I've never really understood the leftist meme that claims corporations have too much power over individuals. Except in cases where there is a government enforced monopoly, you don't ever have to do business with a corporation. And in the cases where you have a legitimate gripe with a corporation there are plenty of avenues of recourse.
The statists always come back to the "people power" that citizens have over government as their trump card as why government is the better option. Well I have a little experiment that I would like you to try next time government seems like an appealing option.
Run to your local Wal-Mart or whatever evil capitalistic representative you would like to prove my point and buy something. Anything. Bring it home and set it on the counter and go about your day. The next day pick up that thing and bring it back to that evil corporation and tell them that you aren't happy with the item.
What do you think happens? The person asks for a receipt and gives you your money back with rarely a question asked.
Now run to your local school district, road commissioner, utility board or what have you. Try to tell someone that you are not happy with the product. What happens? Well, assuming that you actually can find any of these places and assuming that you find someone that will talk to you. Nothing. They don't care.
If you can go through this exercise and honestly tell me that government is more responsive to customer needs than corporations then I have found myself the worlds largest pathological liar.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Thanks Kip
Welcome visitors from A Stitch in Haste. Kip is one of my favorite bloggers and I consider it a great accomplishment to be included in his Elite Eleven blogroll.
I lean libertarian Chicagoan (though, thankfully, I don't actually live in the People's Republic of) and much of my blogging tackles national and local politics colored with a libertarian lens.
Feel free to take a look around and I hope you come back soon.
I lean libertarian Chicagoan (though, thankfully, I don't actually live in the People's Republic of) and much of my blogging tackles national and local politics colored with a libertarian lens.
Feel free to take a look around and I hope you come back soon.
Monday, October 02, 2006
A Reply To a Commenter
A thoughtful commenter has stopped by trying to pursuade me that Kos is right. You can read his whole comment here, but I quote, in part:
To which I reply:
There is a hierachy of liberty interests. Arguably, political rights against state intrusions are superior to mere economic liberties, such as the right to pollute the commons, or defraud customers, or even to use one’s property in an unrestricted manner. You may feel differently, but history has demonstrated over and over that political rights, once lost, are much harder to restore than economic rights,
To which I reply:
a) insulting libertarian ideals by insinuating that we favor polluting the commons and defrauding customers is probably not a winning strategy.
b) Your assertion that political rights are harder to restore than economic rights is simply wrong. There are not political rights and economic rights - there are just rights.
Second, American history is full of liberties that have been taken away and restored:
Alien and Sedition Acts
Japanese Internment
Full Scale spying on American Citizens (Hoover and McCarthy)
and the list goes on.
You may (or may not) be right about American politics being stuck in a two party system but I do not have to accept that the Republican party and Democratic party are the only options, therefor I will sit this one out.
More On Kos
Whatever you think about Kos, his essay on Cato Unbound is at least thoughtful. Not particularly well thought out, but thoughtful. He doesn't call names and he doesn't insult anyone. For now.
One of the reasons that I took Cato Unbound off my blogroll is that it has typically deteriorated into a shouting fest of name calling shenanigans. I thought their first topic went very well, but the ones that followed have been less than scholarly debates.
After the rebutal essays are published I'm putting even odds on Markos becoming completely unhinged which should, all things being equal, put an end to this Democratic Libertarian BS once and for all.
One of the reasons that I took Cato Unbound off my blogroll is that it has typically deteriorated into a shouting fest of name calling shenanigans. I thought their first topic went very well, but the ones that followed have been less than scholarly debates.
After the rebutal essays are published I'm putting even odds on Markos becoming completely unhinged which should, all things being equal, put an end to this Democratic Libertarian BS once and for all.
Should Libertarians Look Left
Markos "Kos" Moulitsas is once again pitching the theory that libertarian minded voters should support Democrats over Republicans. Once again, he offers nothing compelling to show that Democrats are the better option. Republicans have certainly not been friends to the libertarian ideal, but how is the anti-Walmart, pro-single payer healthcare, anti-gun rights, pro-smoking/transfat banning Democrats an improvement?
While some of what Markos says, on the surface, seems to hit the right chords a close examination reveals a disconnect between what libertarians want and what Markos is promising Democrats will deliver.
What, exactly, is a "market run amok"? Who gets to decide when it has gone too far? As Kip loves to say - Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner. What a Democrat sees as a market run amok it means things like Wal-Mart selling cheap drugs and restaurants selling froie gras. Then Democrats are falling over themselves trying to fix these "market failures."
Markos correctly identifies the libertarian mistrust of government.
But he follows it up (via a repost by another Kos diarist) by trying to pursued us that government is bad, but corporations are worse.
This misses the fundamental foundation of libertarianism - the corporations only have power over government because government has power. If the government could not make rules defining how the marketplace works, then there would be no power to buy and influence.
The essay goes on attacking Republican infringments on personal liberty while ignoring the Democratic attack on the same. Which is the fatal flaw in his attempt to pursuade us that Democrats are a valid alternative to Republicans - they are, essentially, no different. while Republicans may be in the pocket of Big Business, at least that means they, typically, just stay out of the way. The harm that they do on the economic front is much smaller than the harm that Democrats are trying to do.
Until Democrats are willing to demonstrate that they can keep their pudgy little fingers out of the free-market and let people decide for themselves what is a fair wage and what products they wish to buy, Democrats will never receive my vote.
More thoughts at Inactivist and A Stich In Haste
While some of what Markos says, on the surface, seems to hit the right chords a close examination reveals a disconnect between what libertarians want and what Markos is promising Democrats will deliver.
They also saw the markets as a good, not an evil, but didn’t necessarily see an unregulated market run amok as a positive thing.
What, exactly, is a "market run amok"? Who gets to decide when it has gone too far? As Kip loves to say - Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner. What a Democrat sees as a market run amok it means things like Wal-Mart selling cheap drugs and restaurants selling froie gras. Then Democrats are falling over themselves trying to fix these "market failures."
Markos correctly identifies the libertarian mistrust of government.
The larger government grows, the more it infringes on our personal space, inevitably placing limits on our freedoms.
But he follows it up (via a repost by another Kos diarist) by trying to pursued us that government is bad, but corporations are worse.
The fundamental reason that "libertarian" has become "libertarian democrat" is that corporations are becoming more powerful than governments. This fundamental fact has created a union between those with libertarian tendencies and those with those who believed all along that government can be a force for good.
This misses the fundamental foundation of libertarianism - the corporations only have power over government because government has power. If the government could not make rules defining how the marketplace works, then there would be no power to buy and influence.
The essay goes on attacking Republican infringments on personal liberty while ignoring the Democratic attack on the same. Which is the fatal flaw in his attempt to pursuade us that Democrats are a valid alternative to Republicans - they are, essentially, no different. while Republicans may be in the pocket of Big Business, at least that means they, typically, just stay out of the way. The harm that they do on the economic front is much smaller than the harm that Democrats are trying to do.
Until Democrats are willing to demonstrate that they can keep their pudgy little fingers out of the free-market and let people decide for themselves what is a fair wage and what products they wish to buy, Democrats will never receive my vote.
More thoughts at Inactivist and A Stich In Haste
Tags:
Something Is Wrong
When Congressmen openly admit that a bill is unconstitutional and vote for it anway.
Does the oath that they take to uphold the Constitution mean nothing? There must be a way to force Congress to start unbundling these bills that contain hundreds of regulations. I'm convinced that this step alone, would decrease the amount of regulation 10 fold.
HatTip: Cato@Liberty
More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill after telling reporters earlier that he would oppose it because it is “patently unconstitutional on its face.” He cited its denial of the habeas corpus right to military detainees. In an interview last night, Specter said he decided to back the bill because it has several good items, “and the court will clean it up” by striking the habeas corpus provisions.
Does the oath that they take to uphold the Constitution mean nothing? There must be a way to force Congress to start unbundling these bills that contain hundreds of regulations. I'm convinced that this step alone, would decrease the amount of regulation 10 fold.
HatTip: Cato@Liberty
More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
And Now For Some Football
Not only has my schedule prevented me from blogging regularly, I have only caught a grand total of 5 minutes of football.
Granted, as a Packer fan, there isn't much to watch but I spent my youth watching whatever was on TV and miss playing armchair quarterback. So I don't have much to say about any actual games, but I caught an interesting proposal about instant replays that I thought I would share.
The incentives are all wrong, coaches get three challenges that bare no cost. As any economist will tell you, when something is free it will be over consumed. That being the case I can completely get behind his his proposal to provide unlimited challenges with severe costs.
Let the coaches decide when calls are important enough to challenge, the 15 yard penalty will essentially eliminate all challenges except ones that are game changing which is the way that it should be.
Granted, as a Packer fan, there isn't much to watch but I spent my youth watching whatever was on TV and miss playing armchair quarterback. So I don't have much to say about any actual games, but I caught an interesting proposal about instant replays that I thought I would share.
Get rid of instant replay. Stop delaying the game while we sit around debating what constitutes a "football move." Stop tempering our excitement when we see a spectacular catch because we know we're going to have to wait to find out if the receiver really got both feet down. Tell the coaches they don't have to worry how far they throw their red flags. Tell the referees they don't have to stick their heads into a peep show on the sidelines.Oops, I quoted the wrong part. Mike Smith actually proposes five changes to the instant replay system. I'm not sure that instant replay should be eliminated, but it certainly needs to be changed.
The incentives are all wrong, coaches get three challenges that bare no cost. As any economist will tell you, when something is free it will be over consumed. That being the case I can completely get behind his his proposal to provide unlimited challenges with severe costs.
Let the coaches decide when calls are important enough to challenge, the 15 yard penalty will essentially eliminate all challenges except ones that are game changing which is the way that it should be.
Defending Government
I'm not typically in the habit of defending government organizations, but sometimes its necessary, especially when the facts are being misrepresented.
It sounds terrible to have lost over 1000 laptops, but the truth is - its not that bad. Speaking from personal experience, its not that hard to lose computers from inventory if you have sloppy inventory or audit procedures.
I can also say, with near absolute conviction, that the laptops aren't really lost; they just don't know where they are. In reality, those computers are sitting on a shelf someplace out of reach of automatic inventory.
Should the Commerce Department be chastised for shoddy accounting? Absolutely, but they really didn't lose those computers.
In advance of a House Committee on Government Reform hearing, in which the matter would have come up anyway, the U.S. Commerce Dept. responded to a Committee request by disclosing in a private briefing yesterday that it believes as many as 1,137 laptop computers have been lost from the Dept.'s inventory since 2001.The article goes on to say that this number represents about 3% of the laptops used over the 5 year period.
It sounds terrible to have lost over 1000 laptops, but the truth is - its not that bad. Speaking from personal experience, its not that hard to lose computers from inventory if you have sloppy inventory or audit procedures.
I can also say, with near absolute conviction, that the laptops aren't really lost; they just don't know where they are. In reality, those computers are sitting on a shelf someplace out of reach of automatic inventory.
Should the Commerce Department be chastised for shoddy accounting? Absolutely, but they really didn't lose those computers.
Yet Another Story About Economic Illiteracy
Its kinda like shooting fish in a barrel - everywhere you look you see some reporter just not getting how economies work.
Competition is destructive - especially for the companies competing, but it is Oh-So-Wonderful for us consumers.
Nearly every advance runs the risk of hurting the bottom line. That was competition does! It drives down price in order to fight to fulfill customer demand. When Apple release the iPod mini it threatened to hurt sales of the iPod. When IBM released the PC it threatened to hurt sales of the typewriter (can you even buy a typewriter anymore?)Microsoft is considering giving away its basic Microsoft Works word processing and spreadsheet software, aimed at preventing a possible challenge from Google, who bought web-word processor Writely in March, and began testing Google Spreadsheet in June.
However, the Redmond company runs the risk of hurting its Office business, which contributes a significant amount of revenue to the company's bottom line. The challenge will be how Microsoft handles the Web-based service while still making money off its Office suite.
Competition is destructive - especially for the companies competing, but it is Oh-So-Wonderful for us consumers.
RIAA Gets Sued
Responding by a suit from the RIAA, LimeWire has filed a couterclaim accusing the RIAA of anti-trust violations and consumer fraud.
[RIAA's] goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers. (Counterclaim, paragraph 26, page 18).I like the idea of going after psuedo-governmental bodies using anti-trust regulation. If the suit is successful (and I have no way of guessing whether it will be) I would love to see people start using it against unions, the ABA, AMA and all the other protectionist organizations out there.....
This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models.(Counterclaim, paragraph 28, page 18).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)