Juan:

So, you see, intervention affects the size of all businesses. Which means all your objections are not valid. The analysis for big business is correct and the fact that small businesses are also subsidized is irrelevant to the validity of said analysis. You - fail ?

You've failed to demonstrate what is necessary to prove your point.

No, you made a wholly irrelevant objection, like all your objections.

wombatron:

Do we really have to do this again?

I think it is starting to be used as a witch hunt term too. Whats worse is being called a neo-feudalist for supporting non proviso Lockean proeprty titels to land... 

wombatron:

Nick. B:

Oh sure Liberty Student, sorry it took me so long to answer. Well I must concede that I never really dwelved in depth on this subject and came to my conclusions on the basis of two admittedly informal and sloppy deductions: 1) conversing with other market anarchist on other sites and 2) just my confused understanding of what a corporation is. I've alway thought that corporations were institutions created by the state and not of the market and would thus disappear. I can see now that I made a grave mistake in reasoning. And again I am truly sorry it took me so long to answer.

Do remember that there is a difference between big business and between corporations, and also between what is usually meant by "big business" and large firms per se.  And also there is a difference between saying that large firms rely indirectly on the state, and saying that large firms are inherently evil.

I'll give a shot, I guess.  

I would classify big buisness (which is an unclear but convienent abstraction, regardless) as any buisness sufficiently big enough to activley collude with The State (let's call this a state collusion risk factor, since you cannot automatically assume all big buisnesses are colluding), & one that is activley persued by The State via it's laws for the initation, continuation, or elimination of present or past collusive activity.  

Now, in a state society, this would be nigh impossible to  work out, since The State has the advantage of resources to cover it's tracks in links to buissnesses & banks etc.  The State also has the advantages of legislative power, media, etc.  

In a stateless society, however, I think somehing along the lines of a statist collusion risk, or a coercive collusion risk rating would be important for individuals via the markets to decide, detect, patron, & boycott certain buissnesses.  

Transparency would obviously be required, but such would be needed anyway for  accurate information to circulate throughout the free-market society.

Private services, the possibility of failing buisnesses,  & the such could definitley help in providing the investigative and/or de-centralized legal & investigative incentives for coercive-collusion to be almost out-competed, improbable, or socially unnacceptable, per the preferred voluntaryistic qualities of stateless life.       

I think a topology of collusion and/or consent among buissnesses & the state (similar to a topology of state interventionism, per Rothbard in P&M) would help more, though. 

I do think that coercive-collusion describes big buisness' in-bed activity with The State better, though, and avoids the implications of non-collusive corporations (such as corprations who merley exist in the state society, such as ourselves) automatically being the bad guys.

 

Great blog post by Peter Klein today

Rothbard on Organizations

Juan:

No, you made a wholly irrelevant objection, like all your objections.

Ok.

 

Juan:

So are smaller firms, this has be done before. Klein and Kinsella ran circles around Carson and Long, not suprisingly either (Block's answer was very poor).

Small businesses are subsidized as well. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, however, that this invalidates the analysis for big businesses. So...try again.

 

Subsidies are not the only form of state intervention in the economy. Without the regulatory framework currently imposed, some big firms might get smaller (currently propped up by state priviledge), and some big firms might get bigger (currently undermined by state penalties). To categorically state that all big firms must shrink without the state, by only focusing on one aspect of state intervention, is fallacious.

To categorically deny it is fallacious as well.

Did anyone here do that? Look again.

I don't know. You tell me.

liberty student:

Great blog post by Peter Klein today

Rothbard on Organizations

Roderick Long:

I do have an aversion to corporate hierarchies, but I would describe that aversion as more ethical than aesthetic—an opposition to seeing people pushed around, even in ways that don’t violate libertarian rights. (Rights-violations are the only forms of oppression that should be fought by force, but they’re not the only forms of oppression that should be fought.)

That's an amazingly silly thing to say.

But Long considers it immoral for a boss to issue ultimatums to his employees. How does a voluntary, mutually beneficial association "push around" only one person? Workers are equally capable of unilaterally terminating a relationship even though the employer wishes to continue it.

Its nearly universally recognized that a person being unable to terminate an employment is slavery, yet some how the belief that it is not slavery to prevent a person from firing an employee is wide spread.

The extremely strange things I've heard espoused by the Left Libertarians become more understandable if this is how their torch bearer thinks.

JonBostwick:

The extremely strange things I've heard espoused by the Left Libertarians become more understandable if this is how their torch bearer thinks.

His articles and responses to the Conflation debate at Cato Unbound are very insightful into Long's perspective.  And not in a positive way (in my opinion).

JonBostwick:

But Long considers it immoral for a boss to issue ultimatums to his employees. How does a voluntary, mutually beneficial association "push around" only one person? Workers are equally capable of unilaterally terminating a relationship even though the employer wishes to continue it.

Such relationships are only necessarily mutually beneficial in a free market, which isn't the case today.

 

wombatron:

JonBostwick:

But Long considers it immoral for a boss to issue ultimatums to his employees. How does a voluntary, mutually beneficial association "push around" only one person? Workers are equally capable of unilaterally terminating a relationship even though the employer wishes to continue it.

Such relationships are only necessarily mutually beneficial in a free market, which isn't the case today.

If that is the case then I'd say employers gets the worse end of it, as far as having their ability to initiate and terminate the employment relationships usurped. But they are still mutually beneficial, at least when originally entered into.

But even so, Long wasn't making that distinction. He was describing that form of association as immoral, in the same way that some people might describe other people engaging in prostitution as immoral. Though in this case it seems only person is guilty while the other is a victim.  More similar to a feminist view of prostitution, maybe?

 

 

 

JonBostwick:

More similar to a feminist view of prostitution, maybe?

Long also claims to be a feminist.

JonBostwick:

 

But even so, Long wasn't making that distinction. He was describing that form of association as immoral, in the same way that some people might describe other people engaging in prostitution as immoral. Though in this case it seems only person is guilty while the other is a victim.  More similar to a feminist view of prostitution, maybe?

That's an apt comparison.  It is very dependent on the fact that there isn't a free market, just as some feminists don't have a problem with prostitution qua prostitution, just the nastier forms that emerge in patriarchal societies (street prostitution, for example).  Long (and Carson, for that matter) doesn't have a problem with wage labor (or corporations or large firms) in and of itself; it's just that they think that the current specific nature of the wage system depends on the state limiting people's options.  To put it in Aristotelian terms, it is the existing act that they are opposed to, not the potency.

Also, just to be extra clear, when he says "immoral", he doesn't mean "in violation of the NAP".

 

wombatron:

Such relationships are only necessarily mutually beneficial in a free market, which isn't the case today.

And hierarchies will always exist, there will always be people being pushed around and those doing the pushing around. It's human nature, and moreover, part of the division of labour.

 

Pushing people around is part of the division of labor ? That's news...

GilesStratton:

 

And hierarchies will always exist, there will always be people being pushed around and those doing the pushing around. It's human nature, and moreover, part of the division of labour.

Depends on what you mean by hierarchies and pushing people around.  But I don't want to get into a semantic argument right now

In essence, I agree with you.  But, post-state, I think that people will have far more options open to them than today.  So many of the excesses of today's business management won't exist, for the same reason that racism and sexism will be lessened.  It does bear mentioning that the lack of state-backed unions will also ease hostilities.

 

Juan:

Pushing people around is part of the division of labor ? That's news...

Some people are better leaders than others. Go to any high school where the teacher has divided people into groups to do a project for an apt illustration of this.

 

wombatron:

In essence, I agree with you.  But, post-state, I think that people will have far more options open to them than today.

I agree, and I think business would be less hierarchical, that's not to say I think the same of society in general. But it seems to me that the business hierarchy is an unnatural one in which those are the top are there by virtue of "skills" other than those that would be rewarded by the free market.

wombatron:

So many of the excesses of today's business management won't exist, for the same reason that racism and sexism will be lessened.

I disagree, but let's not go there.

 

poor choice of words is right!

wombatron:

It is very dependent on the fact that there isn't a free market, just as some feminists don't have a problem with prostitution qua prostitution, just the nastier forms that emerge in patriarchal societies (street prostitution, for example).

Right, but what pre existing conditions "force" a woman into prostitution are not the fault of her customers. Those conditions would exist with or without those customers. While the prostitute may be "pushed around", it is certainly not by her customers, without whom she would be worse off. (Though obviously any individual customer has the potential to be criminal).

 

Though to say that street prostitution arises from patriarchalism, rather than perhaps along side it, is silly. Clearly many ancient ( and modern?) societies in which borthels have flourished were extremely patriarchial.

wombatron:

Also, just to be extra clear, when he says "immoral", he doesn't mean "in violation of the NAP".

I was aware of that, and that Long was planning to fight this immorality with voluntary means. I just question the worth of such a crusade.

Juan: Pushing people around is part of the division of labor ? That's news...

Some people are better leaders than others. Go to any high school where the teacher has divided people into groups to do a project for an apt illustration of this.

You seem to be becoming very adept at evasive answers.

GilesStratton:

But it seems to me that the business hierarchy is an unnatural one in which those are the top are there by virtue of "skills" other than those that would be rewarded by the free market.

This much, at least, we can agree on.

Juan:

You seem to be becoming very adept at evasive answers.

Algunas personas son mejores líderes que otros. Vaya a cualquiera educa alto donde el maestro ha dividido a personas en grupos para hacer un proyecto para una ilustración propensa de esto.

Is that easier?

JonBostwick:

Right, but what pre existing conditions "force" a woman into prostitution are not the fault of her customers. Those conditions would exist with or without those customers. While the prostitute may be "pushed around", it is certainly not by her customers, without whom she would be worse off. (Though obviously any individual customer has the potential to be criminal).

But the pre-existing conditions may influence her to do things that she would otherwise not do.  I can't say "force", because there isn't any direct aggression, but that doesn't mean that taking advantage of someone isn't immoral.  It's just not something that she can be legally compensated for.  The customers are not responsible for the background conditions, but they are still responsible for their own actions.

JonBostwick:

Though to say that street prostitution arises from patriarchalism, rather than perhaps along side it, is silly. Clearly many ancient ( and modern?) societies in which borthels have flourished were extremely patriarchial.

I was being unclear.  You are right, of course, although I would say that patriarchy is a necessary condition for street prostitution to arise (but not a sufficient one, as you noted).  Although... can I make such a prediction?  At first glance, it is a praxeological question, but I'm going to have to think about this one...

 

Automatic translations are so funny. Well, that seems to show that your knowledge of spanish is as good as your opinions on the division of labour... (the first sentence is OK though. I guess that every 1000 mistakes that thing gets one sentence right.)

Juan:

Well, that seems to show that your knowledge of spanish is as good as your opinions on the division of labour...

Forgive me that I don't speak Spanish, although I understand Portuguese, so not all is lost.

 

wombatron:

But the pre-existing conditions may influence her to do things that she would otherwise not do.  I can't say "force", because there isn't any direct aggression, but that doesn't mean that taking advantage of someone isn't immoral.  It's just not something that she can be legally compensated for.  The customers are not responsible for the background conditions, but they are still responsible for their own actions.

What you call "taking advantage of", I call harmony of interests. You may think the woman would be best off if she was unable to find any willing customers, but she doesn't share that outlook.

wombatron:

I was being unclear.  You are right, of course, although I would say that patriarchy is a necessary condition for street prostitution to arise (but not a sufficient one, as you noted).  Although... can I make such a prediction?  At first glance, it is a praxeological question, but I'm going to have to think about this one...

The rise of taboo against prostitution has coincided with the rise of "women's rights" (in the broadest sense). Even if a paternal policy, it is clearly intended as a pro-woman policy.

The rise of taboo against prostitution has coincided with the rise of "women's rights"

Right. Religious nuts/conservatives/puritans/catholics/etc have always been big supporters of prostitution....

they are often found apologising to each other for having done it........

for catholics at least its something to confess about. id imagine the confessional ceremony would be very boring and empty if one never sinned.

Juan:

The rise of taboo against prostitution has coincided with the rise of "women's rights"

Right. Religious nuts/conservatives/puritans/catholics/etc have always been big supporters of prostitution....

That would make sense.  I know you were being facetious (do you have any other mode?) but we recently talked about this on marketing forum I participate on.  There was some survey, and men who ID'd as religiously oriented, were more likely to buy online porn.  Presumably because it is discreet and allows them to indulge a natural curiosity/drive without publicly going against their stated beliefs.

The conclusion of the conversation was that you could make a lot of money off peddling sex to people who front  sexually repressive social facades by catering to their neurosis about privacy.

We already know repression will create black markets, why wouldn't non-governmental cultural/social repression have a similar effect?

 

Juan:

The rise of taboo against prostitution has coincided with the rise of "women's rights"

Right. Religious nuts/conservatives/puritans/catholics/etc have always been big supporters of prostitution....

Predictable response. All those things existed a long time before the decline of the brothel began( except maybe puritans.)

In Shakespeare's England, Theatre and brothels were practically moral equivalents, existing next to each other; only 400 years ago.

 

JonBostwick:

 

What you call "taking advantage of", I call harmony of interests. You may think the woman would be best off if she was unable to find any willing customers, but she doesn't share that outlook.

I would think it best if she didn't have to find customers at all, if we are still talking about street prostitutes.  Anyway, what needs to be changed is the background conditions that lead to such things.  And the best start would be (surprise, surprise) getting rid of the state.

 

wombatron:

JonBostwick:

 

What you call "taking advantage of", I call harmony of interests. You may think the woman would be best off if she was unable to find any willing customers, but she doesn't share that outlook.

I would think it best if she didn't have to find customers at all, if we are still talking about street prostitutes.  Anyway, what needs to be changed is the background conditions that lead to such things.  And the best start would be (surprise, surprise) getting rid of the state.

 

I don't see how a woman or man on the streets selling sex for monetary gains or some other good bartered in the economic exchange is a crime.  Morally we could argue all day and I would argue against it.  I don't have a daughter, but all I have to do is think about if I had a daughter would I encourage her to do this - no.  Or let's think of somebody that exists like my sister.  Would I encourage her to do this - no!  Yet in terms of crime no acts of aggression can be noted.  Shameful maybe, but criminal no.  Now if the one, the man or woman, knows that they have a disease they can transmit to somebody during sex, then that man or woman is a murderer.  They know having sex with somebody else will kill them.  That is a crime.

Now if the State is removed will such sexual encounters disappear?  I don't know, but as stated I would argue against them.  Maybe in time, the Stateless culture would deem such acts as taboo and nobody would want to, but if they occur, then it would go against my principles to stone them.

 

wilderness:

Now if the State is removed will such sexual encounters disappear?

No.  People will always pay for sex.  It's as important as hair cuts and shoe shines.

wilderness:

Maybe in time, the Stateless culture would deem such acts as taboo

To have a taboo, you need a state.  Without a state, all you have are personal preferences and consequences.

liberty student:

wilderness:

Now if the State is removed will such sexual encounters disappear?

No.  People will always pay for sex.  It's as important as hair cuts and shoe shines.

I wouldn't doubt it, but now I think we have two issues.  Prostitution and Taboo.

 

wilderness:

Maybe in time, the Stateless culture would deem such acts as taboo

liberty student:

To have a taboo, you need a state.  Without a state, all you have are personal preferences and consequences.

Taboo's need not a State.  Taboo's are probably as ancient as man and woman and might even be perceived with other animals.  It is merely the stigma a culture attaches to any pattern.  Example:  "...the taboo of the Tutchone, a people native to the Yukon territory of northwestern Canada, against eating otters, young ravens, or crows, even though their meat is perfectly edible.  In their northern forest homeland, seasonal food shortages are always a threat, but even when faced with famine, the Tutchone adhere to their taboo.  Instead of eating these animals, they resort to techniques such as finding an area previously used by mice and lighting a fire over it to melt the frozen soil, providing access to bare roots previously stored by the mice." (Cultural Anthropology; Haviland)

Tutchone:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008176

They were bands of people.  Bands are the simplest form of society.

So would a man or woman find a full time job in exchanging sex for another valued pattern?  I don't know, but I find that being their only form of production difficult to foresee.  Would they sometimes?  The probably increases that they would.  Could a culture develop that has a taboo against prostitution?  Currently there are cultures that have developed a taboo against prostitution.  I know of people today, subcultures in the U.S.,  that disagree with prostitution.  Not because it is against the law, but because they find it distasteful.  These people express shame towards sex for money.  Expressing shame or sarcasm towards something that is deemed distasteful may not necessarily fit Aristotelian logic, but these expressions, as I mentioned, are probably as ancient for man and woman as ancient as man and woman on this earth.  I don't profess to know for a fact, who can, but undoubtedly they are ancient.