Onion: Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department

Consultant:

They could, but they have less of an incentive to. At a given point in time, free market losses (e.g. jobs via bankruptcy) are more concentrated than the wins (customers). As a result, in a democracy, it is more economical for politicians to cater to those concentrated losses (bail-outs, socialism) than to the broader population of winners.

I don't really understand what's being said here, either.

Customers or consumers are in now way winning in the current climate, unless you mean being led by illusions of grandeur by wall street & prophets who wish to proclaim the worst is over & we should get back to "spend spend spend!" like good patriotic citizens.   

If he was commenting on how political easy or attractive it is to proclaim (via populist-humanistic hues) as a rationalization to embrace socialistic policies based on loses (via a sympathy vote), than this goes without saying, honestly.  

liberty student:

Consultant:

As the message of freedom is the same across professions and social strata, there are economies of scale that make it more efficient to organize freedom initiatives on a more general level. That's why we have Campaing For Liberty while unions are organized around economic sectors.

I have no idea what any of this means.

Well, it's pretty wrong; the message of "freedom" is not the same across professions & social "strata", as the very use of the term "strata" contradicts itself if the message of freedom is somehow the same (i.e. strata is the plural of stratum which means geological formations...last I check, geological formations were not exactly uniform but rather unique).

It is overtly simplistic to assume that "freedom" means the same thing to everyone, & it's for the same reason why people do not agree (uniformly) what constitutes coercion. 

Aside from everyone having their opinions naturally, state-society has also, over the years of the growth of the state, has shifted the meanings of countless political terminology.

It's not unreasonable to see that not only has the meaning of both the words of "coercion" & "freedom" have shifted, in adjustment to this growth, but it's not unreasonable to view state-societies own threshold for coercion & freedom adjusted as well.

For instance, if a more culturally libertarian citizen from the beginning of this country were to be transported from 1799 to 2009, dare I say he would find the current amount of personal & economic freedom absolutely disgusting, not counting his encounter's with those who gladly accept this new brave "freedom" of the 21st century.    

As for CFL & unions being organized around economic sectors, I hardly see how this is a revealing insight at all, & I don't think it really explains anything other than the color of the wall (i.e. an obvious or redundant detail).  
 

liberty student:

Consultant:

I am interested in your point of view. Do you reject the notion that a democracy favors socialist/corporatist special interest groups, or do you see other forces that counter this?

I reject democracy outright.

A democracy embraces anything that is rationalized via the democratic rhetoric, propaganda, & process itself. 

How did Hitler come to power again?  How else can you explain someone like Obama coming to power, aside from over-used concepts such as the "protest" (I use this very loosely, but voting in a black man might've been a protest before MLK Jr. was shot) vote?

Indeed, every sane person should at least be cautious, if not against, democracy.  

Consultant:

Also, how do you explain that, in a market that does not discriminate against 'libertarian carpenters', these people have not already set up their organization?

It's a good thing the current, non-free statist (or red / pink) markets don't discriminate, otherwise, corporations, businesses, & other individuals with ties to the state wouldn't be favored over more honest attempts at capitalism an- oh wait.

(I do not mean to be so snarky throughout my post, I am just feeling a little enthusiastic.  Nothing personal here, Consultant :) )

You should probably stop talking about the market as if it has a being or a consciousness, because it is nothing more than an abstract concept used to generalize all the economic activity that occurs between market agents. 

The fallacy of the market having to be "moral" ignores that market agents themselves would have to be moral, & that no one can do it for them.

But that is too much responsibility for some people to be able to think of, thus, your typical leftist assumptions that all markets are evil bastards that require certain control, & the blind assumptions by the rightists that anything anyone does in the market (including coercion, intellectual property, theft) is somehow justified.    

The market would "discriminate" against that which cannot compete, or cannot profit.  It's up to the individual(s) to come up with something that competes, & knowing this is half the battle.

Why don't you guys stay on topic? You both respond to things I haven't said.

I am too busy now for a long reply, but a few quick things:

1. I am also an an-cap and against democracy. Analyzing incentives in a democracy does not make me a democrat.

2. The message of freedom is 'let the market work'.

3. 'I have no idea wat any of this means'. Well, it just means that if a factory closes, the workers in it loose a lot (their jobs), but the customers win (because the free market is allowed to work). With a bailout, just the inverse. Hence, you'll see unions representing the concentrated interest of workers to bail-out companies, while you don't see sector groups defending free market principles.

4. Free market principles are the same across all geological formations. Strata refers to income levels, education levels, ... the term strata does not say anything about the message of freedom, i.e. free market principles.

Seriously guys, now answer the questions please.

Consultant:

Why don't you guys stay on topic? You both respond to things I haven't said.

I am too busy now for a long reply, but a few quick things:

1. I am also an an-cap and against democracy. Analyzing incentives in a democracy does not make me a democrat.

2. The message of freedom is 'let the market work'.

3. 'I have no idea wat any of this means'. Well, it just means that if a factory closes, the workers in it loose a lot (their jobs), but the customers win (because the free market is allowed to work). With a bailout, just the inverse. Hence, you'll see unions representing the concentrated interest of workers to bail-out companies, while you don't see sector groups defending free market principles.

4. Free market principles are the same across all geological formations. Strata refers to income levels, education levels, ... the term strata does not say anything about the message of freedom, i.e. free market principles.

Seriously guys, now answer the questions please.

What's the question?  The only question here is "Why don't you guys stay on topic?"  Do you mean that question?

 

Consultant:

Why don't you guys stay on topic?

It is impossible to stay on topic when your last two posts are based around strawmen.  No one called you a democrat, and no one is recommending that people form libertarian unions for the purpose of attaining or directing political power, merely for libertarians to distinguish themselves from their statist counterparts (informed or not) and to offer libertarian groups for other libertarian groups to work with, to engage in commerce and trade with, to apprentice with.

There is no reason an apprentice carpenter cannot learn his trade specifically from master carpenters who also happen to be proponents of free markets.

And it would be great to see organizations brand and re-brand themselves as pro-business and anti-state.  And I think it can be done.  And I think it can be worthwhile.  The problem with libertarians is that we confine our advocacy to the realm of politics, which is the very realm we seek to undermine and diminish (destroy).  I, and many other radical libertarians think this is a crazy idea because to use the state to defeat the state validates the state.  And it is ultimately futile because as Barry Goldwater wrote, any state big enough to give you what you want (minarchy) is big enough to take it away.

Your style of communication is unclear, but it seems to me you are making presumptions about my original statement about forming unions, brotherhoods and lodges.  I have tried to rectify that.  Perhaps if you have more questions, you could make them consise and separate any assertions or statements so I can more clearly understand your issue with the topic.