Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

Business in this land businesses do not exist without both the infrastructure which has been provided by the government and the customers provided by society who is represented by government. That is simply reality. To deny it is to deny reality.

Sorry, but I do not know what you mean by government maintaining control over private property.

haymarket said:

Business in this land does not exist without both the infrastructure which has been provided by the government and the customers provided by society who is represented by government. That is simply reality. To deny it is to deny reality.

Sorry, but I do not know what you mean by government maintaining control over private property.

Click to expand...

I think you are unsalvageable. :doh

haymarket said:

Business in this land does not exist without both the infrastructure which has been provided by the government and the customers provided by society who is represented by government. That is simply reality. To deny it is to deny reality.

Sorry, but I do not know what you mean by government maintaining control over private property.

Click to expand...

Business owners already pay taxes. Due to their income, they usually pay a disproportionately large amount as well. Why do they have to essentially pay for these services twice?

American said:

I think you are unsalvageable. :doh

Click to expand...

Coming from you that is a high compliment indeed.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Business owners already pay taxes. Due to their income, they usually pay a disproportionately large amount as well. Why do they have to essentially pay for these services twice?

Click to expand...

And how do they do that?

haymarket said:

And how do they do that?

Click to expand...

You're using something that they already helped pay for as leverage to make them do as you want. In effect they have to do something twice to receive the service. They paid for their debt to society, at least the debt that comes from the infrastructure.

Not at all. I would guess that most of the infrastructure was already there before they even opened their doors. But it does not matter since we all benefit and enjoy the bounty from it. And I do not think that any of us - in business or not in business - could ever really pay our debt for the nation we were lucky enough to fall into or move to. We are blessed beyond what our meager contribution could ever pay for.

Thanks to the Libertarians that have described their Libertarianism in this thread. I really didn't know much about the Libertarian position but have a much clearer view now.

haymarket said:

Not at all. I would guess that most of the infrastructure was already there before they even opened their doors. But it does not matter since we all benefit and enjoy the bounty from it. And I do not think that any of us - in business or not in business - could ever really pay our debt for the nation we were lucky enough to fall into or move to. We are blessed beyond what our meager contribution could ever pay for.

Click to expand...

You certainly can pay for it and to upkeep it. They are called taxes, and businesses pay them just like anyone else.

If I pay a kid for lemonade, I have a cup of lemonade and the kid has 50 cents. I may be cooled and refreshed by the lemonade, but I already paid him. I don't owe him anything more for the wonder of coolness and refreshment of this glorious beverage. He has his money, and I have my service. Why is it still unequal?

haymarket said:

Business in this land businesses do not exist without both the infrastructure which has been provided by the government and the customers provided by society who is represented by government. That is simply reality. To deny it is to deny reality.

Sorry, but I do not know what you mean by government maintaining control over private property.

Click to expand...

If the government gets to decide who should do business with whom, then they are effectively in control of business.

Let's look back at the old Wild West. Before government, you had people and businesses coming together to trade without any infrastructure built by the government. I'm forced to use electricity and gas from a natural monopoly created by the government. Does that justify putting my home under the jurisdiction of the government? Private property is private property, whether it is located in a residential or commercial zone.

Since libertarianism incorporates many different spectra of thought I cannot give a definitive yes or no answer. However, paleolibertarianism does create a number of vulnerabilities. Understanding what would happen in the scenario envisioned by paleolibertarians should be approached by imagining what would happen if the powers of the nobles in a society were strengthened while the power of a king were weakened. As the king still exists the nobles simply begin playing many of those roles. Fascism is really a logical result as these nobles pool their resources and influence together.

At its roots Fascism involves the pooling of power by different groups to form a sort of cabal that governs in place of a single distinct institution. Corporations have governance structures so it is just a matter of bringing these structures into accordance with each other.

ElijahGalt said:

Civil Rights: I stand with Rand Paul on this issue. I would support virtually every part of the Civil Rights Act(s) except for the title that demands private businesses must serve everyone of the public. The freedom to do business also means the freedom to deny business. I don’t even understand where there are so many signs that state: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” when the title of the Civil Rights Act still remains law. I don’t fear the massive reprisal of old white men looking to deny service to minorities, because minorities are potential customers. There have been studies done that illustrate it was the private businesses agitating public discriminatory laws. Private schools were agitating public law when they enrolled African-American students. Transportation companies were agitating public law when they sold first-class tickets to African-Americans. Sports companies were agitating public law when they began recruiting African-American players.

Click to expand...

Once more you make a rosy claim that ignores reality. Yes, some private businesses were tolerant or brought in people, but the reality is that many, if not most, businesses in the South at least were on the same side as the governments passing these discriminatory laws. That was specifically a function of attitudes among the people. Entire neighborhoods would be abandoned if a few black people moved into the area.

Demon of Light said:

Since libertarianism incorporates many different spectra of thought I cannot give a definitive yes or no answer. However, paleolibertarianism does create a number of vulnerabilities. Understanding what would happen in the scenario envisioned by paleolibertarians should be approached by imagining what would happen if the powers of the nobles in a society were strengthened while the power of a king were weakened. As the king still exists the nobles simply begin playing many of those roles. Fascism is really a logical result as these nobles pool their resources and influence together.

At its roots Fascism involves the pooling of power by different groups to form a sort of cabal that governs in place of a single distinct institution. Corporations have governance structures so it is just a matter of bringing these structures into accordance with each other.

Click to expand...

We can have a rule of law that protects everyone equally, and we can propose a second Bill of Rights that ensures a separation of corporate (or business) and state power. I firmly believe that Hermann Georing was right when he said that fascism should be rightfully called corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power. That is what enables fascism, or corporatism. When politicians control economic decisions, they ultimately are controlling human lives. Separate the state from the market, and refuse any and all tariffs, subsidies, preferential tax treatments, guaranteed loans, bailouts, stimulus packages, licensing procedures, state-sanctioned monopolies, and excessive regulation, and then you would essentially be moving away from a fascist (or corporatist) regime.

Once more you make a rosy claim that ignores reality. Yes, some private businesses were tolerant or brought in people, but the reality is that many, if not most, businesses in the South at least were on the same side as the governments passing these discriminatory laws. That was specifically a function of attitudes among the people. Entire neighborhoods would be abandoned if a few black people moved into the area.

Click to expand...

But when it came time to change things, the advocates did not come from government agencies. Change always occurs from the bottom-up.

And secondly, I feel I brought up a fairly strong example of libertarianism championing for civil rights when I brought up the Coolidge administration. Few people would argue with the opinion that Coolidge was the most libertarian U.S. president of the 20th century. And despite what some may think of his economic policies, his views on individual freedom and on civil rights in particular, were infuriating to the mainstream. As I said before, politicians wouldn't have the guts to stand up for civil rights until way later- arguably the mid-1950s, whereas Coolidge saw an end to the resurgent KKK, promoted the civil rights of African-Americans, and recognized the Native American's right to citizenship and cultural rights.

from E. Galt

If the government gets to decide who should do business with whom, then they are effectively in control of business.

Click to expand...

Could you please be specific and give me some examples outside of public utilities or public services?

haymarket said:

Not at all. I would guess that most of the infrastructure was already there before they even opened their doors. But it does not matter since we all benefit and enjoy the bounty from it. And I do not think that any of us - in business or not in business - could ever really pay our debt for the nation we were lucky enough to fall into or move to. We are blessed beyond what our meager contribution could ever pay for.

Click to expand...

Statements like this always reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly why it is we're fortunate to be here. Hint: it isn't because of government services and "infrastructure."

ElijahGalt said:

We can have a rule of law that protects everyone equally, and we can propose a second Bill of Rights that ensures a separation of corporate (or business) and state power.

Click to expand...

Do you really not get it? Separating corporate power from state power is like trying to pull oxygen out of water with your bare hands. Are you going to ban people in a corporation from talking to politicians? Will you ban wealthy people from holding public office? How about preventing people formerly in public office from becoming businessmen?

Harshaw said:

Statements like this always reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly why it is we're fortunate to be here. Hint: it isn't because of government services and "infrastructure."

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are not grateful for these things which make our lives better. I am.

haymarket said:

Perhaps you are not grateful for these things which make our lives better. I am.

Click to expand...

Freedom makes our lives better. I'm quite grateful for that. And freedom is why we're blessed to be here. Not infrastructure. I'm pretty sure the huddled masses didn't brave storm and high seas to get here because we had awesome bridges.

You can have all the freedom you want to have on your own island - and there are some available. There may be no infrastructure - but thats okay since you don't need it anyway. But if its freedom you value so highly, you are missing the boat here.

I personally think its a vast combination of things that i am grateful for - freedom of course,. But I also am pretty darn grateful that the toilet flushes when it is suppose to, the lights come on when I flick the switch and I can drive or fly where I need to go and have a pretty good chance I am going to make it home in one piece.

haymarket said:

You can have all the freedom you want to have on your own island - and there are some available. There may be no infrastructure - but thats okay since you don't need it anyway. But if its freedom you value so highly, you are missing the boat here.

I personally think its a vast combination of things that i am grateful for - freedom of course,. But I also am pretty darn grateful that the toilet flushes when it is suppose to, the lights come on when I flick the switch and I can drive or fly where I need to go and have a pretty good chance I am going to make it home in one piece.

Click to expand...

All of which was provided because someone had the freedom and opportunity to invent and market it. Without it, you'd still be squatting in the dirt and riding a horse home.

Do you labor under the impression that I am criticizing freedom or being in business? Most of find out rather early in life that FREEDOM is a word and only has significance when meaning and context is attached to it. We then find out that there is no such thing as unlimited or unrestricted freedom as long as you live in a society with other people. As a responsible citizen, you discover the limits and boundaries of freedom and liberty and understand the relationship you have respecting the freedom and liberty of other people even when those rights and freedoms may appear to clash.

I accept that we live in a representative democracy and I accept that the people have elected a government to run the various levels and branches of government for the people and in the name of the people.

haymarket said:

Do you labor under the impression that I am criticizing freedom or being in business?

Click to expand...

No, I labor under the impression that you're wrong about what actually makes us fortunate to be here.

Libertarians do not believe that freedom is absolute. My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose.

Harshaw said:

No, I labor under the impression that you're wrong about what actually makes us fortunate to be here.

Click to expand...

And if you really truly believe that there is only one thing that makes people fortunate to be here, you really do not know people very well.

haymarket said:

And if you really truly believe that there is only one thing that makes people fortunate to be here, you really do not know people very well.

Click to expand...

I really truly believe that you cited things which are perfectly available in places which we'd NOT be so fortunate to live. So, obviously, those things don't seal the deal.

Comfort without freedom is a gilded cage. And it's particularly ironic when it's freedom, and only freedom, which made that comfort possible to begin with.

Its a meaningless and hollow word without meaning or context attached to it. You might as well invoke motherhood, bunny rabbits and christmas trees also.

Lets be blunt about this: you and I can agree that freedom is a good thing - sometimes and in some situations. But I expect where we draw those lines would not always be in agreement. So to me its utterly silly and foolish to claim that you have an ideology based on freedom or liberty or anything else that is just a starting place for a bumper sticker.