Yes, I can attest that Lysander did not stoop to the tactics used by the progressives over at Thom's board.  I also started participating on that board a few months ago.  I did it partly to try to convince any fence sitters who might think they are progressive just because they don't know any better.  I also simply thought it would be worthwhile to put myself into the lion's den, so to speak, and see whether I could justify my own ideas to those who disagree with them.

Here are a couple of observations:

Their arguments are often emotiona, vague, and hyperbolic.  They skip from subject to subject, basically dodging questions and reciting progressive platitudes.  Sometimes, when you pose a question that would force them to provide a tough answer, they simply ignore you.  They seem basically dishonest, in that they claim they want to discuss things but they really just want to cheerlead, and will avoid any tough discussion.

They also seem to make no distinction between society and government.  Any attempt to say that some government action ought more appropriately be performed by society, they mistakenly believe that as advocating some sort of retirement from society, of isolating one's self.  Often, the will respond by chiding me for wanting to 'be a loner" or "become a hermit."  They see society and government as essentialy the same thing.  They often use the term "We the people".

They also do not see a reduction in government power as yielding more freedom, as I do.  Instead, they see any reduction in government as an enabler of "corporate power".  They hate corporations above all things, it seems.

I would recommend anyone who goes there to take the strategy of calling them on their ridiculous claims.  When they say that a free market leads to consolidation of power, ask them why.  Force them to explain, using economic theory, why their claims are true.  Also, ask them questions that force them to take a stand.  They love to spout platitudes, but are very short on policy recommendation.

No more time to rant.  Gotta run.

Sounds like a noble attempt, guys.

Could you post a link to one of the threads you were doing your libertarian pimping on?

I'd be really interested to see such.  

This is a great example.  Going back and re-reading it STILL makes my head explode.  One poster, drc, claims that there is no difference between society and government.

I believe this is where I jump in - http://www.thomhartmann.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2181&start=10#p305...

It get ridiculous around this point - http://www.thomhartmann.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2181&p=30730#p3073...

Here's another one...

http://www.thomhartmann.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2253#p31155

I would love for some guys who are smarter than I to go over there and fight the good fight.

My observations about progressives lead me to the following conclusion.  They want it both ways.  The rightfully complain when governments and corporations collude to keep the little guy down.  When a libertarian like myself suggests that we take the power away from the government so that it can't be abused, they accuse me of being a shill for corporate power.  They want the government to have sufficient power to keep "corporate power" in check and at the same time they want to keep this government immune from the influence of the same corporations.  As Rothbard so eloquently pointed out in "Power and Market", there is no such thing as economic power.  Corporations cannot make me buy anything in a free market.  Only the government (and criminals) can do that.

As I mentioned before, the Hartmann-ites often make emotional claims with very little theoretical backing. Here's a good example that I thought I'd mention here.

In this thread, called The Lost Decade (http://www.thomhartmann.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2907), someone posts a link to an article about the housing bubble and the unprecedented debt taken on by homeowners. Of course, the poster blamed it on Bush's policies. My personal take is that the housing bubble was caused by Fed policy, as explained by the Austrian business cycle theory.

Anyway, the poster was asked to provide an explanation of what policy was it that caused the bubble. As is typical, the original poster did not reply. It's a lot easier to make claims than it is to make arguments. However, another poster did reply (http://www.thomhartmann.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2907#p38370) and offered this explanation:

Does this make any sense? The poor were "driven upward beyond affordability"? If anything, this is an indictment of the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to loan to unqualified borrowers. Does anyone have any thoughts or reactions to this explanation?

Dudes,

I'm afraid that you are correct in that progressive websites like Hartmann's are barren soil for sowing the seeds of liberty.  Unfortunately, too many progressives are devoid of intellectual curiousity and filled with hubris.

Tom Woods wrote this article in response to Hartmann's claim that it was "free market ideology" that caused the current economic crisis.  Hartmann has no idea about what he is talking.  He lumps Mises and Hayek in with Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan.  It is obvious that he has never read Mises or Hayek if for no other reason than that HE CAN"T EVEN CORRECTLY SPELL HAYEK"S NAME!!!

The people who post in this forum probably know more about progressive ideology than most progressives do.  For instance, I'd be willing to bet that most progressives don't know why they call themselves progressives.  The term "progressive" refers to the Marxian idea that society is continually evolving--progressing--towards its ultimate manifestation, the communist utopia.

You guys are awesome for engaging those folks, but I wouldn't expect any lightbulbs to turn on in their heads.

I read the thread with interest.

I disagree with some of the points you guys made regarding the defence budget being necessary, which brings forward another debate, altogether, between the anarchist and the minarchist (ie. is it ever moral to leave one's shores to defend one's land?)

That aisde, I think following on from X's point on the root source of the term 'progressive', the main problem is that statists (of all types) believe that they will finally reach utopia when a 'good man' (or 'good woman') finally gets into goverment (Obama is apparently that 'good man' to many progressives, but go tell that to the victims of his drone attacks in Pakistan). The marxist idea, of course, is about evolving to that point where government 'gets it right' with the right man/ woman in place. It's a mute point to me, of course, because I believe that power ultimately corrupts all/ most leaders (wherever they lead - whether in business or government). Within most parts of scoiety, of course, the corrupt are more easily fished out. Within government, however, there's less scope for that. The system is inherently corrupt and will always lead to tail-chasing. It needs binned.

Hey Steve,

A good debater once told me something that has really stuck - during a debate/ argument, we are not seeking to change our opinions. We are only seeking to further reinforce our already established opinions.

So, in a sense, all parties on the Hartman board have already picked a flag (including you and Spoon). They're now in the process of defending their base.  

HOO-HAA's point about debating being more about debaters wishing to reinforce already established positions is very insightful, and I agree with it. On the other hand, as Lysander said about himself, people DO change their minds, so perhaps it's not a totally lost cause. As Lysander said, often the debate is not about either participant, but the fence sitters who may be observing.

But that's the problem with Thom's site. I don't think that there are a whole lot of fence sitters there. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. I certainly think that Lysander brings up some good topics there and does so in a respectful and rational manner. That place is so full of ad hominem vitriol that at least he displays a good example of reasoned discourse.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think debating has no merit. Quite the opposite, actually.

What I reckon is most likely to happen is that some of those on the board (and some fence sitting observers) will go off and do some thinking. Some may even adapt their opinions, introducing something of what you have both said (even if subconsciously).

I guess all I'm really saying is don't expect any born-again 'seen the light' posts. If anyone has a turncoat moment, they'll be likely to keep it to themselves.

It is very hard for anyone to question his paradigm.  Instead, people tend to dig deeper in their foxholes and throw grenades.  However, debating is worthwhile.  Even if you don't change anyone's minds because their worldviews are too entrenched, you refine your own thinking and improve your presentation.  And as Hoo-HAA says, you may indeed change minds, but it is a gradual process for most folks and they likely won't say, "you know, I've been wrong about everything for years!"

You hit the nail on the head, X. It's a big thing for someone to say 'all I've believed for in years has been wrong.' A very big thing. Would any of us like to say something like that? I think we might be open to it, actually!

I touched upon this during my most recent interview with Gard. The anarchistic/ libertarian position allows constant change of opinion, if required. Freedom lovers, as Gard mentioned, are like sponges - soaking up knowledge and viewpoints readily. Deeply held, fundamental beliefs (religion, life choice etc.) can change within the paradigm for freedom without a libertarian having to denounce their most fundamental belief - that of liberty and leaving one's neighbour to do what they want.

Perhaps this is why liberty lovers are so open to debates. There's nothing to lose - another viewpoint is always welcome and often embraced.

Other people, however, fear debate. There's the distinct possibility that a different viewpoint may be forced upon them, via legislation etc.

Hence, the defensive nature of the statist.   

Ok, I will bite.  As a progressive of sorts.  I actually think that there are some common grounds between progressives and libertarians.  However, human nature what it is we are breaking into groups and fighting each other.  I think that in general the progressives on the TH board are uneducated on history and misplace the problem.  After all, if you can't diagnose the problem you can never fix it just treat the symptoms.  And that is the direction of most progressive thought, treating the symptom without treating the problem.  This is further compounded by the observation made by LysanderSpooner when he wrote "In general, most of them associate free market economics with the conservative/Republican establishment.  Any mention of the free market and I was immediated put into the "far right", "right-wing", "corporatist" and even fascist camp.  Fakes like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al. have so poisoned the well that many on the left think that the free market is just a cover for fascism. "

In general, I agree.  In practice whenever a person in power starts extolling the virtues of free market and how it is so good, it in reality ends badly for the society.  Enter Enron pushing free market reforms, and deregulation.  In every state that they got their way in rates went up for residential and small business, while rates dropped for large corporate users.  Plus the brown outs in California ect.  In the current environment, where the rubber meets the road.  Free Market and deregulation end badly for a large percentage of the population.

That brings us to corporations and stevo_dubc's observation when he wrote "They also do not see a reduction in government power as yielding more freedom, as I do.  Instead, they see any reduction in government as an enabler of "corporate power".  They hate corporations above all things, it seems."

In this I am lock step with the progressives.  I have a deep distrust, and seething hatred for corporations.  I also agree that reducing government power is enabling "corporate power".  I have done more reading, and focused my thoughts quite a bit since my wife and I had a wonderful talk with Gard over many drinks New Year's Eve.  I was not as focused then an was not able to articulate why I hate them so much.  I think this is because I did not have a good grasp of this portion of US history.  I also think this is why most proclamed progressives cannot articulate why corporations are so bad, they just know the injustices and power corporations bring.  I am going to provide a link to a progressive group that has a history of corporations.  Read it and return to my post. 

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporation...

So, what our government has evolved into (and I think it is the natural order of society) is a hidden oligarchy.  The poison pill in the well of democracy is that corporations have the "rights" of citizens.  You or I can never compete with the influence of a multinational when they have equal rights in the eyes of the government.  So, when people push for deregulation or free markets you must understand who is driving the bus.  The corporations are going to deregulate things that are good for them and push legislation that makes it hard to compete against them.  How do you expect to have a real free market when corporations are placing barriers to entry?  How do you expect to have a healthy democracy when you are shouting against the hurricane of corporate interest and influence?  How are you going to have true personal liberty when the corporations are deciding what you need or how you will get it?

I think another question is why do you support corporations so much?

I do think we will have differences of opinion about the role of government.  I see the Constitution as a living document, and one modern function of government is to provide some services to the citizens and business to make society more equitable.  However, none of that will mean shit until we get at the problem which is the undue influence of corporations on government. 

I also think that we will find common ground.  Blast away.

That Guy,

Thanks for your thoughful post.  Let me try to address as many of your points as I can.  If I do a bad job, I'm sure there are plenty of people on this board that can pick up the slack. 

I don't think whether or not "corporations are persons" should be the focus.  Corporations are not a physical entity like a person but they are a legal entity.  They are formed by persons, their stockholders are persons, etc.  The focus should be what they do.  In a free market, corporations wouldn't be able to make you buy anything.  There wouldn't be any corporate welfare, there wouldn't be regulations that have the affect of crippling competitors and there wouldn't be any patents(although this is a point of contention among liberarians).  Like any other business, they would be subject to laws against force and fraud.

What a lot of progressives don't seem to understand is that as long as the government has enormous power, it will use that power.  Instead of hoping for good people to keep corporate power in check, it would be better to limit or eliminate the government power in the first place.  This way, corporations won't be able to use the government to their advantage.

Let me address the idea of corporate power.  Corporations have influence.  They can market their product in order to get you to buy it.  But they can't make you buy anything unless they enlist the government's help.

You mentioned barriers of entry.  By definition, there are no governmental barriers of entry in a free market.  As far as deregulation goes, I don't know of any major deregulation since Carter and Kennedy started airline and trucking deregulation.  Don't judge people on their rhetoric, judge them on their actions.  Just because come conservative or liberals says some action is deregulation, it doesn't mean it is so.  There is such a thing as phony deregulation, regulation under the guise of deregulation and phony privatization.

I have a feeling that you are making a false assumption that corporations are just some benign legal entitiy.  I also don't think you understand how deeply entrenched they are in the inner workings of government leadership.  I think it is a common but false assumption that the government works and answers to the people.  It started out that way and has not evolved into a government that is only marginally responsive to the private citizens and looks to corporations for approval.  For example, the people may want something (say health care reform), the politicians get together with the corporations through lobbyists and come up with legislation that can be sold as reform but is actually a back door subsidy or anti-market action for the health insurance corporations.  You saw this with Medicare D.  People were going out of country to get meds.  The big pharma corps were loosing some money.  They sold Part D as a fix for seniors to get meds affordably, but is is actually a corporate welfare scheme becasue medicare cannot use it's power of economy of scale to get meds at a lower cost.  It is the only government agency that CANNOT get cheaper drugs, it must pay full retail.

I find it hard to believe that people think an organization that is essentially run as a dictatorship and generates more revenue than the GDP of most countries will just sit there and let the people and government do it's thing.  As a clarifying point we are not talking about little LLC's or small cap companies, we are talking about multinationals.  Goldman Sachs has a long proud history that they promote and sell.  They promote as corporate leadership growth for senior executives to enter public service and lend their expertise.  Fine.  However, they can be a regulator in the very sector they left (regulating their golf buddies), do a 3-4 year stint and reenter the private workforce (usually in the sector they were regulating).  There is not enforcement of laws on the books, legislation is crafted in thier favor.  This is systemic across all sectors of the economy.  How do you think that we as a people will get honest deregulation?  Anything that is put forth has to be vetted and approved by the corporations.  If you do not deal with the problem of the false right of corporate personhood you will never get any liberty and democracy.  Big business and government are totally in collusion.  You are only looking to address one part of the problem, government power.  If you work to further weaken government without first dealing with the huge impact that corporate power exerts on government you will just transer the power from government (which we have marginal control over) to corporations (of which we have no control, over).  It will only lead to a dystopia.

Frequently libertarians like to got back and look at the founding of the country and what specifically the articles say.  In my opinion it is too inflexable a view and does not allow enough change to adapt to a modernizing world.  For example, nowhere does it say that health care is a right.  That is a true statement.  However, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written they thought diease was caused by evil sprints and vapors.  However, that does not mean that things they thought about and were concerned about are not relavant today.  When the country was founded we were trying not only to have a government that represented us, we were also trying to get out from under the thumb of european corporations that raided our country for natural resources and then sold them back to us at a huge profit.  When America was formed corporations were only allowed to exist for specific things that benefited society, only lasted for a defined and short period of time.  If they did anything improper or were deemed to  no longer be useful to society their charter was broken, and the assest sold to pay back debts and shareholders.  They were not "persons" and could not petition government.  The Consitution and Bill of Rights are written for the PEOPLE not legal monstrosities with the "rights" of a person.  If an individual works at a business or corporation there was nothing to say they could not petition the government in favor of something that would help the business.  However, when the corporation has 100 million to sink into news propaganda, advertizing, and direct contributions to politicians under the guise of a private citizen we have a problem and a broken democracy.

I don't think we will ever achieve your idealogical free market utopia or my more socialist eqalitarian society utopia until this perversion of government and market dynamics are addressed.  Interestingly, I don't think the two utopias are mutually exclusive.  But that is another topic.

I thought of an analogy to the situation in this counry.  Imagine we are all on a bus, we are passengers, the bus driver is the government, and corporations are behind the driver with a gun to his head.  The gun is corporate personhood, we the citizens are unarmed.  To just use deregulation, you would try to take power from the driver, break his legs or tie his hands together.  You have not addressed the guy with the gun.  The driver is arguably in contol, he could accelerate and kill us all or do what the gunman says and hope it all works out.  I want to take the gun away (corporate personhood), then deal with the driver, preferably get the citizens to sit in the seat for a spell and switch off regularly.

I'll answer your previous post later.  It's way too long to answer now.

Let me run with your analogy.  Libertarians don't think there should be a bus in the first place.  No bus, no corporation taking us for a ride (pun intended).  Rather than fight over what the bus driver should be doing, get rid of the bus.  Or get on a bus you want to be on.

The bus driver seems waaaaay too innocent in your analogy, mate. It's like, if you remove the gun, then the bus driver will act in a reasonable way. So, we're back to the Marxist idea of removing corruption and putting the 'right' driver behind the wheel.

I say everyone should forget about the bus. Grab their own mode of transport, whether that be taxi, car, bicycle or skateboard.

Me? I'll be good just walking :) 

It is a simplistic analogy of where we are right now.  If you want to walk off a bus doing 80 mph that you don't control be my guest.  I don't really care about utopian fantasies of any stripe.  I do care about what is happening right now and how it can be corrected.  I was trying to illustrate that we cannot deal with the government or where we are going as a nation until you deal with that pesky issue that corporations have way to much power due to "personhood" and warp all relationships around themselves..  The bus driver is not innocent, and in my analogy would be replace with citizens again.  However, you still have to deal with the gun first.

Well, I'm Irish. So it isn't entirely relevant to me, anyway :)

However, I do agree with your critique of corporations. They're very much in bed with government - more and more, each day. The bail-outs are a prime example of this.

As to who's contolling who, I've no idea.

When it boils down to it, corporations are easier disposed of, I would have thought, by, simply, refusing to buy their product. A lot of corporations have changed their practice to ensure the ethical purchaser continues to give them business.

While we are told that licensing and permit laws are there to protect the consumer, they are really there to protect the entrenched business interests.  The result is a concentration of ecomomic power in big business due to limited competition.  Of course, this hurts the consumer who often pays higher prices for inferior products and services.  Here is a great interview on Free Talk Live explaining this from someone who has experience in the system.  Start listening at the 12:30 mark.

No, transnational corporations and large cap corporations are just too big and powerful.  You cannot just not buy thier products and put them in their place.  To prove my point lets do an experiment.  So, say you are surfing the web and you read this site about genetically modified foods and Monsanto.  http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

You are enraged and want to punish them by not buying products from Monsanto.  You can easily not buy Roundup, but you need to eat so you go the the store.  How do you not buy produce, or prepackage food and know if it is genetically modified or not?  I bet you that Monsanto produts are in almost all of the food originated with Monsanto?

Or this article on DuPont. http://www.legalnewswatch.com/408/dupont-under-fire-for-teflon-chemical-...

Sure you don't have to buy products with teflon in them, or some of the other patented products that they label.  However, they make plastic packaging, cleaning products, ect. How do you know that cleaner you just bought doesn't have a DuPont chemical or is a DuPont subsidiary?  Or you by a new stereo reciever, how do you know that the packaging in it is not from DuPont or a subsidiary. 

Unless you are going to move to Alaska and homestead out in the wilderness you will buy from these companies if you want to or not.  This situation is accross all industries.  These corporations are so big and powerful that the government cannot do any legislation before they get the approval and modifications to the legislation from the affected industry.  Furthermore, you cannot enter national politics without the approval and support from industry.  Even Ron Paul.  He speaks more truth to power than most but he is still beholden to them. 

On a side note I have a theory that the best representatives are the ones that have their own party run candidates against them.  It means they are not toeing the corporate line enough.  Just a thought.

So, even if you say wanted to do campaign finance reform, it would be pointless because the reform will only have superficial changes that don't affect corporate access to government.  We as a people must address the issue of corporate personhood and later limited liability.  Only then will government be responsible to the needs of the citizens.  You can then begin the process of unwinding the oppressive regulations that have been put in place.

As somebody who comes from the left of the political spectrum I can testify that there are many on the left who cam arrogantly moralise just as much as any conservative who moralising, in fact more so & what's annoying about those on the left who do it is that they there's no argument against their stance.

X,

Do I have your permission to repost this on the thomhartmann.com bbs?  Giving you full credit, of course.  There is a guy over there who insists that we have to have a government because it is human nature to set up a hierarchy.  His theory is that if we got rid of government, then people would form one anyway.  So it would be better to make the government we have better.

I think it could be argued that free markets will eventually evolve into an oligarchy also.  I think it is a human nature thing.  I also believe they both end up requiring violence to maintain them.  In a free market system that has evolved into oligarchy and monopolization you will require violence to maintain due to the huge disparity in wealth.  Free markets over time tend to redistribute wealth upward, at least as can be obvserved in the global economy.

Ok, for the record I am not a fan of philosophizing about theoretical political systems that will never happern in my life time.  Not that it is bad.  I think it is a good thing to do, I try to confine myself to trying to understand what the system is that I have now.  What the problems are, and how they could be corrected to make them better for more people before I die.  So, that being said let's go.

So the only state control over the public sphere is protection of private property, and contract enforcement.  So the only forces on society are free market.  I would envision that the more entrepenurial would start businesses, those would grow, eventually some of those businesses would succeed and sort out.  Monopolies would start, the business would reach a mass that it was a defacto government and would enforce contracts for services that became necessary at crushing levels. 

You would have stratifiacation of wealth and class.  While in the begining everyone would be on even footing the early business owners would generate more wealth, they would send their children to schools while the less successful in the society would just work.  (No Public Education).  Over time since knowledge is also power, the higher educated would talke over the businesses which would sort out and become more consolidated.  Redistributing more wealth to the top, education levels would increase until you had a huge slave class and a ruling business elite.

Citizen X Said "It bears repeating that there really is no free market today.  The U.S. economy is much more of a corporatist or neo-mercantilist economy than it is free market capitalism.  A free market, by definition is free of subsidies, regulations, and taxes (or at least taxes are imposed in a relatively even fashion; talk about utopias).  It is also free of direct military intervention (imperialism) as well as economic warfare (the International Monetary Fund forcing developing countries into suffocating debt), all of which are functions of the State." 

Although I would add that the government is doing it at the direction of corporations.  It happens all the time, the Iraq war is to secure oil fields for our oil companies and to provide contracts to the military/industrial complex.

Citizen X said "In the 1800s, the King of France did not have antibiotics, air conditioning, or indoor plumbing."

The King of France did not have indoor plumbing because he is a dirty frenchman.  I mean really, the Romans had indoor plumbing.  The king was just nasty. ;)

There is, I think, a legitamate role for government in society.  See how the lack of building regulations worked in Haiti.  Especially, in a the very technical world we live in.  One of the things we can credit our world on is the division of labour.  It allows the very efficient manufacturing of goods at lowest cost.  It also makes people's skill sets more specialised.  The free market requires everyone to have all the information, which is impossible with people becoming more and more specialized in highly technical fields.  Free market may work for a time in a simple agrarian society, but not in a highly specialized rapidly changing world.  The free market would also drastically slow down the pace of innovation which also makes our lives much easier.  Look out at our world, most of it started from government spending.  The internet we are communicating on started as a military program, the computers we use were originally the military trying to calculate ballistics quickly.  Space programs would not have happened yet.  The government funds huge amounts of expensive research which may not provide profits, however, once it reaches a critical stage business can take it and make something useful for the population.  A business would not spend the time and money on say developing nuclear theory in the off chance you could build a power plant.  Government will and we are better off for it.

Hey all!

I've been eager to share my thoughts on this, and only now have a chance to write. I think X frames it juuuuust right. The question is not whether a system could have potential risks, but how it corrects those risks or develops internal systems to lessen the frequency with which these risks manifest themselves.

In my view, there is no denying that the free market (ie. individual liberty) is the best system to insure not only well-being, but better living standards, and to retard the growth of central arbitrary authority over others.

X has a number of key points that deserve reiteration and amplification. First, I would like to stress the importance of his observation that a private enterprise in a non-state system would have a very difficult time becoming coercive. First, its growth to market dominance requires it to cater to consumer demand, any great deviation will allow competition to enter and take market share. Even the potential of competition entering should the enterprise "exploit" consumers will inspire the provider to continue providing its goods and/or services in a manner that pleases the customer. Even money-hungry "bad guys" have to cater to consumer needs and desires, for if they do not, their reputations will eventually bring them down. Markets provide choice and the power of exclusion. Since, of course, government is predicated on theft and coercion, it cannot provide these great checks on centralization and arbitrary rule contrary to consumer demand.

Now, if an entrepreneur were to plot to first gain market share through catering to consumer demand, but then work to become a defacto government, using his free market "power" to coerce and rule over others just like the state does now, a logical analysis of such a plan lets us see that it would be much more difficult for him to do so in a free market system. This is because of the power of choice afforded to each individual consumer and the demands on the entrepreneur to make a profit. If businesses start to shower capital on stifling potential competition, or using their market positions to force people to do things, they begin creating expenses for themselves that work contrary to their ability to compete. Overhead is overhead, and whereas government can continue to coerce and do things contrary to consumer demand because they have the power to simply take money against one's will, businesses don't have that freedom. Government covers its overhead by taking more. Business doesnt; have that luxury, and if it tries, people will enter the market to do it more cheaply.

The consumer is always trying to get more for his efforts and the fruits of his labor, not less. As a result, the Austrian analysis of praxeology -- how the free market/economic/social system works -- is right in tune with reality. It is not utopian. Belief in the relative superiority of the state is utopian, because it overlooks the immorality and inefficiency of the system. It claims that it will be the safeguard against predation while it exists through predation. It claims economic successes, but misses what it suppresses in the real market. It misses what is not produced when government acts and hinders new opportunities from being created, new enterprises from forming. Libertarian-anarchist social science is based on an understanding of human nature. Markets tend to force even bad actors to work towards serving others, while government works in just the opposite direction and then hides the predation through terminology and concentration on its "projects". Bastiat's dictum regarding "what is seen and what is not seen" is important here, for government will always be praised for seemingly creating things, while its boosters overlook the multitudinous creations that could have been made by free people, shooting for what bettered THEIR lives, rather than what bettered the lives of politicians and certain constituency groups.

As Dominic Armentano has noted in his book "Antitrust and Monopoly", the only monopolies that have been able to retain market dominance while gouging or not pleasing the customers have been law-backed monopolies, those created or enforced through the means of the state, not the market.

And to finish the entry here, I'd like to point out that the claims by some that government is necessary to stop the big guys from exploiting others, that government must be the "referee" can be refuted by one very important thing: Money. The very existence of money proves that society creates its own equilibrium without government at all. Money was not created by government, it is a spontaneous outgrowth of free human interaction and free trade. The fact that it arose through peaceful means in order to facilitate peaceful commerce proves that government is unnecessary. Government took it over.

Gotta run! Great chats here, cats!

Gard and X,

Thanks for your insights.  Here's what I tell progressives that are worried about corporations hiring armies and becoming government-like.   If a corporation did manage to act like a government, its oppression would most likely be limited to a smaller geographical area.  With a highly centralized government, a corporation can impose its will on the whole country by seizing control of the government.  I recall Rothbard writing that it took the British a long time to conquer Ireland because it was so decentralized.  An equally important point to make is that the oppression will be out in the open for everyone to see and understand.  The corporate-government will be seen for what it is, a criminal enterprise.  The exact type of process is going on right now in our present society.  The only difference is that it is done under the color of law.  And it hides behind the phrases "the will of the people", "for the common good", "democracy", etc.

Exactly my point. That's the way it will always be. Rather than try to get the "right" people in government to regulate things in the "right" way(meaning what you think is right), wouldn't it be smarter to limit or preferably eliminate government power.

I am not sure what you want. You're against total government. You're against minimal or no government. You want a lot of government but then you complain when some of the wealthy people use the government to hurt the little guy. The only solution from your prospective is to elect the "right" people that won't be corrupted by power. History is not on your side.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3132&p=41072

A perfect example of a reasonable reply to his nonsensical statements. While your responses are coherent, even if I disagree, his are just worthless rantings. On the one hand Poly supports the small is better concepts as Korton would advocate, but then has no conflict with nationalized health. If any of their utopian concepts would work then it could work under a state plan as possible now. Actually at the state level is where there is more unnecessary and ineffective regulations. A place where "Democrats" have gotten the most power to actually make local initiatives possible.

Ron Rutherford

PS: Just some random sample of their stupidity at: http://friendsofthom.blogspot.com/

Thanks Ron, I think.  By the way, how did you make your way to this forum?