The Pluralism of Liberty

liberty university

liberty university — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:10:59 GMT

Pingback from liberty university

universal syndicate

universal syndicate — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:47:19 GMT

Pingback from universal syndicate

liberty university

liberty university — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:26:35 GMT

Pingback from liberty university

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Cork — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:17:53 GMT

Hornshiver,

I have enjoyed talking to you. I don't want to clog up Brainpolice's blog, so if you want to continue discussing things, just go to mine at corktageous.blogspot.com

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Hornshiver — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:49:26 GMT

I am outraged by these irrational left-libertarians and vulgar "libertarians". Assume that they are all losers and do not try to "confront" them. If you try to question their ideas, then they would perceive that you are trolling and threatening and they would shoot and kill you for "trespassing" their blogs. These leftists are just as stupid and immoral as rightists, and never understands that they are the stupid ones. Everyone's irrational. Mises' utilitarianism, Rothbard's defense for corporations, the leftist emotional rambling and rightists overreliance on a priori assumptions is evidence that you should not confront them.

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Hornshiver — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:10:06 GMT

"Libertarian" "socialism" is neither libertarian nor socialist, just like "anarcho"-communism is not anarchism. Mordern "leftists" are not left, and neither are the "left"-communists and "left" anarchists. Market anarchism is a true leftist ideology.

Market anarchists are radical left-wing individuals. Their positions on workers' rights, intellectual "property," globalization and corporations are the same as the radical left. Opposing welfare while defending the current corporate capitalist state is identical to those views of the fiscal conservatives. Their fascist views on opposing welfare while preserving the status quo implies more inequality. Conservativism is equivalently evil as Nazism and Stalinism. They fight wars and directly murder innocent individuals like totalitarianism.

Anarcho-capitalists may not oppose voluntary socialist organizations; they just think that these organizations wouldn't exist in a free market. This is similar to the views of Proudhon and Tucker that interest and rent wouldn't exist in a free market but they do not oppose them. But socialism has many benefits in anarchy. People may join cooperatively controlled private defense agencies, as these may be safer than those who are controlled by a single capitalist.

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Cork — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:11:20 GMT

"All Rothbardians are leftists, because they oppose the inequalities of of power like the vast inequalities of wealth of the central banks and capitalists."

In that case, I'm a leftist because I oppose the excessive levels of inequality created by corporate statism (and am greeted by yawns when I tell "anarcho"-communists that.)

I have even said that certain capitalist transactions/relations can be authoritarian and exploitative, even *without* the state propping them up (more yawns and jeers from the left-anarchists). I feel that a free society can find ways to deal with these situations when they arise.

Benjamin Tucker is one of my favorite anarchists--possibly my number one favorite. I called myself a left-Rothbardian for a while (still kind of am).

Unfortunately, "left-libertarianism" has become a circus. "Vulgar libertarian" has come to mean anyone who opposes the welfare state or regulation. Anyone who doesn't want a luddite economy run by tiny worker co-ops is a corporate shill, according the left-libertarians.

Even Tucker did not seem to get what was so great about worker co-ops (he denied that employment was wrong). If he was alive today, he would by quickly dismissed as a "vulgar libertarian," by the left-libertarians.

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Hornshiver — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:09:10 GMT

"However I am not 100% on what the current laws say for which circumstances."

Current laws already violate contractual limited liability. They are not contracts.

"But the big part of "limited liability" that left-libertarians usually complain about is the part that can be done through contract."

The left supports equality of power. All Rothbardians are leftists, because they oppose the inequalities of of power like the vast inequalities of wealth of the central banks and capitalists.

Vulgar libertarians are rightists because they support inequality of power through the elimination of minimum wage and welfare. Mainstream libertarians such as Bob Barr are vulgar libertarians, therefore classified as rightists. They are unaware of the root causes of inequality such as regulatory capture and corporate welfare. Even though they explicitly oppose "corporate welfare," they support regulations such as intellectual property laws which are corporate welfare.

"But the big part of "limited liability" that left-libertarians usually complain about is the part that can be done through contract."

Yes, it can be done through contract. However, currently the corporations are protected even though there is no agreement.

"But the big part of "limited liability" that left-libertarians usually complain about is the part that can be done through contract."

Seems very collectivist. You seem to generalize that all left-libertarians complain about limited liability.

"Whenever I call them on it, left-libertarians generally resort to censoring and deleting my posts--excluding Brainpolice, who is an exception."

Some people are retarded.

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Cork — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 05:51:52 GMT

"However, in the real world, corporations are protected by limited liability no matter if the consumer actually agreed to it."

I do not know to what extent this is true and would have to look into it further. I am pretty sure that it is legal to simply sue the individual(s) responsible in many cases, rather than the company that has limited liability. However I am not 100% on what the current laws say for which circumstances.

But the big part of "limited liability" that left-libertarians usually complain about is the part that can be done through contract. Whenever I call them on it, left-libertarians generally resort to censoring and deleting my posts--excluding Brainpolice, who is an exception.

capital university

capital university — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 13:27:20 GMT

Pingback from capital university

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Hornshiver — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:50:14 GMT

"Obviously they would not exist as they currently do (with state regulation/privilege), just as marriage would not exist as it currently does."

Corporations are always defined as state privileges such as limited liability. They would not exist without a state. Corporations would be replaced by cooperatives, companies, firms, partnerships, sole properitorships, etc. in a free market.

How would you tell if a consumer actually agreed to the limited liability sign? Individuals must sign an agreement that the company is limited in liability for them to establish limited liability. However, in the real world, corporations are protected by limited liability no matter if the consumer actually agreed to it.

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Cork — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:44:44 GMT

"Corporations, according to the legal definition, would not exist in a free market."

We seem to agree that limited liability can be created through contract (except for some kinds of torts). That's all I mean when I say corporations would still basically exist. Obviously they would not exist as they currently do (with state regulation/privilege), just as marriage would not exist as it currently does.

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Hornshiver — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:48:14 GMT

There exists a grey area that does not differentiate torts and contracts. For instance, when a skyscraper collapses and injures third parties who did not see their limited liability sign, the company would privilege. Also, it is impossible for someone who has a visual deficit to see an implicit limited liability agreement when going to a retail store. Should the retail store building collapse, the person would be injured by the company.

"Corporations would still basically exist."

A corporation, by definition, is a legal entity recognized and heavily regulated by the state. By definition, a corporation has limited liability. "Corporations" and stock markets would be much more different in anarchy than they would current function, as there would be no rules and standards pertaining to the transactions. The legal requirements and the hierarchical structure involving directors and executive officers would not be dictated by the state, thus in anarchy, companies would amass in the most optimal and efficient order. In addition, the elimination of legal compliance costs, which are highly regressive, would hinder the artificial scale efficiencies of larger companies, thus motivating them to split into smaller entities. Corporations, according to the legal definition, would not exist in a free market.

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Cork — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:48:48 GMT

Well, at least for some kinds of torts (assuming that info is true). All the rest of it can be done through contract. Corporations would still basically exist. But their liability would not be limited to their assets in tort suits.

re: The Pluralism of Liberty

Brainpolice — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:58:09 GMT

That is exactly why I'm opposed to it. It shields the individual from responsibility.