Hello all:
Background: I came across a discussion about Exxon on another board last week. Of course, the social democrats were moaning about the record quarterly profit posted by Exxon. I replied that with all the bad economic news out there, you would think people would be applauding some good news. No response from the social democrats except from one who uttered that Exxon's profits would be more acceptable if they contributed to the "public good". To refute that, I simply went digging and found all kinds of initiatives that Exxon funded, including the United Negro College Fund, the Mickelson/ExxonMobile Teachers Academy, the Africa Health Initiative, etc, etc.
One of the social democrats has posted this:
"Hmm... just out of interest - if the government had done all of the above [funded the charities], paid for by levying tax charges at the oil companies which were then, in turn, passed on to the Consumer... wouldn't you now be saying that it was a bad thing that hard-working Americans were funding things like the "United Negro College Fund" and education for people in other countries...? "I mean... the costs for all this were passed onto you guys at the pump - just the same as tax is. How come it's now suddenly become a good thing...?"
My response would be that the consumer has a choice; if the consumer doesn't like that Exxon spends money on goodwill, they can find another alternative. Can the answer be this simple? Because, he responded to another post with this:
"Right. Or, in other words, it's a 'false choice' that you're creating for yourself to justify your own support of big business. Yes, I've heard the same argument before - "Tax is bad because you can't get out of paying it, but Capitalism is good because if you don't like how a company is operating, you can simply spend your money somewhere else". "And in theory, that sounds perfectly sensible - as most systems do, on paper. In practice, though, you don't really have the choice you're convincing yourself you do. As you say, all of 'Big Oil' has these similar programmes. Where, then, do you go if you want to 'choose' to buy your oil from a company which doesn't do this? "Hey, if you don't like the fact that Company-X is paying its directors massive dividends and bonuses, you can simply go to another company", they tell me. Well, great. I don't want to give my money to a company which pays its top people massive bonuses, far in excess of inflation, at a time when record pump prices are hitting ordinary people hard in the pocket. So... can you tell me which oil company I can go to which doesn't do this? "Choice is, sometimes, an illusion, my friend."
Big Oil does this because it needs to buy protection from government repression. There would be no reason for it, as a corporation chartered to produce oil and nothing else, not to pass on the profits to shareholders and thus fund more capital investment and expand supply. Only the threat of government power makes this necessary.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Tell him to start his own oil company and stop whining that no one else is making the world into the way he wants it.
The quote:
"Choice is, sometimes, an illusion, my friend."
Is false. You have choices with petrol providers. You just don't like the choices. Too bad. Things in the real world are scarce and they are owned by someone else. You have to pay these some elses to use or get their things. That is reality. The Communists promised that people do not have to pay for these things and all would be better if the Communists provided all. The results were disasterous.
I can give you one choice where you will almost certainly like the result worse than your current ones. That is to place the Obama Windfall Profits Tax on petrol suppliers. Then they will either supply less petrol or raise the price further to offset the tax or the worst thing: Stop drilling and supporting new petrol or petrol alternatives. Then we will be stuck with high prices for the longer term as well as the short to medium term.
Also, there is a difference between lacking an option and have an option violently denied you.
That your debate partner is not able to find a willing sex partner is no crime, but him preventing the voluntary interaction of others is.
Non-consumption/setting up one's own companies are options. This is just whining and it glosses over the issue of whether the government is even justified in the first place to tax. It isn't.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools. Irenicus' Diaries.
RockSteady: "I mean... the costs for all this were passed onto you guys at the pump - just the same as tax is. How come it's now suddenly become a good thing...?" My response would be that the consumer has a choice; if the consumer doesn't like that Exxon spends money on goodwill, they can find another alternative. Can the answer be this simple? Because, he responded to another post with this
"I mean... the costs for all this were passed onto you guys at the pump - just the same as tax is. How come it's now suddenly become a good thing...?"
My response would be that the consumer has a choice; if the consumer doesn't like that Exxon spends money on goodwill, they can find another alternative. Can the answer be this simple? Because, he responded to another post with this
It's not a good thing. Let's skip past the point that "the consumer has a choice," because really his choice is one among a handful of state-supported cartels. State-supported cartels are effectively an extension of the State itself.
The correct answer is that in a free-market, it would likely be up to individuals to provide charity, since, as your friend points out, the donations are simply passed on through the prices you pay at the pump. These donations given by corporations are part-and-parcel to the tax code and its various loopholes, which create balance-sheet-favorable opportunities for companies.
=====
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Let's skip past the point that "the consumer has a choice," because really his choice is one among a handful of state-supported cartels.
It's a tough situation to be in because on one hand you have to defend the generic class of 'business' from people who say it's too evil to be allowed to roam free in an unregulated market, but on the other hand you have to establish that businesses get away with a lot of stuff because they've bought out the government.
I guess the way out of this is to just emphasize that without government to protect it, 'business' wouldn't be getting away with half of the stuff it does now.
We all have blood on our hands. That is unless you have completely seceded from the system.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
liberty student:We all have blood on our hands.
I do not.
What makes oil fascist?
You should point out that last quarter Exxon Paid out 32+ billion dollars in taxes last quarter, and compare that to 11 billion profit. How much more do you want them to forcibly hand over to the government and public ownership?
Juan: Let's skip past the point that "the consumer has a choice," because really his choice is one among a handful of state-supported cartels. Exactly. Stranger et al talk about Big Oil as if these firms were run by honest free-market businessmen but in reality they are nothing of the sort.
Welcome to the prevailing problem of vulgar libertarianism. Some people have a preconcieved vested interest in defending big buisiness as it is, and free market rhetoric is a handy tool to misapply in order to defend it.
JonBostwick: Tell him to start his own oil company and stop whining that no one else is making the world into the way he wants it.
Taking all of the barriers to entry into account, this response is kind of silly.