Quote:
3) Again, all you have to do is look at history, particularly US LABOR HISTORY to know the answer here. The only thing they used to use the federal government for was to stomp strikers. Hey, the national guard simply had bigger guns then the company men.
Libertarians always make the same ridiculous assumptions: Contracts are only ever made between equal parties. Markets are fair and will handle all of societies needs without interference. Governments are the sole source of tyranny. Yadda, Yadda.
|
I don't think any libertarians oppose the ability of people to strike, just respect others property and ability to work if they desire as well during the process.
And I agree that despite the claims, it was large businesses that had the ultimate say in things but government force.
I've heard some arguments that many large businesses effectively are on the government payroll as well and I can't argue with all of it. I have had some personal experience with seeing how the patent system can be abused (and the more recent addition of intellectual property rigths too). I'd agree it's immoral to intentional steal someone elses ideas and compete against them in a limited market but things have gone beyond that to the point where you can effectively have your own ideas claimed as someone elses property ... but that's a different subject.
Quote:
|
I'm a good ole Anarchist myself. Tyranny comes from ALL FORMS OF AUTHORITY, no matter how centralized that authority happens to be. Whether it's an authoritarian socialist state or a loose conglomerate of economic interests, it's still a bunch of people telling you what to do with threat of death or imprisonment. It's still people making your decisions for you. Making our decisions for us.
|
I respect a lot of anarchist views. Ultimately, no matter the extent people realize it, everyone is still basically free to choose what institutions they recognize as having some authority over them (or even none at all, I guess). Though I think, in practice, anarchy only works peaceably amongst people with similar views or at least within some framework that people can agree upon boundaries when there's a dispute over something.
For a good look at anarchy in peaceful operation, take a look at businesses, churches, and community groups. Noone had to specifically create detailed laws and threaten the ude of force to get these to operate, these primary are created through social pressures (though ultimately I'm sure there's a limit at which things are handled in a more physical than social manner ... that's inevitable).
I think a minimal government is better though in that there's a more explicit agreement upon what boundaries people respect. Even the U.S. was based upon this idea as a republic of relatively independent states and did fine for a long time.