Do you ever wonder why so many billionaires fight so hard for free markets? It’s not because they want competition. It’s because they already have theirs. They have already benefited from this system.
Not sure if you are demonizing the free market. It sounds like you are but there is a chance that you are also supporting a free market, the wording is odd. But just in case you are demonizing the free market:
Have you ever considered the fact that they don’t think that they have maximized their potential and that with a free market, they can profit more because they can deliver more and/or better goods and services to consumers?
They also might not fear competition because they view themselves as more capable than most or even all and that in their minds the competition isn’t a problem because they have a formula, product or competitive advantage which separates them from the pack and keeps them among the top?
Side note: Disney uses union labor.
True. And also contextually irrelevant.
Not really. You were commenting on how long it takes unionized labor to do anything (i.e the roads) while using the example of unionized labor doing a fantastic job (Disney).
Read it again. The specific issue discussed is government monopoly.
Disney isn’t 100% unionized and Disney also outsources a lot of work to non-unionized companies. I work for one of those companies and we do a ton of their pre and post productions as well as some production work. They probably put more pressure on us in terms of prices, turn around time and quality than they do on any internal employee or department.
Because we aren’t the only post house, we have to stay competitive and we are always trying to edge out the competition, whether it’s prices, costs, time, quality or other x-factors.
On top of that, Disney has an obligation to make a profit. Because of that, they care about our quality and costs as well as their own internal quality and costs. They have owners/shareholders as well as competition. If they don’t do well, consumers can elect to not but their products and shareholders will lose value and ask for resignations and perhaps even pull their investments.
Because of this implicit liability to others, the business world, even when saddled with unionized waste, can still find a way to maximize efficiency. It’s not always perfect, but it happens.
But when it comes to roads, no one in the business of building roads has an ultimate boss. The consumers can’t stop buying from them and turn to other providers because there is only one major provider of roads.
Consumers can’t even negotiate costs and the consumers are also the investors (tax payers) and they can’t pull their investment because that would mean not paying taxes and that is punishable by heavy fines and imprisonment. Because of these barriers to entry for competition and barriers to exit for consumers, everyone is locked into a system where costs don’t really matter and neither does quality or duration. So unions have found a perfect system to leach off of. This is why unions love government jobs and have trouble completely taking over non-government businesses, especially those that aren’t heavily subsidized or rewarded for having unionized labor.
Saying that X couldn’t exist without government is a statement which legitimizes government as an entity which can bring to fruition things that others can not achieve.
You’re laying upon government the title of a necessary being, for government is now necessary for X to exist.
If you’re a libertarian or an anarchist, you never want to do this, not only because it’s not true, but because you undermine the very philosophy which you claim to support; one that finds government to be an unnecessary and burdensome evil.
So making the claim that ‘corporations’ could not exist without government simply because government currently oversees the formation and legalities of ‘corporations’ is no different than saying ‘roads’ could not exist without government because government currently oversees the formation and legalities of roads.
A road a tangible thing. I can make one in my backyard if I want to. A corporation is a legal construction that exists on a piece of paper. I cannot make one in my backyard. What is so hard to grasp about this?
As an anarchist, I reject all forms of external authority, including courts, churches, or whatever institutions you would suggest make laws and create corporations in a stateless society.
Governments obviously “bring to fruition things that others can not achieve”, and stating the obvious doesn’t legitimize government. You can’t have state terrorism, corporatism, politicians, corruption, taxes, eminent domain, and many other awful forms and byproducts of authoritarianism without government or the state. That doesn’t mean we need any of those things, and that doesn’t mean we need to keep the government around to ensure those things continue to exist.
I don’t know why I’m about to waste my time with this but it’s Friday and, well, tumblr.
A road is tangible, yes, but it’s only a road because people agree that it’s a road. In reality, it’s the idea of the road which is important.
A corporation doesn’t exist just on paper, it exists in practice. The paper just explains what the practice is. Just like your rights don’t exist only on the Bill of Rights, a piece of paper, they exist in practice. The Bill of Rights, a a piece of paper, just reiterates what they are.
the piece of paper is pointless other than the fact that it is evidence that an agreement was made. You can make it digital, you can video tape the agreement, you can invent a time machine and reference that specific point in time when the agreement was made by traveling back in time to revisit yourself, or anyone else, making that agreement. You can be a god with omnipresent and omniscient abilities and you will just have the knowledge of that agreement being made. Whatever it is.
What’s important here is that a corporation or agreement to incorporate is a set of rules agreed upon by all parties which govern the relationship between those parties during whatever activities described within that agreement from the point that the agreement is made until it expires or is dissolved (through whatever means it is dissolved by, where the agreement can also govern those measures as well).
The agreement doesn’t have to be a physical thing to exist. Numbers aren’t a physical thing. Words aren’t a physical thing. They exist. Sorry, not my rules, you lose, they win. End of story.
I don’t give a shit what terrible definition of “anarchy’ you ascribe to, and if you’d be so kind, stop calling yourself an anarchist (especially one that believes in free markets) until you learn what anarchism is and what the free market is.
You don’t have to believe in external authority. But being an anarchist doesn’t mean you can reject the authority of binding agreements between willing parties. That’s not “up to you”. This is not a subjective inference, this is a logic based, objective reality. If two people agree to set a group of rules to authorize their conduct, then that’s their prerogative. You, I and no one outside of that agreement has any say in the matter.
This is a simple yet fundamental pillar in the philosophy of anarchism.
This is why anarchists believe that you can agree to buy drugs from another party and a 3rd, uninvolved party has no right to dismantle that agreement.
Your last paragraph is pointless.
LIBERTARIANS ARE SAYING ALL CORPORATIONS SUCCEED BECAUSE OF THE STATE.
So… are you saying…
The state makes things succeed?
Corporations are creations of the state. Especially limited liability protectionism. Which are backed by the force of the government. Limited liability should only be enforceable between people who sign a contract not applied to everyone as if it was another “social contract.”
Does the state make them succeed? Of course not. But they definitely give them extra benefits that the individual doesn’t have.
No they are not.
Corporations can exist in a free market. Even limited liability ones.
Stop drinking the Stefan Molyneux Kool-Aid.
Contracts are between individuals. They can only be applied to those who sign them. Is that agreeable?
Corporations are just concepts in themselves. Corporations are made up between a group of individuals that contractually agree to work together to create a business.
So yes, you can I can sign a contract where I can only sue the company if I’m harmed and can’t go after you. In that instance limited liability can exist.
Please explain to me how that same contract between us applies to everyone else?
If you harm someone you don’t have a contract with why can’t they sue you personally? Why would they be limited to your company?
Just saying they can exists isn’t an argument. I can say squared circles can exists but that doesn’t make it so. Please explain the social contract for corporations that you think should exist?
Yes, you’ve figured out the contacts part. Deals between corporations are just contracts between two large groups agreeing to a set group of criteria.
When you do business with someone, you are agreeing to do business on a specific set of terms. If you’re working with a limited liability company (LLC), you agree that whatever your remedy to a breach of contract or duty is, you’re only limited to their ownership in that company and not beyond it.
You don’t need to sign a physical contract for the guarantee or caveat to be there. Just like when you purchase a ticket to a sporting game, you relinquish certain remedies or even legal rights simply by purchasing a ticket.
There’s a reason that companies that are limited liability have to include LLC ot Ltd or such in the actual name of the company.
Like if I’m making Big Money, LLC. My company name isn’t just Making Big Money. It’s the whole thing, including the LLC. It is a caveat emptor.
In a free market you might not have the ability to force companies to use that in their name but you can be diligent and find out what kind of liability limitations you’re dealing with.
If you, outside of your company, harm someone, they can take everything from you if a court deems that to be just compensation, including your house, cars and your shares of an LLC. Limited Liability isn’t a shield from all liability. It’s protection from liability of that specific company. So if you’re Bill Gates and you get drunk and kill a school bus full of kids, you’re not limited to only losing your shares of Microsoft. I’m willing to give you enough credit that you already know this much.
There’s one more loop hole that protects consumers and that’s that if an LLC is negligent at the specific direction of an owners (e.g. you ask an employee to put broken glass into the sandwiches) then protection from personal liability goes away. You can’t use an LLC to shield yourself from tort law.
I don’t know where people got this silly idea that a limited liability company somehow allows owners to do whatever they want and get away with it. It doesn’t. What does allow these people to do things and get away with it are the corrupt politicians who shield them with pardons or commuted sentences.
So, in a free market, how does one operate if all of these companies are claiming limited liability? Well, #1, you always assume the worst case scenario unless you know better. #2, you can always seek out companies who aren’t limiting their liability as a form of gaining a competitive advantage. Or #3, you can find companies and build relationships that has a mixture of liability protection.
The free market is people, not corporations.
but… corporations are just a collection of people…
No, firms, businesses, are just collections of people.
Corporations are chartered by the state and given special privileges, immunity of individuals working for the corporation from prosecution for crimes for instance.
Corporations don’t have to be chartered through the state.
If it weren’t for limited liability protection, so many less businesses would exist, less money would be pooled for investment, less ideas would come to fruition and the world would be worse off.
Corporations, LLCs, partnerships, etc, have done much more good for humanity than bad.
I’ve stressed this point a zillion times, especially with groups like Build-a-burger and Illumazombies, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with these groups if it weren’t for the existence of government. The problem, at it’s root, isn’t corporations or lobbyists or special interests. The root of all these “evils” is a government that the people entrust with power that is capable of corruption and more than willing to grant special privileges to these specific groups/individuals/companies.
You eliminate their source of corruption and you will eliminate their corruption.
But please tell me more about how the New World Order is going to take over without government.
I’m just really surprised by the number of libertarians who are pro-mandatory labeling for GMOs.
Aren’t you guys supposed to be against government intervention?
Agreed. I always thought this was odd as well.
Wait, there are libertarians who are pro-mandatory labeling?
What about a society (of libertarians), let’s say there are 400 members living there. A new person moves into town, he is the 401st member of the neighborhood. As is his right, he opens on HIS property a brand new store. What if the other 400 libertarian neighbors (plus the new member) all got together and vigorously debated the GMO labeling issue. In the end 399 people believe that their community should have some sort of labeling standard, and the new member of the community, plus some guy he managed to convince, say that its goes against his private right to sell as he chooses.
What happens next?
What happens next is that we let the producers do what they want and let the consumers choose what they want.
Freedom of choice is a two-sides coin.