Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
The early US Republic was not AC. It was an attempt at limited government, but it was definitely statism. Most people believed a state was necessary and proper so a state they had. It's this failure which has pushed many of us Libertarians toward AC: the evidence that limited statism (minarchy) does not work because once authority is ceded the rulers will increase their powers, maybe slowly, but steadily.

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost a battle, so surrender the war. Way to go.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The company can "persuade" their debt-ridden employees to work harder to pay for the campaign. The corporations built on a Japanese model with lots of corporate loyalty already instilled in their employees will have an advantage. We'll see a lot of low-intensity assasination campaigns waged by over-worked sararimen.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that nobody is forcing you to work for the company; you are there of your own free will. You are free to leave anytime you like (unless you signed a contract that restricts when you can leave, but then, you shouldn't have signed it). This is not the case with governments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad for all the wage slaves who live from paycheck to paycheck and carry huge debts. Nobody is forcing them ofcourse, but how is an average guy going to get ahead without taking huge loads of debt?
Pay for college, pay for books, for rent, groceries, while studying and holding minimum wage dead end job. Most people aren't born on a third base.
So, now that he got a job, and a kid and mortgage, where is he going to go? He'll play along and work 70 hour weeks to support his company's little adventure. Once you are a wage slave with tons of debt and a family to care about, you don't quit your job anytime you like. And in the first place, if you are looking for that sweet job to pay for your mortgage, you'll sign a lot of contracts and won't even think about it twice, until it bites you in the ass.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He does seem to be confusing someone "controlling" his own money with "controlling" the market as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

As if the two could never happen together.

As if the Market Fairy will stop concentrated wealth from exploiting the disproportionate advantages of greater size that cause imperfect competition in the marketplace.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL @ Market Fairy. A company having a large market share due to the advantage of its large size, is not the same thing as "controlling the market" as long as it's a free market. They're still just controlling their own wealth. Their large market share is due to economies of scale, not "control of the market".

Unless you're defining "control of the market" as simply large market share, in which case, your statement would be true by definition, but meaningless.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others?

[/ QUOTE ]
The richest people have substancial control over these things now. It's much easier to it with government because they get everyone else to pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without a servant government, the middle class and the poor would lose their most effective means of regulating the power of money. There would be nothing in the way of the rich controlling essentially everything, if the "free market" was above all.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Cliffnotes: The ability to subsidize the costs of war onto the population is a major difference between statism and AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversimplification. The conquered people are often the ones who pay, while the citizens of the empire are beneficiaries.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cliffnotes: The ability to subsidize the costs of war onto the population is a major difference between statism and AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversimplification. The conquered people are often the ones who pay, while the citizens of the empire are beneficiaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I haven't received my Iraq beneficiary check in the mail yet...you?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cliffnotes: The ability to subsidize the costs of war onto the population is a major difference between statism and AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversimplification. The conquered people are often the ones who pay, while the citizens of the empire are beneficiaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I haven't received my Iraq beneficiary check in the mail yet...you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall the U.S. getting much out of either world war. Could just be that Skidoo likes to make things up as he goes...

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others?

[/ QUOTE ]
The richest people have substancial control over these things now. It's much easier to it with government because they get everyone else to pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without a servant government, the middle class and the poor would lose their most effective means of regulating the power of money. There would be nothing in the way of the rich controlling essentially everything, if the "free market" was above all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that a self contradiction? By definition, a "free market" is "uncontrolled".
And, again, if you're defining "control" as each player's control of their own resources, then your statement may be true, but meaningless.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The early US Republic was not AC. It was an attempt at limited government, but it was definitely statism. Most people believed a state was necessary and proper so a state they had. It's this failure which has pushed many of us Libertarians toward AC: the evidence that limited statism (minarchy) does not work because once authority is ceded the rulers will increase their powers, maybe slowly, but steadily.

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost a battle, so surrender the war. Way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

I learned a lesson. What did you learn? If indeed limited government as envisioned in 1776 failed, what are you going to do differently the next time? How are you going to stop people given the ability to levy taxes and write law from abusing their powers?

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cliffnotes: The ability to subsidize the costs of war onto the population is a major difference between statism and AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversimplification. The conquered people are often the ones who pay, while the citizens of the empire are beneficiaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I haven't received my Iraq beneficiary check in the mail yet...you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall the U.S. getting much out of either world war. Could just be that Skidoo likes to make things up as he goes...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think US was the only country that benefited from WW II
Half of the world's gold reserve and half of the world's GDP in the 50s, all because the Europeans destroyed themselves and lost all of their colonies
After the Cold war, I seem to recall a very nice peace dividend in the 90s. That was not so great as the 50s prosperity and didn't last quite as long, but Russians fared a lot worse in that time.