NationStates Jolt Archive

I got the NS issue for the 100th time about white-collar unions. I researched unions and what if...

In a true libertarian country, what is there to stop "one big company" from forming? It would encompass all markets and industries and potentially be too efficient for the small guy to compete.
I can't think of any way to stop that without involving major unnatural government intervention in the economy...

But on the other hand, there would also be nothing to stop "one big union" from forming as well.

This process will eventually be completed, although it may take many years.

But that leaves us with "one big company" and "one big union". WTF? Communism!

(Remember that in the USSR it was the government (one big, although inefficient, company) juggling the demands of major unions. etc.)

(Remember that in the USSR it was the government (one big, although inefficient, company) juggling the demands of major unions. etc.)

What? It was a government, not a company. Calling the government a company doesn't work, the terms are not interchangeable.

Shortly there will be considerable polemics as to the 'true' meaning of communism.

Insults will be traded; the political system of the USSR will be discussed; irrelevant examples of history will be cited; and, we will hear once again about the breakfasting habits of caledonians.

These are my predictions.

Oh, yah, and what you described (one big company, one big union) isn't communism: not least because the 'people' don't own the 'means of production' or somesuch drivel.

No true scotsman puts cream in his coffee (except perhaps when the breakfast consists primarily of black pudding). Similarly no true communist country has a division between captial and labor (which is how it would be in this libertarian nation); USSR was socialist not communist. Fool. Remember Cuba. Now the thread can be closed.

But on the other hand, there would also be nothing to stop "one big union" from forming as well.

except for ye olde gigantic company and it's death squads

(Remember that in the USSR it was the government (one big, although inefficient, company) juggling the demands of major unions. etc.)

really?

i've been wondering for the last ten, fifteen years, when this was going to cross anybody's mind.

companies not equaling governments? if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

libertarians are less ambiguous about being what republicans pretend to be, and without getting all hung up on pseudoreligeous pretentions, i'll say that much for them, and i do find this refreshing.

both want to reduce the size of govenment by letting the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper. republicans only want to deregulate industry. libertarians SAY they want to deregulate the private life of the individual. but every libertarian i've talked to wants government to keep paving the roads to subsidise the oil and automotive industries at the expense of taxpayers and environmentaly friendlier (de facto if not intentionaly) methods of transportation.

i don't see how this can be considered as anything other then a double standard.

to make sense of reduced government options you really need to look at what we need governments for and what we don't. and what we need them for is to fill the gaps that market forces can't and won't. and yes these DO exist. principly in the areas of tangible infrastructure and quality of life and keping both from fouling their own nest.

=^^=
.../\...

Monopolies can't form in a true Capitalist environment.

Libertarians want the government as small as possible without total anarchy and chaos breaking out, mostly the libertarians believe the government should only operate within the grounds of the constitution, paving roads is permitted by this document, those other things we want to get rid of as libertarians is not. I don't know where you got that we as Libertarians want to continue subsidies for oil and automotive industires, I don't know a single one who believes in ANY corporate subsidies, this would be as you say contradictory to libertarianism. So name me one Libertarian who has said this.

I got the NS issue for the 100th time about white-collar unions. I researched unions and what if...

In a true libertarian country, what is there to stop "one big company" from forming? It would encompass all markets and industries and potentially be too efficient for the small guy to compete.
I can't think of any way to stop that without involving major unnatural government intervention in the economy...

But on the other hand, there would also be nothing to stop "one big union" from forming as well.

This process will eventually be completed, although it may take many years.

But that leaves us with "one big company" and "one big union". WTF? Communism!

(Remember that in the USSR it was the government (one big, although inefficient, company) juggling the demands of major unions. etc.)
There is nothing to stop them except economic reality. The 'One Big Company' would be as inefficient as the socialist state, and thus smaller and better firms would crop up and compete with them. Same with the 'One Big Union', in a libertarian society there is no difference between unions and other associations, and it has the same scale inefficiencies and gets replaced by smaller better unions.

But that leaves us with "one big company" and "one big union". WTF? Communism!

No, state capitalism.

Actually wouldn't that technically be facism? Or am i getting my words mixed up?

Oh, yah, and what you described (one big company, one big union) isn't communism: not least because the 'people' don't own the 'means of production' or somesuch drivel.

Not our fault we have to keep repeating ourselves.

Actually wouldn't that technically be facism? Or am i getting my words mixed up?
No, fascism would need a number of corporations that were de facto controlled by the one big. Also you can't have a fascist state without a military, but you can (in theory) have communism without an active army.

Monopolies can't form in a true Capitalist environment.Ah yes, a true capitalist economy wouldn't allow copyright or patents as this is state intervention in the market.

I think companies proprobaly could form huge global companies that cater the the entirety of its consumers' demands. Though there would probably falls of such company as they still cannot regulate the business cycle. It would probably follow the same cycles that empires did, with their rise and fall.

Bah, societies with ever increasing economical freedoms is no better than feudalism.

In a true libertarian country, what is there to stop "one big company" from forming? Presumably you'll get some response about monopolies only happening as a result of government intervention, which is true, monopolies have only happened as a result of government intervention.

But on the other hand, there would also be nothing to stop "one big union" from forming as well.Hoorah, go IWW!

Same with the 'One Big Union', in a libertarian society there is no difference between unions and other associations, and it has the same scale inefficiencies and gets replaced by smaller better unions.If the union ran itself like a business, I would tend to agree, but fortunately there are unions who do not do so.

I got the NS issue for the 100th time about white-collar unions. I researched unions and what if...

In a true libertarian country, what is there to stop "one big company" from forming? It would encompass all markets and industries and potentially be too efficient for the small guy to compete.
I can't think of any way to stop that without involving major unnatural government intervention in the economy...

As others have pointed out, history shows that monopolies have only been able to exist through government intervention.

Innovation and competition, among other things, will break any monopolistic tendencies.

But on the other hand, there would also be nothing to stop "one big union" from forming as well.

This process will eventually be completed, although it may take many years.

But that leaves us with "one big company" and "one big union". WTF?

Nope.

(Remember that in the USSR it was the government (one big, although inefficient, company) juggling the demands of major unions. etc.)

:confused: OK, now you're just either trolling or putting out your ignorance for everyone else to laugh at.

I love the way Americans think of left and right when they are both basically nazis(far far right) compared to Swedish political standards. Our right-wing party is practically communist on your scale!

except for ye olde gigantic company and it's death squads

Except that in a true libertarian state, the initiation of violence is forbidden to *all*.

except for ye olde gigantic company and it's death squads


I totally agree, in a libertarian society, companies are all-powerful, they will do anything to preserve that power, who's going to stop them from abusing their power and use violence?

libertarians SAY they want to deregulate the private life of the individual. but every libertarian i've talked to wants government to keep paving the roads to subsidise the oil and automotive industries at the expense of taxpayers and environmentaly friendlier (de facto if not intentionaly) methods of transportation.

i don't see how this can be considered as anything other then a double standard.

Haven't communicated with many libertarians at all, have you?

to make sense of reduced government options you really need to look at what we need governments for and what we don't. and what we need them for is to fill the gaps that market forces can't and won't. and yes these DO exist. principly in the areas of tangible infrastructure and quality of life and keping both from fouling their own nest.

Now we get down to brass tacks. Why do any of those areas need government intervention over market forces that, either properly applied can do them better (most infrastructure), are morally reprehensible (the slavery that is the forcible redistribution of one's work), or are better handled through proper application of property rights (pollution)?

I totally agree, in a libertarian society, companies are all-powerful, they will do anything to preserve that power, who's going to stop them from abusing their power and use violence?

This is one of the few legitimate uses of the state - the prevention of the initiation of violence. If an individual initiates volent acts, be it a random individual or an individual representing a major multi-national, the state should apply the fullest penalty. The same goes for those who cause said violent acts to be initiated.

Monopolies can't form in a true Capitalist environment.

Why?

Except that in a true libertarian state, the initiation of violence is forbidden to *all*.

yeah, but this one's got just the one huge company. therefore, we can safely assume that they essentially own the state (if there is one) or actually own all the courts and private security forces (if there isn't).

:confused: OK, now you're just either trolling or putting out your ignorance for everyone else to laugh at.

when it comes to the ussr, i typically assume the latter. most people apparently aren't of the "know your enemy" school of thought, favoring instead the "believe whatever random bullshit pops into your head" school.

yeah, but this one's got just the one huge company. therefore, we can safely assume that they essentially own the state (if there is one) or actually own all the courts and private security forces (if there isn't).

And that's the big legitimate question - how does any libertarian state - cap or com - enforce the ban on illigitimate force?

when it comes to the ussr, i typically assume the latter. most people apparently aren't of the "know your enemy" school of thought, favoring instead the "believe whatever random bullshit pops into your head" school.

Absolutely. And that goes for quite a lot beyond socio-political-economic discussions. (See the knight vs samurai thread I've been trying to contribute to for a good many examples of the "whatever random complete BS pops into your head" school of history.)

Those librarians; nothing but trouble!


Why are you looking at me like that?

Monopolies can't form in a true Capitalist environment.
That'll be news to Microsoft, I'd imagine.

I love the way Americans think of left and right when they are both basically nazis(far far right) compared to Swedish political standards. Our right-wing party is practically communist on your scale!

Oswald Mosley. :rolleyes:

As others have pointed out, history shows that monopolies have only been able to exist through government intervention.

That'll be a shock to Games Workshop I imagine...

Y'know, the ones with a shop in every urban centre in the UK. I don't see many competitors to them around (And I play competitors games, it's still a massive monopoly on the market).

Oswald Mosley. :rolleyes:

One British Wacko with less support then than the BNP have now (hey, they got a seat on the grounds of 'throw out the darkies' he had a slightly more appealing platform I think).

The US has actual leftie politicians, just none with the faintest hope of getting any major position.

That'll be a shock to Games Workshop I imagine...

Y'know, the ones with a shop in every urban centre in the UK. I don't see many competitors to them around (And I play competitors games, it's still a massive monopoly on the market).
Pretty big one in the 'States as well, I believe: they've pissed off a lot of people by setting up their own distribnution network rather than going through the established wholesalers.

One British Wacko with less support then than the BNP have now (hey, they got a seat on the grounds of 'throw out the darkies' he had a slightly more appealing platform I think).

The US has actual leftie politicians, just none with the faintest hope of getting any major position.

The point is that, not only was he the founder of the british union of fascists and an avid Hiterlite, he was also an MP for the Labour party (and a member of the ILP). So, if anything, the lack of lefties may well be a form of insulation from hitlerist tendencies. Not a risk.

(And I would argue that he might - initially - actually have been more popular than the BNP is today. Griffin has not yet persuaded large numbers of people to dress up and parade around in black shirts).

Not this stupid USA versus USSR discussion again:headbang:

I agree in following:

Every one are equal - Ussr
The government may have corporation - Ussr
It is allowed to have your own shop - Usa
Pull that wall down - Usa

Well, it seems to me that a Capitalist-Communist governments will work good, so please lets live in Peace and Freedom since we are all equal :fluffle:

Monopolies can't form in a true Capitalist environment.

That'll be news to Microsoft, I'd imagine.

And the inefficiency, my God the inefficiency.

Oh, wait, they are inefficient. They just buy what they can and steal what they can't; even with patent laws.

There has yet to exist a true capitalist environment, so all of the present-day examples are silly. All monopolies that have existed have only existed as a result of government intervention. This doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist if the government couldn't or wouldn't intervene, however, but arguing that would be difficult.

There has yet to exist a true capitalist environment

Somalia? :p

Somalia? :pThat is pretty close, although there seems to be a lot of theft there. True capitalism requires respect for property rights. I don't see a true capitalist environment ever happening unless it's a result of ideological will.

That'll be news to Microsoft, I'd imagine.


Use that imagination, because that's all your argument is. Microsoft isn't close to being the olny software producer in the world.

That'll be a shock to Games Workshop I imagine...

Y'know, the ones with a shop in every urban centre in the UK. I don't see many competitors to them around (And I play competitors games, it's still a massive monopoly on the market).

Nope, you can't imagine away those competitors that you admit exist.

But that leaves us with "one big company" and "one big union". WTF? Communism!
I don't see any connection to communism at all. People, in your example, would be allowed to own private property, to start companies is they so chose, etc. Where, exactly, is the communism you are talking about?

Not this stupid USA versus USSR discussion again:headbang:

I agree in following:

Every one are equal - Ussr
The government may have corporation - Ussr
It is allowed to have your own shop - Usa
Pull that wall down - Usa

Well, it seems to me that a Capitalist-Communist governments will work good, so please lets live in Peace and Freedom since we are all equal :fluffle:
Equality(in a non-legal sense) and Freedom are mutally exclusive.

Capitalism demands state intervention. Therefore we are experiencing what any 'true' capitalist society will inevitably turn into.

The state is forced to intervene in society because of the anti-social effects of capitalism. The abstractly individualistic theory on which capitalism is based ("everyone for themselves") results in a high degree of statism since the economic system itself contains no means to combat its own socially destructive workings. The state must also intervene in the economy, not only to protect the interests of the ruling class but also to protect society from the atomising and destructive impact of capitalism. Moreover, capitalism has an inherent tendency toward periodic recessions or depressions, and the attempt to prevent them has [and will always] become part of the state's function. However, since preventing them is impossible (they are built into the system -- see section C.7), in practice the state can only try to postpone them and ameliorate their severity.

-infoshop.org

Capitalism demands state intervention. Therefore we are experiencing what any 'true' capitalist society will inevitably turn into.

The state is forced to intervene in society because of the anti-social effects of capitalism. The abstractly individualistic theory on which capitalism is based ("everyone for themselves") results in a high degree of statism since the economic system itself contains no means to combat its own socially destructive workings. The state must also intervene in the economy, not only to protect the interests of the ruling class but also to protect society from the atomising and destructive impact of capitalism. Moreover, capitalism has an inherent tendency toward periodic recessions or depressions, and the attempt to prevent them has [and will always] become part of the state's function. However, since preventing them is impossible (they are built into the system -- see section C.7), in practice the state can only try to postpone them and ameliorate their severity.

-infoshop.org

The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.
- Milton Friedman

The market is an economic expresion of wants and desires, by giving control of the market to the government in effect we give the government the ability to manipulate our wants and desires.

Equality(in a non-legal sense) and Freedom are mutally exclusive.

no, they aren't. in fact, you can't have one without the other. inequality leads to differences in power and access to resources. which necessarily restricts freedom for some.

no, they aren't. in fact, you can't have one without the other. inequality leads to differences in power and access to resources. which necessarily restricts freedom for some.
To selectively impose a social or economic burden would not be equal, so I will assume such restrictions are universal. So you are saying that by restricting everyones (non-legal) freedom we are more free.

Doublethink?

I don't see any connection to communism at all. People, in your example, would be allowed to own private property, to start companies is they so chose, etc. Where, exactly, is the communism you are talking about?

Sure you could try to compete with the One Big Company in existing markets, but its efficiency and economy of scale would squash you. Once people realised this, it would be very difficult to find investors. If you came up with a new idea, you could patent it and, if the libertarian government was actually efficient enough, you could claim all profits from its sale if someone stole your idea. However, the One Big Company would buy the patent from you for a $ amount that is more than you could make from said invention, yet they would make even more $ by using their increased efficiency.
This would depend on a business model / administrative system being used by the One Big Company that is more efficient than the inflexible quasi-hierarchical mush used by corporations like Microsoft. For instance, with a super-efficient administrative system, the company could use, say, 10 managers to deal with selling your invention and a bunch of others whereas you would need 10 managers to sell just the one invention. Therefore both parties would benefit from you selling your intellectual property patent to them (assuming your invention is good anyway). Of course all this would be calculated by One Big Company.

Essentially, if a business model was created that grew more efficient with size rather than less efficient, it would (with libertarian / capitalistic economic freedom), eventually encompass the entire economy. It would not need government intervention to do this. This would not necessarily be a bad thing, but it would, in this monopolistic respect, be indistinguishable from communism (as I understand it) where all day-to-day business is done by one entity.

This brings me to my second point: If there is only one company then who are you going to work for?

There are then 2 scenarios,
1) (My original hypothesis here which I now retract): Since One Big Company is the only employer* then the company would try to use its monopolistic position to pay ultra-low wages and charge ultra-high prices. This short-sighted company would be faced with its work force unionizing. Essentially the market would culminate into two forces: the company (who wants wages to fall) and the union (who wants wages to rise). These two entities would, hrm...it would not be pretty.

* (except for the tiny libertarian government--I assume as the only entity allowed to use violent force in order to prevent total chaos -see other posts-)

2) (New Theory): If the One Big Company raised prices and lowered wages too much, competition would step in and either attract workers away or charge lower prices. Therefore because it wants to maintain its position the One Big Company would have incentive to keep wages and prices under control.

By the way, I had read in James Michener's Poland that in the 1970s the USSR had to deal with factory worker unions and agricultural worker unions--each who wanted higher wages than the other union. I have not read anything about their unions elsewhere but I assumed it was true.

To selectively impose a social or economic burden would not be equal, so I will assume such restrictions are universal. So you are saying that by restricting everyones (non-legal) freedom we are more free.

no. i am saying that inequality automatically leads to both de facto and de jure restrictions on the liberty of some.

firstly, this is because inegalitarian distributions of wealth always lead to inegalitarian distributions of political power. always. and political power is always used to advance one's own interests.

secondly, because inegalitarian access to resources puts some people under the power of others in order to gain access for themselves to the necessities (and luxuries) of life. under such a system, those people will be (and are and have been for 10,000 years) subject to the arbitrary demands of those that control the access to wealth.

freedom is incompatible with any of this except as a sham. the alleged 'freedom' proclaimed by operating a system that creates inegalitarian distributions of resources has the same standing as the 'freedom' that exists under an absolutist dictatorship. which is to say, none whatsoever.