish that "positive rights" exist.

Can a society function without an education? Proper healthcare? Property rights?

 

[Danoff]

That's not the only purpose of government. From 1776-1929, it was. Not anymore.

It's the only proper purpose.

I haven't. Instead of distributing the benefits to one group and leaving everyone else to deal with the costs (externalities), distribute the costs and benefits equally among everyone. Environmental regulations for example. The costs are distributed among everyone (corporations endure the cost which inevitably get passed along to the consumer) but everyone benefits. Rather than the paper company reaping billions of dollars revenue at the expense of the environment, everyone pays, and everyone wins.

Everyone wins, everyone pays. That's not really fair is it? If someone pollutes, why should I pay? Why not make the polluter pay?

I agree. However, I was talking specifically about economics. Libertarians and Republicans both believe in small government, low taxes, privatization, and deregulation. Clearly Libertarians and Republicans are at odds when it comes to social policy, individual rights, war etc...

In the near past perhaps the republicans were similar to libertarians on fiscal issues. Regan had some libertarian in him. These days the republicans try hard to outspend the democrats on any and every issue.

This is where we can't agree.

You don't think knives should be sold?

Can a society function without an education? Proper healthcare? Property rights?

Asking whether society can function without it is not the same thing as establishing it as a right.

Perhaps much of our society would suffer if oil were suddenly removed from the market. Does that mean we have a right to oil? Could society function without businesses? No. Do we have a right to businesses? No. Could society function without homes? Not so much. Do we have a right to homes? No. Could society function without farming? Not really. Do we have a right to farmers? No.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It's the only proper purpose.

That's debatable.

Everyone wins, everyone pays. That's not really fair is it? If someone pollutes, why should I pay? Why not make the polluter pay?

They already do. How would the elimination of the EPA make polluters pay? Why did GE dump toxic waste into the Hudson River (GE wins, everyone else pays)?

In the near past perhaps the republicans were similar to libertarians on fiscal issues. Regan had some libertarian in him.

Some?!

These days the republicans try hard to outspend the democrats on any and every issue.

That doesn't explain the reduction of tax revenue or the privatization propaganda in regards to Social Security. Republicans are going to use the deficit spending as an excuse to cut services (and reduce the size of government) -- just like Reagan did.

You don't think knives should be sold?

I don't have a problem with knives. I have a problem with anti-competitive practices among the other things corporations do to raise their quarterly statements.

Asking whether society can function without it is not the same thing as establishing it as a right.

Perhaps much of our society would suffer if oil were suddenly removed from the market. Does that mean we have a right to oil? Could society function without businesses? No. Do we have a right to businesses? No. Could society function without homes? Not so much. Do we have a right to homes? No. Could society function without farming? Not really. Do we have a right to farmers? No.

That sounds like anarchy to me.

 

[Danoff]

They already do. How would the elimination of the EPA make polluters pay? Why did GE dump toxic waste into the Hudson River (GE wins, everyone else pays)?

The EPA does nothing but suck money and hamper business unnecessarily. We could be much more creative with pollution controls. But I don't argue that there should be no pollution controls.

That doesn't explain the reduction of tax revenue or the privatization propaganda in regards to Social Security. Republicans are going to use the deficit spending as an excuse to cut services (and reduce the size of government) -- just like Reagan did.

I can only hope. They'll probably just inflate the money supply.

I don't have a problem with knives. I have a problem with anti-competitive practices among the other things corporations do to raise their quarterly statements.

So don't purchase from them.

That sounds like anarchy to me.

Then you don't understand anarchy.

Edit: Do you think you have a right to farmers?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The EPA does nothing but suck money and hamper business unnecessarily.

So reform, don't eliminate!

I can only hope. They'll probably just inflate the money supply.

...and send interest rates through the roof (though I wouldn't mind getting 8% on in a savings account).

So don't purchase from them.

...and if they're a monopoly or part of an oligopoly? Then what other choices do I have?

Then you don't understand anarchy.

Yes I do.

Edit: Do you think you have a right to farmers?

No, but I have a right to eat.

 

[Danoff]

...and if they're a monopoly or part of an oligopoly? Then what other choices do I have?

Perhaps if you could give me a non-government-created example of one of these I could follow. As it is now the only examples I have are things like: the post office, the electric company, the phone company...

No, but I have a right to eat.

Who is forced to provide that food to you if not farmers? Who do you think is the slave to your need?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Perhaps if you could give me a non-government-created example of one of these I could follow. As it is now the only examples I have are things like: the post office, the electric company, the phone company...

The above examples are not naturally competitive industries -- therefore, they need to be regulated. I'm going to stick with electric companies, though. It takes a long time to build power plants and the free market can't predict weather conditions. You live in a city where a power grid is still publicly regulated. What do your electricity bills look like? Under a regulated system, electric prices should be set by a public utility commissions. They maintain the power grid and should have plenty of generating capacity. Deregulation (for the most part) resulted in increased prices.

Who is forced to provide that food to you if not farmers?

No one is forced. Everyone works together.

Who do you think is the slave to your need?

People are not property (although you would argue otherwise).

 

[ledhed]

The above examples are not naturally competitive industries -- therefore, they need to be regulated. I'm going to stick with electric companies, though. It takes a long time to build power plants and the free market can't predict weather conditions. You live in a city where a power grid is still publicly regulated. What do your electricity bills look like? Under a regulated system, electric prices should be set by a public utility commissions. They maintain the power grid and should have plenty of generating capacity. Deregulation (for the most part) resulted in increased prices.



No one is forced. Everyone works together.



People are not property (although you would argue otherwise).

Actually you "own" your own person .