Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:40:09 EST
 <1992Apr6.100838.4157@athena.mit.edu> <1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.100838.4157@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>>In article <bma0hy.ff3@wang.com>, fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
> 
>>|> When will we get a party that's libertarian on civil-liberties issues, but
>>|> regards businesses as potential threats to individual rights, just as the
>>|> government is?  This party would do _very_ well.
> 
>>Business represents normal people spending money.Business has no power to force
>>anybody to do anything. The only thing that a business is able to do is spend
>>money. They get power over people, because people are willing to do things for
>>them in exchange for goods and services. There is absolutely no philosophical
>>basis for what you suggest. The only ways that businesses are limmited, are by
>>governmental regulations that detract from the freedom of their owners.
> 
> See, I'm a civil libertarian, and am for intelligent government
> policieis towards business (rather than plain antagonism) but *this* is
> the thing that keeps me from being a Libertarian.  This total naivety, with 
> a complete lack of historical perspective.
> 
> Have you heard of company towns?  Have you studied the history of the US
> around the turn of the century?  Do you know how Pinkertons got started?
> 

	A company forcing people to live in company owned housing, buy products
at the company store, etc. is in direct violation of the Libertarian
principles.  People are to be secure against infringements of their rights.

> Why is government able to infringe on people's rights?  Because it is
> big and has lots of power.  Major corporations have, or in the past have had, 
> the exact same powers that government has to infringe on people's rights.  
> That is, they're big and they've got lots of money, which can buy power.
> 

	There are always going to be people who will sell their freedom for
some bucks.  Governmen tends to enshrine this, instead of preventing it.

> Maybe in the long run the market *would* deal with these companies, but
> 30 or 40 years is too long to wait for most people.  (We hear some libs
> pointing out how even major companies are ephemeral; even GM is losing power 
> now, they say, thanks to the market.  This is true, but it took a really
> long time for this to happen.
> 

	Mainly because government regulations make start-ups impossible.  Of
course the big three always encouraged that....  Mr. Tucker experienced
firsthand what happens when you develop a superior car.  The government steps
in and regulates you to death.

> Which brings up a question I've had, which I hope the net.libs can
> answer.  What's the Libertarian position on incorporation?  As far as I
> can see, a true Lib should oppose the concept; a company is a bunch of
> people getting together to do something, not a government defined person.

	People have that right.

> Incorporation prevents accountability; in the example someone gave about

	Not at all.  The company is accountable.

> a factory which leaks carcinogens, they pointed out that the EPA limits
> liability, but that without it, the company would have incentive to NOT
> pollute.  But as long as you have corporations, in which they can declare 
> bankruptcy if too many people sue them, and in which the executives are 
> not responsible, then Libertarian liability-accountability doesn't work.

	Let's talk about asbestos.

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18612 ca.politics:3575 ba.politics:2695 alt.politics.homosexuality:2389 soc.motss:20663