Libertarians

[Reccesoldier]

I do not understand how one can be so naïve.

Let me ask you a simple question, what is in any large corporations best interest.

a) To improve the conditions and standards of living in 3rd world countries where they operate their factories, leading to workers demanding more rights and higher salaries

Or

b) Keep the workers impoverished, uneducated and in a situation where they are forced to work for wages that do not meet their basic needs and in conditions that are substandard and hazardous to their health?

Corporations are out to make money, not improve the quality of life of individuals. Nike is going to make a lot more money if they can manufacture their shoes for 25 cents an hour labor over in south east Asia…. If they improve the conditions of those workers, they will demand more money. The more money Nike has to pay workers… the less money they make.

It is in corporations best interest to keep these parts of the world impoverished. Libertarians not only would endorse that, but they would bring the same lack of regulations that allows and creates those conditions in south east Asia and Africa to Canada.


No they can’t. Look at what Wal-Mart did when workers in Quebec unionized. They fired the workers and shut the store down. And that is in Quebec.

Workers in the 3rd world are paid wages insufficient to meet their basic needs, are not allowed to organize independent unions, and often face health and safety hazards. If they try to create unions these corporations will just shut their factory down and move it somewhere else. Leavening these people with out any means at all.

These people can not organize unions because they are enslaved in everything but name.

You’re delusional fantasies about the “utopia” a Libertarian society would create can only draw parallels to the “utopia” communists claim their manifesto would create…. We all see how that worked out in practice… just as we can see how a libertarian “utopia” would work out in reality just by looking at situations where many aspects of Libertarian policy are currently at work.

To quote the movie Stripes...

"Relax Francis"

 

[FrenchAffair]

You have just, in essence, discribed conglomerate that was set up by K.C. Irving.  He set up a chain of Gas Stations, then Refineries, then the Trucking companies to transport his product.  He branched out into the Logging Industry and Pulp and Paper.  He linked all his businesses to cut costs.  His enterprise even runs a chain of hotels.  They are into the Food Production (Potatoe farms, etc.) and Food Processing business.  The are in the Shipbuilding and Shipping business (to transport Crude to their refineries from their offshore productions facilities).  They have large property holdings in major metropolitan centeres.  The list is almost endless, as to what kind of business empire the Irving family has created. 

Irving Oil
Irving Shipyards
Irving Shipping
Keddy's
Canada Splint
Irving Pulp and Paper
Irving Forest Products
Irving Refineries
Kent Building Supplies
Cavendish Farms Foods
Telegraph-Journal (Saint John)
Times & Transcript (Moncton)
Daily Gleaner (Fredericton)
MITV (later sold to Global Television)
The Tribune (Campbellton and Restigouche County)
La Voix (French Language) (Campbellton and Restigouche County)
The Bugle-Observer (Woodstock)
La Cataract (French Language) (Grand Falls, New Brunswick)
Le Madawaska (French Language) (Edmundston, New Brunswick)
Midland Trucking
and many more to basically 'own' the Maritimes and much of the Northeastern US.

Wal-Mart started out as a single family owned store as well. We all see the monster it has transformed into. Your point does nothing to counter what he is saying. Once these corporations has established themselves, independent businesses have little ability to compete competitively against them. Wal-Mart is notorious for opening up stores in small towns and putting all the “mom and pop” stores out of business, due to the simple fact that Wal-Mart can offer prices lower than anything feasible by these smaller stores.

They create their own monopoly.  

 

[a_majoor]

I won't answer the Irving example directly, since I don't have all the facts, but historical examples (such as the "Robber Baron" era in the United States) suggests that the Irving's have political influence to maintain their monopolies; in the form of regulations which discourage competitors from opening up shop in the Maritimes, favorable business contracts to supply government agencies and so on. High tax rates siphon capital which would otherwise be available for starting competing business (ever wonder why "Limosine Liberals" support socialism?). I suspect that the Irving conglomerate is pretty inbred and complacent, why should it be lean and mean without meaningful competition?

In fact, the widespread availability of "pogey" in the Maritimes also discourages meaningful competition, since the system is set up to penalize people who earn above a certain minimum, a blow against the working poor who are attempting to rise. For that they now have to go to Alberta.

Reccesoldier, you do raise good points, and for what it is worth, Libertarianism is a construct of failable humans (who ALWAYS look out for number one). The best thing about Libertarianism is it is an attempt to limit the arbitrary power of the State and suggests people really can live using the Rule of Law, cooperation and common sense as their guides, probably a better set of principles than invoking the power of the "State", the "People", the "Proletariat", "God", "god" or "The Gods", or any of the other arbitrary and unrestrained constructs of the past and present.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

But in the ideal libertarian society there would be significantly less law (and I would argue order) than there is today.  Imagine the actions and methods of drug dealers in Toronto in the absence of legislation.  Do you honestly believe that their methods would change if the drugs suddenly became legal.  Unfettered access to our children and no recourse for Joe and Jill six pack.

Actually many Libertarians argue that drug dealers exist only because the drugs are illegal.  The thinking goes like this: pretty much every demand in the market will be satisfied legally (when possible), or through a black market.  When goods are traded on the black market it creates huge price inflation for the sellers: buyers are willing to pay a risk premium to obtain the good which is the reason why many Dealers get rich.  Drug dealers have a monopoly that is regulated through violence, coercion and corruption (in the event of a contract dispute, there isn't really a court system to which one can appeal).  The lesson is that attempts to regulate social behaviour only lead to unintended consequences.

Thus, if drugs were sold through legal channels, black market drug dealers (along with the strife and violence associated with them) would cease to exist: this was certainly the US experience with Prohibition in the 20th Century.

 

[George Wallace]

Wal-Mart started out as a single family owned store as well. We all see the monster it has transformed into. Your point does nothing to counter what he is saying. Once these corporations has established themselves, independent businesses have little ability to compete competitively against them. Wal-Mart is notorious for opening up stores in small towns and putting all the “mom and pop” stores out of business, due to the simple fact that Wal-Mart can offer prices lower than anything feasible by these smaller stores.

They create their own monopoly.  

???

Wal-Mart is in no way similar to the example I have given.   The Walton family stuck to Retail.  The Irvings covered everthing.  Everything the Irvings produced, they transported.  Every truck, ship or plane they operated was fueled by their products, from their refineries, and again transported by their own carriers.  The Irving empire was self sustaining and through its ownership of the media, able to control a large area of Northeastern North America.  We are not talking simply of a monopoly here.  We are talking about a whole empire, where everything in daily life is touched and controlled by one family.  They kept their costs down, by hiring their own to purchase, produce, transport and retail.  They controlled their markets by undercutting all others.  

Did they contribute to the widespread availability of "pogey" or not, is debatable.  They did have control of the markets and political scene, so that outside interests could not move in as competition.  They did stifle the creativity of other Northeasterners/Maritimers with their business practices.  

So FrenchAffair, we are not talking about a family that started out in retail and became a giant, but a family who started out with a gas station and expanded it into a gigantic conglomerate, incorporating a wide range of business and industry.  Not just a chain of stores, but a group of stores, gas stations, car dealerships, shipping lines, airlines, trucking, logging, farming, food packaging, refining, sawmills,................  There is no similarity between the two family enterprises, other than the wealth they have been able to generate through their business practices.

New Brunswick might as well be ruled by the Irving family (officially) as it pretty much is unofficially.  Do all have an equal share?  No.  It is right our of George Orwell:  "some are more equal than others."  

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Are you joking me. Walmart and Nike, two of the largest corporations in America, even the world run of sweatshops that practically enslave poor, uneducated people who would be put on the streets to starve (with their families) if they did not work in the horrible conditions for minimal pay.

Now I'm just laughing.  What do you think people did before the evil corporations arrived to provide jobs?  Do you suppose they all moved off affluent farms into the cities to work for sh!t wages?  Sweatshops, or sweatfields - I suppose the enslaved poor made a choice.

>Thanks George, now think of that kind of setup without government legislation (or in Libertarianeese interference)of any kind.

I can't imagine that kind of setup being created in the first place without "connections".  Do you think any powerful family or business in existence got where it is today by its own bootstraps, or by exactly the abuses of government power to which I object?  And do you think none of the big enterprises keep their fists firmly up the government's ass so they can control which direction it moves?  You're not using very strong nails to drive your point home.  The reality is that as conglomerations grow larger, their decision cycles lengthen and agility in the marketplace atrophies.  Then a new set of mammals drives out the dinosaurs and evolve themselves into giants, and the cycle repeats.  Government interference and protective legislative measures are the bastions that prop up empires that could not otherwise compete.

Back to FA:

>Let me ask you a simple question, what is in any large corporations best interest.
>a)  To improve the conditions and standards of living in 3rd world countries where they operate their factories, leading to workers demanding more rights and higher salaries
>Or
>b)  Keep the workers impoverished, uneducated and in a situation where they are forced to work for wages that do not meet their basic needs and in conditions that are substandard and hazardous to their health?

Examination has shown that (b) is not what happens.  The "race to the bottom" is a myth.  As peoples' economic situations improve, both governments and private organizations are driven to accomodate a virtuous cycle of improvements.

 

[George Wallace]

I do not understand how one can be so naïve.

Let me ask you a simple question, what is in any large corporations best interest.

a) To improve the conditions and standards of living in 3rd world countries where they operate their factories, leading to workers demanding more rights and higher salaries

Or

b) Keep the workers impoverished, uneducated and in a situation where they are forced to work for wages that do not meet their basic needs and in conditions that are substandard and hazardous to their health?

Corporations are out to make money, not improve the quality of life of individuals. Nike is going to make a lot more money if they can manufacture their shoes for 25 cents an hour labor over in south east Asia…. If they improve the conditions of those workers, they will demand more money. The more money Nike has to pay workers… the less money they make.

It is in corporations best interest to keep these parts of the world impoverished. Libertarians not only would endorse that, but they would bring the same lack of regulations that allows and creates those conditions in south east Asia and Africa to Canada.

That sounds fairly naïve to me.  The mere fact that they now have an income, is probably a large step up from where they once were.  Do I think that their standard of living is going to improve overnight?  You really think I am that naïve?  Of course it is not.  It will take years.  Will they be treated as per your option b) is again a very naïve statement on your part.  Any business that hopes to become successful, will not last long using that option.  There are too many Ethical Funds starting up in the Stock Market and too many Business Ethics doctrines being implemented today to think that these practices will continue.  Will they try to get the cheapest labour and resources?  Of course they will.  It is business, but as I have pointed out, once these impoverished people start gaining employment and earning wages, which they did not prior to this, then their standards of living will improve.

 
As for your comments against the possibility of Unions moving in and taking over:

No they can’t. Look at what Wal-Mart did when workers in Quebec unionized. They fired the workers and shut the store down. And that is in Quebec.

Workers in the 3rd world are paid wages insufficient to meet their basic needs, are not allowed to organize independent unions, and often face health and safety hazards. If they try to create unions these corporations will just shut their factory down and move it somewhere else. Leavening these people with out any means at all.

These people can not organize unions because they are enslaved in everything but name.

You’re delusional fantasies about the “utopia” a Libertarian society would create can only draw parallels to the “utopia” communists claim their manifesto would create…. We all see how that worked out in practice… just as we can see how a libertarian “utopia” would work out in reality just by looking at situations where many aspects of Libertarian policy are currently at work.

I think that you are the one who is delusional.  There is nothing utopian at all at play here.  I am sure you are aware of how Unions came into being.  Your examples of Wal-Mart, and should we include Michelin, and the Irvings, and a few others, are fine and dandy, but you are comparing apples to oranges.  Unions in Canada and the US are well past their prime.  The North American unionized worker is so highly paid, it is cost effective for these companies to close down their factories and move elsewhere.  However, if their 3rd World factories Unionize and strike, they will settle and still be saving.  What will a two or three cent hourly wage increase cost them there, compared to the ten or twenty dollar hourly wage increase being demanded here?  When you have the lowest paid workers around, you can afford to compromise with them in the case of a Strike.  They couldn't close down those factories, as there are few places left for them to go to find cheaper labour.  They are already moving into China.

You really don't think things out too well, do you.  

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Wal-Mart started out as a single family owned store as well. We all see the monster it has transformed into. Your point does nothing to counter what he is saying. Once these corporations has established themselves, independent businesses have little ability to compete competitively against them. Wal-Mart is notorious for opening up stores in small towns and putting all the “mom and pop” stores out of business, due to the simple fact that Wal-Mart can offer prices lower than anything feasible by these smaller stores.

They create their own monopoly.  

Monster??....................you do realize you are quoting that word to many CF members who have seen what a "real monster" is capable of, don't you?

....and to answer your wildly wavering point,
independent "Mom and Pop" shops can do just fine, they just must prove to the locals that they are worth the slightly extra cost. The only reason I may go to a Wal-mart is because MOST of the time its the only place around that has stuff made in North America.

Quelle horreur.

 

[TCBF]

Envy is the root of all Communism.  The very idea that the rich CREATE wealth and employment is an anathema to those losers who think it is better that we all starve together rather than allowing some to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and begin to build a future for themselves and others.

Communism is, like, SO twentieth century, it's dead. 

Watch Africa and India over the next twenty years.  Small 'L' Libertarianism and capitalism are about to triple average wealth in a generation.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Just came across this at <a href="http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/01/29/ten-books-that-changed-my-life-2-atlas-shrugged/">The Simple Dollar</a>, about one of the seminal works in modern libertarian thought.

Ten Books That Changed My Life #2: Atlas Shrugged

...

How did Atlas Shrugged affect the person I became?

I started to question the fundamental structure of society, government, and economics. Prior to reading the book, I generally accepted that society in the United States was the way things should be; after the book, I began to dive into economic, social, and political theory an an effort to understand why things were the way they were. I jumped wildly from theory to theory, shifting my worldview wildly from week to week before finally beginning to build a structure that made sense to me, but it was Atlas Shrugged that made me begin to question how things worked.

I began to appreciate the power of the individual. One of the primary themes of this book is that intelligent, hard-working people are the ones that make the world work, and these people deserve the rewards of their intellect and effort. Even today, the people that impress me most are the ones whose actions have a genuine positive effect on the lives of people.

I began to be disillusioned by celebrity. Why should I respect anyone who represents values that I don’t agree with? Why should I look up to people who don’t contribute to a greater society? To me, Norman Borlaug is a hero, not William Hung, and I consider it an indictment of society when more people are familiar with Hung than Borlaug.

I realized that it was up to me and me alone to make a success out of my life. This is perhaps the biggest lesson that this book taught me. Before I read this book, I had this belief that just because I was intelligent, the world owed me something. After reading this, I began to wonder what value I really had to offer to the world. I might be intelligent, but if I spent all my time in the corner ranting about how the world owed me something, I would be wasting my life. I needed to use my intelligence for my own benefit, to get off my lazy behind and do something with it, or else it would just fester and rot.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Thus, if drugs were sold through legal channels, black market drug dealers (along with the strife and violence associated with them) would cease to exist

How would making drugs legal do anything to stop drug dealers? All it would do is allow them to operate out in the open. They would still use violence to maintain their grip on business, they would just set up store fronts and operate out in the open.

It would still be in their best interests to operate violent drug cartels forcing impoverished workers in the 3rd world to manufacture the drugs. All making it legal would do is eliminate their need to smuggle the drugs in, giving these drug lords even more money to maintain their criminal empires.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Now I'm just laughing.  What do you think people did before the evil corporations arrived to provide jobs?  Do you suppose they all moved off affluent farms into the cities to work for sh!t wages?  Sweatshops, or sweatfields - I suppose the enslaved poor made a choice.

They have no choice, these corporations hold so much influence over these 3rd world governments that they are able to cause the government to enact policies and create circumstances where living their traditional way of life is no longer feasible.  These people are offered the choice of either having themselves and their family staving in the streets because the government seized their land for a new Nike plant, or working in despicable conditions, for 16 hours a day packed into factories that are dangerous to their health for wages that do not even provide enough money to provide their family with the minimal standards of living.

1/3rd of the world population is not living under the poverty line because corporations pay them to much and provide them with to many benefits.

Examination has shown that (b) is not what happens.  The "race to the bottom" is a myth.  As peoples' economic situations improve, both governments and private organizations are driven to accomodate a virtuous cycle of improvements.

That is completely false, business is out only to make money. There is no money to be made by improving the conditions of the 3rd world that manufactures their goods and provides their labor. If there was no 3rd world countries these corporations would not be making the profit they are.

 

[George Wallace]

:

I remember an old Health Canada commercial on this.  It involved an egg in a frying pan.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Do I think that their standard of living is going to improve overnight?  You really think I am that naïve?  Of course it is not.  It will take years.

Not if these corporations have their way. The quality of life in these nations exploited by corporations only increases for the select elite that profit off the exploitation of the poor workers, whose standard of living and quality of life is subjective to the profit margin of these corporations.

Any business that hopes to become successful, will not last long using that option.

The major corporations that dominate our society today did not make it where they are by paying workers in south east Asia wages that would put them above the poverty line.

It is healthy to have a distrust in government, we all should. But I can not fathom how Libertarians can be so distrustful of government (who is accountable to the people) yet be willing to put complete blind faith in corporations (whose only interest is money) with no accountability.

once these impoverished people start gaining employment and earning wages

Do you not understand what the “poverty line” means? Sure these people are getting a pay check each week, but they are living under the poverty line. They do not make enough money to provide themselves and their family with the basic standards of life. How is their quality of life supposed to improve when they can not even provide for their families with what they make now. Add in the Libertarian social policies (no welfare, no public education, no public health care) there is absolutely no way that these families would be able to overcome poverty and improve their standard of living from generation to generation. Their children are being sent to work in factories at the age of 10 just so their family can feed itself.

Libertarian policy will do nothing other than create circumstance that will only cause a perpetual cycle of poverty for the vast majority of people.


The only reason the western world has the standard of living we do today is because of these social policies that our governments have instituted. Public access to health care, Public access to medical care, public welfare….. you would do away with these programs and thus ensure that any advances western society has made to improve the standard and quality of life of our citizens is reverted.

The North American unionized worker is so highly paid, it is cost effective for these companies to close down their factories and move elsewhere

Which is why we need to implement policies to protect jobs in our nation by imposing tariffs on imported goods and imposing penalties on corporations that exploit workers in foreign countries. If there is no money to be made by exploiting 10 year old Asian workers, corporations won’t do it.

However, if their 3rd World factories Unionize and strike, they will settle and still be saving.

Then how come they haven’t done this?

You are under the delusion that people in these nations at a) educated enough to know what, and implement unions and that b) the political situation allows for such action.

These corporations ensure that neither of those are possible.

 

[JesseWZ]

Actually Jesse, I think that is a common misconception, but read Politics with more dimensions http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html to see how the one dimensional "left/right" divide distorts political thinking.

You might also like the thread on the Euston Manifesto http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42161.0.html which looks at quite a few competing ideas in the realm of politics and ideology. Many of our better posters participated in that one, and I thought it was a good debate.

Enjoy!

Seen, Off to go reading says I.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Monster??....................you do realize you are quoting that word to many CF members who have seen what a "real monster" is capable of, don't you?

The conditions forced upon these workers is one of the most despicable acts in the world. These corporations commit atrocities and commit crimes just as bad as the Taliban. 

Tens of millions of people around this world are “enslaved” by these corporations, thousands die each day because of cooperate greed and their motives are no less selfish, evil and barbaric than the Taliban.

Evil takes on all forms in this world.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

How would making drugs legal do anything to stop drug dealers? All it would do is allow them to operate out in the open. They would still use violence to maintain their grip on business, they would just set up store fronts and operate out in the open.

It would still be in their best interests to operate violent drug cartels forcing impoverished workers in the 3rd world to manufacture the drugs. All making it legal would do is eliminate their need to smuggle the drugs in, giving these drug lords even more money to maintain their criminal empires.

You already answered that yourself (bulk shipping is cheaper than smuggling):

Wal-Mart is would become notorious for opening up stores in small towns and putting all the “mom and pop” stores dealers out of business, due to the simple fact that Wal-Mart can offer prices lower than anything feasible by these smaller stores dealers.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The conditions forced upon these workers is one of the most despicable acts in the world. These corporations commit atrocities and commit crimes just as bad as the Taliban. 

Tens of millions of people around this world are “enslaved” by these corporations, thousands die each day because of cooperate greed and their motives are no less selfish, evil and barbaric than the Taliban.

How exactly does that work? Who is and how are they being forced to work?  And how does "enslaved" differ from being enslaved?

 

[FrenchAffair]

You already answered that yourself (bulk shipping is cheaper than smuggling):

Who do you think these drug dealers get it from? They already bulk ship it in, making it legal would just let them import even more drugs to pollute our population.

 

[FrenchAffair]

How exactly does that work? Who is and how are they being forced to work?  And how does "enslaved" differ from being enslaved?

Take a look at any 3rd world nation and the corporations breaking down the door to exploit the native population. And “enslaved” is different than enslaved in that being “enslaved” is slavery in everything but name and law.