centralized market control vs free markets

im trying to get a picture of the predominate views on this site.

Do you believe in that oppression by corporation is as much; if not more, of a concern then oppression by government?
what are the reasons for your opinion?

Libertyhunter: They are both a concern for me, and I believe a libertarian political system is the best way to combat big business and big government. When people have formed monopolies it is usually because they help to create enough regulations to make the barrier of entry to entering a field unattainable, such as drug companies. The people who created monopolies prior to that were able to bully competitors in a way that would also be illegal in a libertarian society. Such as when companies basically had slave labor and the Democrats sent the military to actually stop Rockefellers workers from striking.

Wylted: See I'm not sure you can prevent companies from basically having slave labor in a libertarian system

admin: Slave labor is illegal in a libertarian society. Plus with more competition for businesses which we know for a fact would happen because before the FDA, most of our groceries were bought from local producers, and drugs did not cost a billion to go to market. Before Glass Steagull most banking was done by mom and pop banks.

So we are looking at a society where big corporations can't make the barrier of entering and staying in an industry so high as to be unobtainable.

Also we have things like the military literally being sent in to break up a Rockefeller worker strike and force people back to work, the very definition of slavery. In a Libertarian society, government would not send men with guns to force you to work. In fact in a libertarian society, if men with guns attempted to get you to work, men with bigger guns would be sent by the government to stop them.

We are looking at a society that would be a good 50% small business owners, and a society so prosperous that literally nobody could be coerced into slavery.

Wylted: Even if we take the most utopian concept here, where there's a completely fair and completely effective democratically-controlled system of government to enforce laws like "no slavery", you still have a situation where the rich get richer and the poor poorer. I give it maybe 4 generations before it collapses into anarchy and those laws become meaningless. Wage slavery is real.

I agree that governments shouldn't be competing in most markets (except public goods). Personally, I think you'll find the FDA is not singlehandedly responsible for globalisation, nor that it's a bad thing people aren't dying from taking unsafe, untested drugs (well, legal ones anyway), but that's a whole other issue (consumer protection from exploitation, ie an infringement on their freedom to make informed choices). And yes, I get that your political system is full of lobbying and that's corrupting your institutions including the FDA to an extent. Corporations shouldn't run a government, people should - I suspect we'll find agreement here. But that doesn't translate to 50% small business nor does smaller business mean greater prosperity. Wal-mart doesn't maintain retail control because they have political connections (not that I'm supporting their political connections) but because they're delivering an economically sound service.

Who earns money from what is going to be an even more important question very soon because more and more work is being done by machines. When androids are doing most of the world's economic activity and all of us are able to retire right out of college, will the government provide everyone with the money to do so, or will there be a class of oligarchs, powerful families who control the production, distribution and incomes of those robots? Because right now I don't think we're robbing the rich nearly enough for such a society to work. Certainly in a libertarian system, control of technology is absolutely critical.

admin: Well, libertarians are the ones who invented the concept of the basic minimum income. It just needs to be implemented correctly. The swedes not completely replacing their welfare state with one is an example of an attempt to do it incorrectly. You sweep away all the social programs and replace them with a basic minimum income, instead of doing both simultaneously. Controlling the flow of immigrants is important too, in a state that does this. I can't see doing the basic minimum income in the United States because the liberals want completely open borders, and something like that is not really achievable with an open border system.

I am a transhumanist first and a libertarian second. I'd be willing to spend 100 billion to fight age related diseases for example, though most people only want to spend that much on war

Wylted: So that raises the question of why a minimum income is better than social programs. The difference is that minimum incomes don't give to the poor, they give to the unemployed. Many unemployed don't need the same minimum income as many others because they have some degree of wealth already. Both, however, share a degree of centralized market control that I think is very significant.

Open borders are a matter of free movement. It proves that most libertarians don't really believe in freedom before nationalism.

I'm a humanist first. Transhumanism doesn't make any sense to me.

admin: The basic minimum income I am thinking of would be given to every single citizen of a country, most libertarians believe in open borders. I would like open borders in an entirely libertarian civilization, but speaking pragmatically I am aware a libertarian society will likely never happen. If we are going to have a welfare state though, I can't see how this is possible with open borders

admin: I don't know that freedom of movement is really a libertarian thing. A libertarian society grants the most freedom of movement l, but at the same time shooting trespassers on site would be permissible.

Wylted: The basic minimum income I am thinking of would be given to every single citizen of a country
This is the part I take issue with, regardless. It doesn't help the poor and it exacerbates wealth inequality in an age of rapidly rising unemployment.

admin: Why are you so concerned about wealth inequality? It seems like you would prefer that we all live equally in poverty than all of us have massive wealth, but just varying levels of wealth. It seems like nonsense to be concerned about wealth inequality.

Wylted: Maybe if we consider the world today I can see that wealth inequality is less of a concern than it will be in the future. It is still harmful in that it destroys societies, creates conflict and provides incentives to limit personal freedom. I do not believe it is possible to assign everyone the same amount of freedom if people have vastly different amounts of wealth. In any case I have never, in all my years of being involved with debating politics and such, heard of such a model.

Wealth is a measure of power, especially in that money is essentially a ticketing system for the provision of goods and services of which we have an increasingly-ample supply. It has lost its currency as a medium of exchange and this will continue to get worse. Now it is a mere tool of subjugation. Where societies have seen massive levels of wealth inequality, we have universally seen class conflict and negative outcomes for those at the bottom, including reduced ability to access education, healthcare and so forth. I happen to strongly believe in human rights and that freedom should not be a function of what family you're born into. Wealth cannot be a reasonable limiting factor, then, when we have supply. In a world where robot maids attend to humanity's every whim and desire anyway, limiting access to a few based on entirely arbitrary criteria seems thoroughly unreasonable.

This is why things like pensions are bankrupting so many societies at the moment - people live longer, but increasingly are out of work earlier. The net impact in many nations right now is that pensions are being reduced or the retirement age raised ... but the problems are simply being transferred. In many nations youth unemployment is ridiculous. This is not surprising given rapidly advancing technology and is consistent with long-term trends. AI researchers predict AI will replace most of the jobs of today by (on average) the year 2045. Never in human history have economies had to adapt that fast, including during the industrial revolution. We are economic pioneers. If we don't take concern of wealth inequality we will lay the foundations of a society that may well keep people trapped in poverty for many, many generations yet.

Wylted: Most people believe wealth inequality destroys societies because most of western society has bought into the blatant contrived lie that we are all created equal.
Wealth inequality simply allows the exceptional people to be...well..exceptional. It also allows bums to be bums. Happiness is more important than wealth. Raising the standard of living for all by permitting exceptional people a motive to thrive rather than restricting exceptional creativity is much more important for society than making sure we all keep up with the Joneses. We are not all created like the Joneses, and people will be happier to acknowledge this truth rather than chasing a fantasy perpetuated by politicians seeking power to "level the playing field." The only thing being leveled is the truth and the dreams of exceptional people and the bums of society.

Greyparrot: You realize that's an argument for slavery right?

admin: Not in a free market society where people can choose to not work. There are no western civilizations in existence that do not have some sort of safety net, so the argument of "work or die" fails. Safety nets can easily co exist with wealth inequality.

Greyparrot: Safety nets aim to produce some level of equality. By arguing against all inequality you're effectively arguing against all safety nets. The question isn't whether equality is acceptable in principle, rather, what level of equality you are willing to accept. In principle, therefore, it is significant that wealth equality is important and that people are created equal to some extent. My view on this is that equality doesn't come in half-measures - nobody is more equal than anyone else.

admin: I disagree. Safety nets are put in place to take care of the handicapped, the lazy, and the unlucky. Putting all the rest of society in the same net is restricting mankind. No matter how enticing you make that cage look, people will eventually see it as a cage. People are just not equal, and never will be without a massive eugenics campaign and centralized indoctrination across the globe. I'm sure you have read many dystopian novels on these kinds of societies.

Greyparrot: That doesn't explain why we should take care of people with little income, or why we restrict who can earn what in the first place. These are socially defined discourses framed by adversarial power structures. Our society already places judgment on what people we think are valuable and what people we think are not. That's shameful, in my view. It also becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's exactly why your point here is in direct support of slavery. People have long claimed that slaves could not exist in a civilized society without being enslaved. By freeing people you don't trap everyone else - just like you don't trap anyone by taking a portion their money. I've seen this exact argument run in letters to keep women from voting, to keep gay people from marrying, and to keep persons of color from participating in society. On economic and social issues, this strict brand of conservatism is only supportable by having an inconsistent standard of equality.

admin: It's impossible for slavery to exist in a society where one can choose to not work and still be provided with basic life support to continue making that choice to not work. That society is in no way jeopardized with the existence of wealth inequality. Your slavery argument has absolutely no basis in fact. Society restricts people in all manner of ways, but that's not slavery. Enforced equality is not slavery either, but it does deny exceptional people the motive and means to be exceptional. Exceptional people should not be branded as pariahs for not conforming to the mold of equality and egalitarianism. There's no profit to society in that.