NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey. I need help working this one out in my mind.

Is an over-arching environmentalism compatible with libertarianism? I understand the concept that my rights ending where yours begin, but what happens if I feel the urge to dump crude oil in my backyard? Or if I feel like climbing to my roof and spraying aerosol cans? Or purchasing a rainforest and hunting down endangered species?

Would this fit in a special category, considering that my right to mess up the environment interferes with your right to an undemolished Earth?

If so, would people have the right to smoke in public spaces, considering the unavoidable damage it does to others who are nearby? Where does one apply the brakes to this potentially slippery slope?

And, I'm going to sleep now; so I'll just read what this post picks up in the morning. Thank you! :)

Libertarianism in an economic sense implies that there can be no outside intervention into the market, ie no environmental protection laws or taxes.
That would mean that companies would not pay for the damage they cause to the environment (ie the negative externalities), and they would produce too much at too low a price to be socially efficient.
So if you don't want that, you need interference in the market to internalise these externalities into the firm's cost structure, and that wouldn't be libertarian.
So I say: they're incompatible.

Libertarianism, in the modern American form, believes that environmental regulations hamper the free market and thus are impermissible. Further, they believe that the environment is being fucked up because of the government, so a true environmentalist would advocate privatization of most government land.
Some nice reading on this issue: http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml

On the more theoretical, seemingly more Objectivist, question you bring up: If my neighbor dumped harmful chemicals in my yard, the government would be able to punish them for an action that's functionally murder. That's the police function of the state. It doesn't make a difference whether it's a person or a corporation. Edit: They, however, also would probably think privatization would lead to less environmental destruction because self-interest would kick in to stop it.

One could argue partial Liberatarian policies could be made to protrect environment. Butr full libetarianism would be incompatibles. But that is okayt because only Sith deal in absolutes.

Libertarians basically believe that the market doesn't really want to pollute or do bad things. Without regulation they would stop themselves.

But the problem is in reality proifit is more important to the businesses usually in general.

True, you could privatise all of nature, so that you would be damaging someone's property when you pollute, but is that feasible? Or desirable?
Can someone own the atmosphere?

You see, the difference between Libertarianism and Environmentalism is that one is trying to save the Earth, the other is just trying to save money.

You see, the difference between Libertarianism and Environmentalism is that one is trying to save the Earth, the other is just trying to save money.

But if you didn't pollute/damage environment can argue you wouldn't waste anything to fix it.

So partial Libertarian-envromentalism should be sensible. Does it exist though?

But the problem is in reality proifit is more important to the businesses usually in general.

Exactly. If corporations were people, they would be deemed psychotic. Other people, the environment, the economy only matter when it happens to improve the bottom line. If it doesn't improve the bottom line, it simply isn't important.

But if you didn't pollute/damage environment can argue you wouldn't waste anything to fix it.

So partial Libertarian-envromentalism should be sensible. Does it exist though?

I think it exists in some people's minds. Problem is, most people only want to argue the extreme ends of something and extreme libertarianism leaves no room for environmentalism.

Exactly. If corporations were people, they would be deemed psychotic. Other people, the environment, the economy only matter when it happens to improve the bottom line. If it doesn't improve the bottom line, it simply isn't important.
Don't just blame the corporations, consumers deserve just as much blame for demanding their goods be so plentiful and at so low a price that corporations must operate in this manner to survive. We're all responsible as well.

Don't just blame the corporations, consumers deserve just as much blame for demanding their goods be so plentiful and at so low a price that corporations must operate in this manner to survive. We're all responsible as well.

I don't demand any such thing, so I'm not responsible. Besides that, the corporations do not have to act in this manner to survive - that is a bullshit claim. Changing their actions would lower their profits, not do away with them. However, they don't want their profits lowered, as making as much as possible is the goal. This is a basic property of big business. It exists for no reason other than to make as much money as possible, and that is what it will try and do.

Deleuze's post is the only right answer given so far. His link gives the rest of the right answers. Libertarianism does not mean you can do whatever you want to someone else's land, no matter how much it profits you. The same goes for major impacts on air and water.

Libertarianism does not mean you can do whatever you want to someone else's land, no matter how much it profits you. The same goes for major impacts on air and water.
His link points out the normal libertarian argument. And it does make sense to some extent. As I said, there are ethical issues with "owning a species", or owning wildlife as such.
But it doesn't say anything about land and water. So why do you say "the same goes for"?

Deleuze's post is the only right answer given so far. His link gives the rest of the right answers. Libertarianism does not mean you can do whatever you want to someone else's land, no matter how much it profits you. The same goes for major impacts on air and water.

No, but it does mean that you can do whatever you want to your own land. If that happens to affect someone else's land, how do they prove you had an impact?

Suppose, on your own land, you drop pollutants onto the ground. How do the people a town over prove that it was your chemicals that poisoned their water? It probably is, of course, but what do you care, right?

Exactly. If corporations were people, they would be deemed psychotic. Other people, the environment, the economy only matter when it happens to improve the bottom line. If it doesn't improve the bottom line, it simply isn't important.

Ok, there are nearly 5 million corporations within the USA.

I assume you have psychological records to show that every one of them would be deemed psychotic?

Or was that just another generalization demonizing the easy target of vague "corporations?"

I don't demand any such thing, so I'm not responsible. Besides that, the corporations do not have to act in this manner to survive - that is a bullshit claim. Changing their actions would lower their profits, not do away with them. However, they don't want their profits lowered, as making as much as possible is the goal. This is a basic property of big business. It exists for no reason other than to make as much money as possible, and that is what it will try and do.
Corporations exist to make money by satisfying the market demands. If the market were to suddenly demand that products would be environmentally friendly, then the oligopolies would hop right on to it. But the market doesn't demand that.

Corporations are responsible to the markets. And by and large people just don't care enough about the environment to stop purchasing these wonderfully inexpensive goods and services. People care more about low prices and the like. Corporations are only 1/2 of the deal.

Ok, there are nearly 5 million corporations within the USA.

I assume you have psychological records to show that every one of them would be deemed psychotic?

Or was that just another generalization demonizing the easy target of vague "corporations?"

It is the basic business model that is, itself, psychotic.

Meanwhile, what "psychological records" are you talking about? Do you really think that a corporation can go to a psychologist, get counseling?

Corporations exist to make money by satisfying the market demands. If the market were to suddenly demand that products would be environmentally friendly, then the oligopolies would hop right on to it. But the market doesn't demand that.

Corporations are responsible to the markets. And by and large people just don't care enough about the environment to stop purchasing these wonderfully inexpensive goods and services. People care more about low prices and the like. Corporations are only 1/2 of the deal.

That's a really beautiful idea. Of course, consumers can't demand that about all products. After all, some products are absolute necessities. It's not like we can successfully boycott buying food and clothing.

You see, the difference between Libertarianism and Environmentalism is that one is trying to save the Earth, the other is just trying to save money.Actually, I'm here to save the humans.

Actually, I'm here to save the humans.
Then what are you? A Humanist? ;)

Saving money at the expense of the only habitable planet God has given us is insane. Money is a relativistic concept, clean air & water is not.

No, but it does mean that you can do whatever you want to your own land. If that happens to affect someone else's land, how do they prove you had an impact?

Suppose, on your own land, you drop pollutants onto the ground. How do the people a town over prove that it was your chemicals that poisoned their water? It probably is, of course, but what do you care, right?
This is a silly argument. We know that toxic chemicals are harmful. We know that you dumped toxic chemicals into a river that flows toward the town. We know that the town's water has been poisonous as of late. If (in a perfect Libertarian world, where the state was made up of the police, military, and courts) we know these things, we know that you're damaging someone else's property and perhaps guilty of manslaughter. This is a crime - you are punished. The situation is no different than it would be in a different state.

Deleuze's post is the only right answer given so far.
Thank you :D

That's a really beautiful idea. Of course, consumers can't demand that about all products. After all, some products are absolute necessities. It's not like we can successfully boycott buying food and clothing.
Buy these things from a organic grower or something. Hell, the weekend before exam weekend at OSU, Hempfest '05 had all these hippies playing loud music late into the night and selling clothes made out of organically grown hemp. It's more expensive, but shouldn't they be willing to pay the price? Eventually corporations will come around.

Beyond that, such a protest need not last very long. If a corporation sees a threat to its sales and profit, it will respond quite rapidly and try to satisfy the desires of the consumers.

Remember, as Captain Planet used to say, "The Power is Yours!"

*hums theme song*

now it's sleepy time for little andys, I have work tomorrow morning!

It is the basic business model that is, itself, psychotic.

Meanwhile, what "psychological records" are you talking about? Do you really think that a corporation can go to a psychologist, get counseling?

True, they can't. So then your term "psychotic" is a definite misnomer.

A business model can't experience psychosis any more than a corporation could. And really, I could say that governments are psychotic, that democracy is - after all politicians care only for their own "bottom line" - election and reelection. Does it do any good to go around calling abstract concepts psychotic? No it doesn't.

-snip-
What do you think about privatising the atmosphere then?

No, but it does mean that you can do whatever you want to your own land. If that happens to affect someone else's land, how do they prove you had an impact?

Suppose, on your own land, you drop pollutants onto the ground. How do the people a town over prove that it was your chemicals that poisoned their water? It probably is, of course, but what do you care, right?I don't know the details of the proof in the case, but Texaco Shell lost a lawsuit that had to do with poisoning the groundwater of the next town over.

What do you think about privatising the atmosphere then?
Oh, it's a terrible idea. I'm representing a view, not defending it in all instances. In my mind, government regulation is needed to prevent bad shit from going down in the environmental arena. Thus, I'm not a libertarian - I'm just representing their views.

They would defend it as good, most likely.

This is a silly argument. We know that toxic chemicals are harmful. We know that you dumped toxic chemicals into a river that flows toward the town. We know that the town's water has been poisonous as of late. If (in a perfect Libertarian world, where the state was made up of the police, military, and courts) we know these things, we know that you're damaging someone else's property and perhaps guilty of manslaughter. This is a crime - you are punished. The situation is no different than it would be in a different state.

I didn't say they were dumped into a river, that would be silly. They were dumped on my land, in my backyard. The other plants around here do the same thing. How do you know it was my chemicals specifically that got into the water table? Who are you to tell me what I can do with my land?

But it doesn't say anything about land and water. So why do you say "the same goes for"?I was talking about what Deleuze said in his post around the link

True, they can't. So then your term "psychotic" is a definite misnomer.

Not in the least. There are traits that go along with the term psychotic. These are traits that corporations exhibit. Under the law, corporations are treated almost the same as people. However, were corporations people, they would be deemed psychotic.

I don't know the details of the proof in the case, but Texaco Shell lost a lawsuit that had to do with poisoning the groundwater of the next town over.

Yup, in a country that does have environmental regulations.

What do you think about privatising the atmosphere then?The Libertarian policy directions don't address technologically impossible issues

The only system that would be good for the environment would be a system that's able to stabilize, then gradually reduce the population.

Right now, our food production rate is absolutely not sustainable. Wait another 10-20 years, and you'll see it crack at the seams. Just wait till fish stocks hit the bottom of the barrel... and if banana production suffers from an epidemic... these two productions (fish, banana) are the primary food staples for 1 billion people. And I can mention the depletion/pollution of underground water resources in the US, China, India, Middle-East, Central Asia, ...

Whatever we do, world population will be down to 4-5 billion people in 2100. Now, do we want to achieve it with terrible hunger, epidemics, revolts, wars and deaths? Or with population control programs?

The environmental problem is not with the political system... it's the number of people on Earth.


Now about Libertarians and their mysteries. :cool:

Often, people are afraid that a Libertarian society will turn into savage capitalism, spinning out of control and drowning the individual in a pool of corporatism. I really, really don't agree with that.

Under a true Libertarian system, military power would certainly go down very, very fast. A country like the USA would end up with an economically sustainable army: probably something like 250 000 soldiers, and mostly defensive / deterrence military hardware. There's no way the US army, or any army, would stay that big under a Liberterian government. Just read Pat Buchanan's articles.

The whole international system would probably readjust, with regional (continental) powers and blocks re-forming. Globalization / international trade routes, which are based on profit from regional inequities, would reajust as well; without the current military system, who knows what would happen with "client states" and global ship routes. Canal taxes, anyone?

And no more cheap gas, by the way! Which would really hit long-distance transports. When gas hits 150$ a barrel, remote goods production is not profitable anymore. You get a better price producing locally, with higher salaries... than having stuff produced 8000km away and shipped to you with that nasty gas bill.

(Anyway, whatever happens we'll have the next gas crisis in a few years and we'll have to start producing local stuff again... and forget the cheap, useless, disposable crap sold in "1$ stores".)

The Libertarian concept is that:
States that are not "helped" by foreign nations, tend to get better by themselves, even though it may take 2-3 generations. You help them, you're stuck with their problems, and nothing is fixed in such a short timespan. Let them die, kill each other, do stupid things... they'll learn by themselves. Thus, non-interventionnism.

(By the way, we still send food to Ethiopia... which they still use for feeding their militaries... which destroy the ethnic Somali's crops... which die of hunger by the hundreds... which are shown on tv... so we send some more money to Ethiopia...)

Anyway...
In the end, in a Libertarian system, local production would be pushed because it would be more profitable. It's a bit absurd, isn't it: Libertarians are anti-protectionism and economic borders... yet, a Libertarian system would encourage local production by making irrelevant the current global system (based on very cheap imports).

Now the last argument:
When most of your industrial production is local, you're forced to respect the environment, unless you want everybody to be very sick. (Look at some wastelands: the Maquiladoras in Mexico, the West Bengale region in India, Jakarta, Sao Paulo).

Environmentalism developed first in post-industrial England, where people were forced to take action to "get London out of the smog". And I mean, nasty corrosive smog (from coal smoke).

As soon as you send a large part of your industrial production to other (poorer) countries, you also export your pollution. Thus, a global system pollutes more, because people who invest/consume/control the system care less.

So local goods production tends to be globally better for the environment, simply because you can't afford to kill the person who's supposed to buy your products.





Now the deep truth: 21th century Libertarianism is an utopy.

Buy these things from a organic grower or something. Hell, the weekend before exam weekend at OSU, Hempfest '05 had all these hippies playing loud music late into the night and selling clothes made out of organically grown hemp. It's more expensive, but shouldn't they be willing to pay the price? Eventually corporations will come around.

That's wonderful. Of course, there aren't enough of these products to go around. Thus, supply and demand would quickly set in (even more than it already has) and your ordinary people wouldn't be able to afford these things.

It's all well and good to ask if someone should be willing to pay the price, but when they are struggling just to get by, can you really ask them to pay twice as much for a basic necessity, regardless of what they may think of a company?

PS:
Libertarian External Policy:

"Egoistic Multilateralism"

(e.g. corporate-like deals between governments)

Actually, how libertarianism addresses evironmental protection is a very good question. First, environmentalism is filled with scientific and economic fallacies. Preservation of land is a relatively easy problem to solve. In fact, the libertarian solution of environmental protection organizations buying land to protect is already in effect to some extent in the US. Water pollution is a little more difficult to deal with. I have no problem with a legal solution but don't think criminal statutes are necessary. The law should allow property owners to sue for polluting their water supply. It probably already does. Air pollution is more difficult, of course, but it's not impossible. I still think the venue for resolving these problems is in the civil court room.

Really, protection of the water and air is one of the most legitimate reasons for having any government at all.

The Libertarian policy directions don't address technologically impossible issues
But, then you can either just accept that the atmosphere is going to get fucked, or you have to intervene in the market.

I didn't say they were dumped into a river, that would be silly. They were dumped on my land, in my backyard. The other plants around here do the same thing. How do you know it was my chemicals specifically that got into the water table? Who are you to tell me what I can do with my land?In that scenario, what you did to your land damaged other people's land. Those are the people who will tell you what you can and cannot do with their land.

I didn't say they were dumped into a river, that would be silly. They were dumped on my land, in my backyard. The other plants around here do the same thing. How do you know it was my chemicals specifically that got into the water table? Who are you to tell me what I can do with my land?
I can't plant a nuclear weapon in my land and then detonate it. If it can be proven that putting chemicals into my land hurts the people around me, then I would be culpable.

That waste would have to get to the other town somehow. Probably through a river. You dumped toxic waste into the river.

Further, how is that dilemma only applicable to a Libertarian society? If we can't know whether polluting on my land hurts anyone around me, then how can we know to punish them even in a world where property right aren't strictly enforced?

That's wonderful. Of course, there aren't enough of these products to go around. Thus, supply and demand would quickly set in (even more than it already has) and your ordinary people wouldn't be able to afford these things.

It's all well and good to ask if someone should be willing to pay the price, but when they are struggling just to get by, can you really ask them to pay twice as much for a basic necessity, regardless of what they may think of a company?
If it's what they believe in, then yes.

Yup, in a country that does have environmental regulations.Those are environmental regulation that the Libertarian Party does not oppose. If you want to argue against the removal of all environmental regulations, you're preaching to the choir if you say it to Libertarians

In that scenario, what you did to your land damaged other people's land. Those are the people who will tell you what you can and cannot do with their land.

They can't prove that anything I did affected their land. It could have been the other company upriver from me. In fact, I think it probably was. They have the same practices.

If it's what they believe in, then yes.

I'll tell you what, when you go hungry and don't have a winter coat for your ideals, you can talk.

Those are environmental regulation that the Libertarian Party does not oppose. If you want to argue against the removal of all environmental regulations, you're preaching to the choir if you say it to Libertarians

You haven't read the party platform (or some of the posts in this very thread), have you?

Not in the least. There are traits that go along with the term psychotic. These are traits that corporations exhibit. Under the law, corporations are treated almost the same as people. However, were corporations people, they would be deemed psychotic.

Psychotic means to exhibit psychosis, which is defined by one medical site as:

" A mental disorder characterised by gross impairment in reality testing as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, markedly incoherent speech or disorganised and agitated behaviour without apparent awareness on the part of the patient of the incomprehensibility of his behaviour, the term is also used in a more general sense to refer to mental disorders in which mental functioning is sufficiently impaired as to interfere grossly with the patients capacity to meet the ordinary demands of life."

So, exactly which of these traits do these five million corporations exhibit? Certainly not delusions or hallucinations or markedly incoherent speech. Disorganized behavior, well perhaps - any bureacracy suffers disorganization. Agitated behavior? Lack of awareness on the part of the "patient" of the incomprehensibility of said behavior? Or perhaps you would say that corporations as a whole are impaired and do not meet the ordinary demands of life?

No, look. A business model isn't psychotic. A corporation isn't psychotic. Just because you see something as cold and heartless does not equate to it's actually exhibiting psychosis. And it really doesn't matter what the effects of magically transforming groups of people into individual persons would be, as it's pure speculative fantasy.

But, then you can either just accept that the atmosphere is going to get fucked, or you have to intervene in the market.Since the Libertarian Party is okay with regulating severe impacts on the atmosphere, you won't change much by encouraging them to support some environmental regulations. You've been arguing against anarchic environmentalism, not libertarian environmentalism.

No, look. A business model isn't psychotic. A corporation isn't psychotic. Just because you see something as cold and heartless does not equate to it's actually exhibiting psychosis. And it really doesn't matter what the effects of magically transforming groups of people into individual persons would be, as it's pure speculative fantasy.
I think he refers to this movie/documentary:
http://www.thecorporation.com/

In fact, if you do a search on Google with "corporation+psychotic", you'll get at least a dozen serious psychological studies and articles. Quite interesting.

-snip-
Fair enough, a matter of definition then.
Communism (according to Marx) is not like a Communist Party, and Libertarianism (according to whoever invented it) is not like the libertarian party.
So I say, if you wanna vote for them: Good idea. Your military is gonna shrink, at that's gotta be a positive for us poor rest of the world.

Psychotic means to exhibit psychosis, which is defined by one medical site as:

You are correct, I was using the wrong term. I believe psychopath is the term I was looking for. It refers to a much more specific disorder. A psychopath cares about nothing other than his/herself and his/her own wants. This describes a corporation exactly. The basis of anything the corporation does is making profits.

Granted, there may be a few out there who don't operate that way, but they are few and far between, and probably don't last as long as the others - as those willing to do anything to quash the competition will probably succeed.

You haven't read the party platform (or some of the posts in this very thread), have you?the party platform and articles from Libertarian Party leaders over the past four years. When you're finished convincing Libertarians to support some environmental regulations, you can start convincing them to support cuts in government spending. Then you can convince them to support legalization of hemp.

You are correct, I was using the wrong term. I believe psychopath is the term I was looking for. It refers to a much more specific disorder. A psychopath cares about nothing other than his/herself and his/her own wants. This describes a corporation exactly. The basis of anything the corporation does is making profits.

Psychopath is a term that refers to only an individual person, and it holds no meaning when you broaden the term to include things that do not posses a brain. I might as well say GRAVITY is psychopathic for being concerned only with attraction towards large masses. After all, if gravity were to become an individual, it would be deemed psychotic!

A corporation is only a tool used by individuals. Unless you're saying all corporate stockholders and employees are all psychopaths - and I'm sure you wouldn't say that without extensive psychological research there as well - you are doing no more than condemning a tool for being used in the correct fashion.


Granted, there may be a few out there who don't operate that way, but they are few and far between, and probably don't last as long as the others - as those willing to do anything to quash the competition will probably succeed.

Corporations are most successful on the market by providing a product that more people need and prefer over the competition. This is what's known as "quashing" the competition. I'm sure you invision fanciful images about evil corporate overlords ordering hits on enemy corporate overlords or something though. That's what 'psychopaths' would do right?

Speaking of which, how do you feel about psychopathic governments? They're only concerned with their own survival. Are you an anarchist? Or do you make the fun mistake of thinking it's CORPORATIONS that wound up killing tens of millions of people through war and oppression last century, instead of government?

Psychopath is a term that refers to only an individual person, and it holds no meaning when you broaden the term to include things that do not posses a brain.

Corporations are treated as individuals under the law. There are only a few rights granted to individuals that are not equally granted to corporations. As such, it is much more appropriate than applying it to any other non-human entity.

A corporation is only a tool used by individuals. Unless you're saying all corporate stockholders and employees are all psychopaths - and I'm sure you wouldn't say that without extensive psychological research there as well - you are doing no more than condemning a tool for being used in the correct fashion.

The correct fashion? So reckless disregard for human life and the future of it is the correct fashion? Perhaps we should ban corporations then. If people acted this way, we would either execute them or lock them up. Corporations don't have to do things the way they do. They do so because shitting on the human rights of this or that person, or polluting the hell out of the water, or whatever it is they are doing increases the profits a little bit. Thus, they do it.

Corporations are most successful on the market by providing a product that more people need and prefer over the competition. This is what's known as "quashing" the competition.

And it is much, much easier to do when things like human life and the environment either aren't concerns at all, or are lesser concerns to the bottom line.

Speaking of which, how do you feel about psychopathic governments? They're only concerned with their own survival.

Such a government would, basically out of necessity, have to be a dictatorship - which I am very much opposed to.

I'll tell you what, when you go hungry and don't have a winter coat for your ideals, you can talk.
Pain free change? If you want to change something, you have to make a sacrifice. When people boycotted the bus services in the south during the sixties, they often gave up their means of transportation to work. Risking their jobs.

It would be nice if everyone could do everything they wanted, but that's not how the world works. Personally, I'm not willing to go without those things for environmentalism, which really isn't a big issue for me.

Right now I don't have anything that I need to protest on any scale similar to that. I'm fine as is.

Pain free change? If you want to change something, you have to make a sacrifice. When people boycotted the bus services in the south during the sixties, they often gave up their means of transportation to work. Risking their jobs.

However, if they had lost their jobs and their children were going hungry, most of those people would have then taken a job - even if it meant riding the bus.

I'm not talking about pain-free here. However, there are levels of pain that you might commend a person for enduring when seeking their ideals, but you certainly can't expect them to do so.

Corporations are treated as individuals under the law. There are only a few rights granted to individuals that are not equally granted to corporations. As such, it is much more appropriate than applying it to any other non-human entity.

Nonsense. Applying legal standards is quite different from applying psychological standards.


The correct fashion? So reckless disregard for human life and the future of it is the correct fashion? Perhaps we should ban corporations then.

Wait how did you extrapolate "reckless disregard for human life and the future of it" from anything I said?

And it surprises me, ever so much, that you bring up banning corporations. Really it does.

If people acted this way, we would either execute them or lock them up.

People DO act this way, if "acting out of self concern" is what you mean. And no one is executed or locked up for being stingy or self-centered.

Corporations don't have to do things the way they do. They do so because shitting on the human rights of this or that person, or polluting the hell out of the water, or whatever it is they are doing increases the profits a little bit. Thus, they do it.

Again, you find it easy to demonize a vague group of "corporations." It still holds no water. You only display that you are unreasonably opposed to even the concept of a corporate ownership, you're not providing an argument by this ranting and raving about "shitting on human rights" of "this" or "that" person.


And it is much, much easier to do when things like human life and the environment either aren't concerns at all, or are lesser concerns to the bottom line.

How would you know? Do you have direct personal experience in business that shows how easy corporate success is, if only you turn into a murdering lunatic? Somehow I doubt it. Can you point out that a majority of those 5 million corporations have achieved success by total disregard of human life? No. I doubt it. You're doing nothing more than taking what you see in the news - Enron, perhaps - and applying it (unjustly) to the entire whole. A logical fallacy, in other words.



Such a government would, basically out of necessity, have to be a dictatorship - which I am very much opposed to.

No. If a psychopathic government needs to be a dictatorship, then a psychopathic corporation needs to be one which is similarly under the control of one individual - someone with a majority (controlling) ownership. Do you have any statistics relating to how many of those 5 million corporations are controlled by one person?

And it's irrelevant - a government, even a supposedly democratic one, can and does and has act(ed) with complete disregard for everything you stand for - and have done far, far more damage than any corporation possibly could even if all corporations were as evil as you imply.

Nonsense. Applying legal standards is quite different from applying psychological standards.

Of course it is, but it makes much more sense to apply human standards to something that is treated almost as a human by our legal system.

Wait how did you extrapolate "reckless disregard for human life and the future of it" from anything I said?

I didn't. I have pointed out those things already in earlier posts.

And it surprises me, ever so much, that you bring up banning corporations. Really it does.

I'm sure you're going to focus on that too. It makes it easier to argue against your little strawman. Never mind that the point I was making is that corporations don't have to be run the way most of them are - not that I in any way feel that they should actually be banned.

People DO act this way, if "acting out of self concern" is what you mean. And no one is executed or locked up for being stingy or self-centered.

If someone's stinginess or self-centeredness leads to them infringing upon the human rights of others, they absolutely are executed or locked up.

[/quote]Again, you find it easy to demonize a vague group of "corporations." It still holds no water. You only display that you are unreasonably opposed to even the concept of a corporate ownership, you're not providing an argument by this ranting and raving about "shitting on human rights" of "this" or "that" person.[/quote]

Wow, you really do pull things out of your ass, don't you? I have never once even suggested that I am opposed in any way to the concept of corporate ownership. Care to try again?

No. If a psychopathic government needs to be a dictatorship, then a psychopathic corporation needs to be one which is similarly under the control of one individual - someone with a majority (controlling) ownership.

Incorrect, but strawmen abide in your world, eh? The purposes of each are different. The purpose of a goverment is to govern a society. If that government is representative of the people, it cannot be concerned only with itself and damn all others - it has to be concerned with what the people want to remain. If the goverment is a dictatorship, it can exist with no regard for the people it governs.

A corporation does not have the purpose of governing a people. It's purpose is to make money. That is all. No matter how many people are running it, the entity is beholden in any way only to a tiny subset of humanity - the investors. It is charged with making money and, all too often, will do whatever it takes to reach that goal. The general people mean nothing.

And it's irrelevant - a government, even a supposedly democratic one, can and does and has act(ed) with complete disregard for everything you stand for - and have done far, far more damage than any corporation possibly could even if all corporations were as evil as you imply.

Of course they have. Human beings do these sorts of things. The difference is that a representative government can (and has) been changed due to acting in such a manner.

Meanwhile, yet another strawman. I have yet to argue that corporations are evil or that they have done more damage than governments.

However, if they had lost their jobs and their children were going hungry, most of those people would have then taken a job - even if it meant riding the bus.

I'm not talking about pain-free here. However, there are levels of pain that you might commend a person for enduring when seeking their ideals, but you certainly can't expect them to do so.
All I'm saying is that if it's important enough for them to do so, then they will. And beyond that, it need not be a total boycott, just minimize purchases. Don't buy fancy stuff, buy ramen and canned food and the like if a person need to do so.

Of course it is, but it makes much more sense to apply human standards to something that is treated almost as a human by our legal system.

It makes absolutely no sense from a psychological perspective. Or for that matter, from even a legal one.




I'm sure you're going to focus on that too. It makes it easier to argue against your little strawman. Never mind that the point I was making is that corporations don't have to be run the way most of them are - not that I in any way feel that they should actually be banned.

The point I was making was that you obviously don't know how most corporations are run, since there are 5 million of them and you haven't even pointed to a single example to back your claim.

And forgive me for mistakenly assuming you meant "psychopathic" and "disregard for human rights" and "Perhaps we should ban corporations then." (your words) in the BAD sense.

Perhaps you just like making statements for the purpose of having them misconstrued on the basis of their ambiguity just so you can chalk up an easy 'strawman argument' strawman to knock down.

As well, I only responded to your suggestion of banning corporations with a single line. Not exactly "focusing" on it my friend.

If someone's stinginess or self-centeredness leads to them infringing upon the human rights of others, they absolutely are executed or locked up.

Only if they commit a crime, and only if convicted, and only if sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

And even then whether it was stinginess or self centeredness or a desire for corporations to be more environmentalist in policy, the issue is the crime they commit, not the self-centeredness or stinginess.

Self-centeredness is not "psychopathic."

Again, you find it easy to demonize a vague group of "corporations." It still holds no water. You only display that you are unreasonably opposed to even the concept of a corporate ownership, you're not providing an argument by this ranting and raving about "shitting on human rights" of "this" or "that" person.[/quote]

Wow, you really do pull things out of your ass, don't you? I have never once even suggested that I am opposed in any way to the concept of corporate ownership. Care to try again?[/quote]

Well you did say "It is the basic business model that is, itself, psychotic." I guess you didn't mean "psychotic" in the sense that you were at all opposed to it in any way.

Looks like YOUR ass I was pulling that out of.

Incorrect, but strawmen abide in your world, eh?

Nothing in my quote was a strawman. Please, I know you're happy you learned the word "strawman," but it is in fact a strawman itself when used merely to dismiss an argument you disagree with.

The purposes of each are different. The purpose of a goverment is to govern a society. If that government is representative of the people, it cannot be concerned only with itself and damn all others - it has to be concerned with what the people want to remain. If the goverment is a dictatorship, it can exist with no regard for the people it governs.

What does it matter what the purposes are? The fact is you assert that a corporation is psychopathic because it is only concerned with the bottom line, that bottom line being profit. I claim that a government is just as psychotic because each administration is only concerned with the bottom line - election and re-election. A representative government has only to be concerned with effective campaigning to achieve it's bottom line - not actually "what the people want" to remain. Similarly, a corporation would only have to be concerned with effective marketing to achieve it's bottom line.


A corporation does not have the purpose of governing a people. It's purpose is to make money. That is all. No matter how many people are running it, the entity is beholden in any way only to a tiny subset of humanity - the investors. It is charged with making money and, all too often, will do whatever it takes to reach that goal. The general people mean nothing.

Yes, you've definitely confirmed you know absolutely nothing of running a business. What about the customers? You know, that subset of the population who buys the corporation's products - or doesn't? They mean everything - no customers, no product, no profit, no corporation. What about the employees? Same thing.


Of course they have. Human beings do these sorts of things. The difference is that a representative government can (and has) been changed due to acting in such a manner.

Meanwhile, yet another strawman. I have yet to argue that corporations are evil or that they have done more damage than governments.

Right, but you claim that corporations are psychopaths and governments are not. I guess you were making a purely rhetorical aside there, and not at all meaning to imply that corporations were in any way worse than governments.

I've challenged you - repeatedly - to show me anything other than your bald assertions that says "most" or even some of those 5 million corporations are run in the manner you insist. Put up, or shut up.

It makes absolutely no sense from a psychological perspective. Or for that matter, from even a legal one.

Gotcha. So, from now on, when people say "If X were a person, it would be Y," instead of actually bothering with whether or not the traits are there, I'll just take your route and go "IT ISN'T HUMAN THEREFORE YOU CAN'T USE THOSE DESCRIPTORS! I WIN!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!"

The point I was making was that you obviously don't know how most corporations are run, since there are 5 million of them and you haven't even pointed to a single example to back your claim.

Am I incorrect that the end-goal of the vast majority of corporations is to make the maximum profits? Do corporations not regularly hire the cheapest labor they can, even if it means not paying a living wage or even breaking the law? Do we not have cases every year of dumping of toxic waste or improper safety restrictions? Do companies not regularly buy the rights for safer/more environmentally friendly technology only to keep it from being used, since using it would reduce their profits?

And forgive me for mistakenly assuming you meant "psychopathic" and "disregard for human rights" and "Perhaps we should ban corporations then." (your words) in the BAD sense.

Ok. You are forgiven.

Meanwhile, you continue to take the banning comment out of context (no surprise there). My contention was that, if this is really the proper way to run a company (which I say it is not), then and only then would the question of banning them come into question. If they only possible way to run a profitable company were to regularly cause harm to human beings, I think most would agree that we shouldn't allow it to exist.

Perhaps you just like making statements for the purpose of having them misconstrued on the basis of their ambiguity just so you can chalk up an easy 'strawman argument' strawman to knock down.

Or perhaps you are so convinced that I am on the extreme end, or that I am somehow anti-libertarian, that you read way too much into the statements I make.

Only if they commit a crime, and only if convicted, and only if sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

Yup. Of course, if a company commits a crime, we just levy a fine that doesn't really touch them at all. Take, for instance, hiring illegal immigrants. These companies hire illegals and don't even pay them minimum wage. This is very much against the law, but it helps them make more of a profit. If caught, they have a fine. So what? Even with the fine, they've made more of a profit. So, perhaps the better way to do it would be to levy the fine, but to also force the company to pay back wages up to minimum wage (or whatever they pay non-illegals) as well as whatever taxes they got out of paying to every single person that was working there. In fact, we should also have the companies pay to sponsor a green card for those who wish to stay.

How many companies do you think would hire illegals then?

Well you did say "It is the basic business model that is, itself, psychotic." I guess you didn't mean "psychotic" in the sense that you were at all opposed to it in any way.

The currently used basic business model is. As I have pointed out more than once, however, and you have so nicely ignored, it doesn't have to be run that way. Pointing out that I think the system should be changed is a far cry from saying "We shouldn't let people own corporations at all."

Nothing in my quote was a strawman. Please, I know you're happy you learned the word "strawman," but it is in fact a strawman itself when used merely to dismiss an argument you disagree with.

You intentionally misconstrued my statement in order to create a false argument that you could more easily tear down. Sounds like a strawman to me.

What does it matter what the purposes are?

That was quite well explained in my last post. Kindly actually read it instead of assuming it says what you want it to.

I claim that a government is just as psychotic because each administration is only concerned with the bottom line - election and re-election.

...which is incorrect. The politicians in the government are concerned with election and reelection. However, the government as an entity is concerned with governing the people. Much like you fail to do with the corporations, you fail to realize the difference between the individual people and the entity comprised of them.

Yes, you've definitely confirmed you know absolutely nothing of running a business. What about the customers? You know, that subset of the population who buys the corporation's products - or doesn't? They mean everything - no customers, no product, no profit, no corporation. What about the employees? Same thing.

If you make a product that people find necessary, they will buy it.

And if you are hiring people who have few choices, they will work for you.

Meanwhile, most people don't really pay attention to all the actions of a given company.

Right, but you claim that corporations are psychopaths and governments are not. I guess you were making a purely rhetorical aside there, and not at all meaning to imply that corporations were in any way worse than governments.

I don't know why you assume that I equate the word psychopath with uncorruptible evil, or with doing the most damage in the world. Maybe you should examine your own false assumptions.

I've challenged you - repeatedly - to show me anything other than your bald assertions that says "most" or even some of those 5 million corporations are run in the manner you insist. Put up, or shut up.

Show me a major corporation that regularly takes a hit in profits because the alternative might cause harm to people or the environment. Show me one that isn't lobbying to be able to pollute as much as they want. Show me one that refrains from paying people below the living wage, not out of fear of legal repurcussions, but because they actually give a shit whether or not those people have enough money.

( nervously enters political discussion )

A great deal of libertarian thought is somewhat dismissive of the issue, but there are some different libertarian approaches to the problem.

One hopes that civil suits can address the problem. If a business's action causes you personal harm, you certainyl can make a suit against them for the damages you suffered. So, if SmarmyCorp dumps PCBs in my water, a class-action law suit could burn them into the ground. The point is not so much after-the-fact justice (who cares about the settlement, I have fscking cancer) but rather that businesses would try to avoid risky behavior, such as dirty business, in order to avoid lawsuits. (Problems: proving claims of harm can be hard, and there's always the risk of legal capture, i.e. the system gets pwned by special interests or corporations.)

You can also just establish that some things really are part of the commons. This isn't an alien idea (Locke understood that some kind of commons did exists). If you establish that some property is semi-commonly held and therefore more special, you could make democratically-based laws regarding those commons, or set up some mixed/market-based scheme to balance environmental and economic wants. (Example: selling a fixed amount of "pollution credits" around the world. Businesses that could afford to run clean would sell their credits to developing countries who would rather upgrade later, but overall you could trend towards less net emissions, which is what matters.)

A related approach is "geolibertarianism", which let's people have private property from the commons (like they do now), but have to pay a "rent" to the other citizens to recompense for what they've taken out of the commons. I could see this being expanded to where someone using a commons (say, some virgin rainforest or 30 Pollution Credits) has to reimburse everyone for having used up / depleted those commons. This added cost could hopefully discourage people from being ridiculous with the environment.

Interestingly, the founder of geolibertarianism was MAJORLY against the Malthusian view of the world, not merely because of its short-sighted nature but also because it implied some rather awful things about the responsibility of people towards their fellow man. (i,e, "Prosperity will result in overgrowth which will itself cause more poverty, so there's no reason to help the poor since that will just cause them to breed more and keep the cycle going." Not all Malthusians think that way, but this was a strand that he was working against.)

Nevermind, must remember to read the thread.

( nervously enters political discussion )

Don't be nervous. Most of us don't bite. =)

One hopes that civil suits can address the problem. If a business's action causes you personal harm, you certainyl can make a suit against them for the damages you suffered. So, if SmarmyCorp dumps PCBs in my water, a class-action law suit could burn them into the ground. The point is not so much after-the-fact justice (who cares about the settlement, I have fscking cancer) but rather that businesses would try to avoid risky behavior, such as dirty business, in order to avoid lawsuits. (Problems: proving claims of harm can be hard, and there's always the risk of legal capture, i.e. the system gets pwned by special interests or corporations.)

Another problem is that very, very rarely does a class-action lawsuit actually "burn them into the ground." All too often, the payout isn't really high enough to punish the company for the action - they still end up with net profits. Lobbying, etc. helps keep it that way. Now, if a class action lawsuit, in general, could really bring a company to the ground, that might be adequate cause to keep them from engaging in such behavior, although some may still take the gamble.

(Example: selling a fixed amount of "pollution credits" around the world. Businesses that could afford to run clean would sell their credits to developing countries who would rather upgrade later, but overall you could trend towards less net emissions, which is what matters.)

I kinda like this idea. And as technology progresses, we could reduce the number of credits sold and make all sorts of advances. Sounds like a good idea.

Of course, who sells the credits and what does the money from that go into?