[jeffkrol]

not really........... but an interesting collection..

I assume you are referring to:

Libertarian Socialism:
Libertarian socialists agree with anarcho-capitalists that government is a monopoly and should be abolished, but they believe that nations should be ruled instead by work-share cooperatives or labor unions instead of corporations. The philosopher Noam Chomsky is the best known American libertarian socialist.

What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism
O/T offshoot from the above link, posted for fun, and a bit of Rand-om bashing.......
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/05/10/whats-wrong-with-ayn-rand.htm

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 01-28-2012 at 01:04 PM.

[les3547]

In a libertarian ideal, the workers would have the right to walk away from a job and find another job or start their own company. Of course giving employers lots of rights and employees none will tip the tables.

Yes, but the Libertarian ideal doesn't reflect the way reality works. The ideal of a self-regulating market, when conceived, did not foresee the extent large corporation development has proceeded, or the effects of that. The self-regulating ideal was based on a market made of small or medium businesses, and today the classic capitalists (e.g., Friedman) still try to treat the market as such. But the giant corporations gain such advantages they escape market controls, as well as government efforts to make up for that escape. Both fiscal and monetary controls affect small business primarily; for example, large corporations will acquire their own reserve capital, are able to invest without borrowing, and so avoid raised interest rates meant to reduce prices (inflation).

If I'm not mistaken, that is the thrust of Gene's point . . . that when the market is left alone, and as time passes and a relative few gain extraordinary size and advantages, they are able to escape the regulating effects of the market. Meanwhile, all the smaller players, which includes workers, find themselves at the mercy of an oligopolistic reality while some are preaching mere "ideals" of a free market that doesn't, and never will, exist.

If that weren't bad enough, the big corporations gain control of congress, who pass laws which benefit large corporations and hurt small businesses even further. This article nicely sums up the latest in the world of large corporation domination:

Why campaign spending rules hurt small business

Two years ago, the Supreme Court upended the rules for campaign finance, unleashing a tsunami of unregulated, unrestricted and undisclosed spending that has, in effect, allowed donors to buy elections. The full impact of this decision is just now becoming clear, and it's bad both for America's businesses and for our democracy.

By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court affirmed that money is essentially speech -- a notion first addressed in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 -- and it outlawed nearly all restrictions on independent spending by corporations or other groups, including unions, to influence elections. Such restrictions are unconstitutional violations of free speech, the court said, and are prohibited by the First Amendment.

You might expect business owners to welcome the elimination of these restrictions, but if so, you're about to be surprised. A recent poll conducted by Lake Research found that 66% of a random sample of 500 small-business owners believe the Citizens United decision was "mostly bad" or "somewhat bad" for small business. Since small businesses create 70% of new jobs in the private sector, according to the Small Business Administration, their view should matter a lot.


The poll was commissioned by the American Sustainable Business Council, the Main Street Alliance, and Small Business Majority -- three groups that represent the views of small business and which have a combined membership of more than 100,000 small businesses nationwide. The poll tapped the views of 500 small-business owners nationwide, most of whom are not members of the organizations conducting the survey.

In addition to taking a dim view of Citizens United, 88% of the small-business owners in the poll had a negative view of the role money plays in politics. (The margin of error in the poll is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.) Small-business owners believe in our market-based, capitalist system, which depends on open and robust competition. Unlimited campaign spending undermines this competition, in three crucial ways.

First, allowing unlimited money into politics allows the past to hold the future hostage. Companies (and individuals who own them) with sufficient resources to sway elections often represent the industries and companies of the past, rather than the industries and companies that are creating the future.

The evidence on this is indirect, because since Citizens United was announced less than a year before the last federal election, its impact has not yet been fully felt or measured. However, we can gauge its future impact by looking at lobbying expenditures, for which multiyear data is widely available. For the period 2008-2011, the computer and Internet industry -- a wellspring of innovation -- spent $458 million on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, while the energy and natural resources industry spent more than three times as much: $1.55 billion. The ratio for election-related spending, post Citizens United, will likely be similar.

Second, allowing unlimited money in politics allows the big to achieve an unfair advantage over the small. This is ironic in light of the huge role small business plays in creating private sector jobs in America, even as some large corporations act as net destroyers of American jobs, when outsourcing and offshoring are factored in.

For example, this kind of money in politics gives power to the push by big companies to repatriate offshore profits, giving some big and profitable multinational corporations lower effective tax rates than the grocer on Main Street. Moreover, unlimited contributions give major Wall Street firms the edge over community banks, because the big banks can win loan guarantees, taxpayer bailouts and deeply discounted borrowing rates that smaller banks can't touch.

Third, allowing unlimited money in politics allows companies to collect IOUs for special favors from presidential candidates -- particularly as a result of contributions made early in the election season, when a few million dollars can swing the result in a small state like New Hampshire.

America's small-business owners embrace competition -- but they demand the competition be open, robust and vigorous. They don't want to be whipped by big corporations that bought an unfair advantage from senators, congressional representatives and other elected officials. When that happens, it's bad for business and America. Many solutions have been proposed, ranging from the Supreme Court reversing its decision, to legislation, to a constitutional amendment. Momentum for change is growing, as candidates from both political parties learn what it's like to have a campaign with broad public support crushed by a single individual with deep pockets who steps in to help the other side.

Citizens United is an assault on our economy, which is supposed to be based on vigorous, free and open competition. It's time for us to reinvigorate our economy by getting government out of the protection racket, and preventing industries and companies from buying special favors. We must undo the damage wrought by Citizens United.

[ElJamoquio]

Yes, but the Libertarian ideal doesn't reflect the way reality works. The ideal of a self-regulating market, when conceived, did not foresee the extent large corporation development has proceeded, or the effects of that. The self-regulating ideal was based on a market made of small or medium businesses, and today the classic capitalists (e.g., Friedman) still try to treat the market as such. But the giant corporations gain such advantages they escape market controls, as well as government efforts to make up for that escape. Both fiscal and monetary controls affect small business primarily; for example, large corporations will acquire their own reserve capital, are able to invest without borrowing, and so avoid raised interest rates meant to reduce prices (inflation).

If I'm not mistaken, that is the thrust of Gene's point . . . that when the market is left alone, and as time passes and a relative few gain extraordinary size and advantages, they are able to escape the regulating effects of the market.

Using the state-guided and decidedly non-free China market to make that point seems like the wrong way to make that point.

And the Libertarian-ish people I know would argue that considering the United States as a 'free' market, with banks that have a vested interest in inflating housing prices, etc., is a bit of a non-correct-comparison as well.

And... just as 'communist' countries historically have blended some portion of capitalism with state control, 'libertarian' countries, if they were ever to exist, should and could blend some portion of regulation with libertarianism. Of course libertarians would want less 'regulation' but really the regulation shouldn't be killed outright. I know some/many libertarians believe otherwise, of course.

[les3547]

And the Libertarian-ish people I know would argue that considering the United States as a 'free' market, with banks that have a vested interest in inflating housing prices, etc., is a bit of a non-correct-comparison as well.

You don't have to be LIbertarianish to argue that.

[GeneV]

Using the state-guided and decidedly non-free China market to make that point seems like the wrong way to make that point.

And the Libertarian-ish people I know would argue that considering the United States as a 'free' market, with banks that have a vested interest in inflating housing prices, etc., is a bit of a non-correct-comparison as well.

And... just as 'communist' countries historically have blended some portion of capitalism with state control, 'libertarian' countries, if they were ever to exist, should and could blend some portion of regulation with libertarianism. Of course libertarians would want less 'regulation' but really the regulation shouldn't be killed outright. I know some/many libertarians believe otherwise, of course.

Please explain what you think the government of China does which makes it harder for the Chinese worker to simply walk away and find a better job, as the Libertarian ideal would assume?

FoxConn is a huge, dominant, publicly owned, multinational corporation--the kind that markets seem to produce these days the more "free" they get. From what I understand, other company in China behaves similarly, because that is what they need to do to compete with FoxConn, with 40% of the consumer electronics manufacturing in the entire world.

Les hit the nail on the head with the problem with the Libertarian ideal. Adam Smith predicted similar problems when huge public corporations distort the market. As I mentioned in the OP, large, unregulated American corporations did the same thing in the 19th Century.

Really, isn't the difference between a "Libertarian" and any other economic conservative (originally classic economic liberalism) the difference between no regulation at all and some regulation?

[mikemike]

Please explain what you think the government of China does which makes it harder for the Chinese worker to simply walk away and find a better job, as the Libertarian ideal would assume?

It doesn't give people born in rural provinces permits to permanently move to an urban area, so if someone is a migratory worker for Foxconn living in the dorms and they quit, they are now a unemployed homeless outlaw in the eyes of the local government. They are not able to receive medical care or housing outside of an employer and are supposed to go home. The government of china also has extremely high barriers to entry for foreign companies, the process of getting started there is complicated, and the banks, electric, and telecom companies are all government owned so businesses have an intimate relationship with businesses making blackballing someone more possible and making it difficult to get off the assembly line unless you are a loyal party member. None of these characteristics of doing business in China even remotely resemble a free market even if there is a laissez faire attitude towards the environment or treatment of migratory workers in fact, those problems are part of the problem that the society views that environment and those workers as property of the state rather than as free individuals.

China's economic landscape is not command and control, but it is still quintessentially communist.

[boriscleto]

BBC News - Can China keep its workers happy as strikes and protests rise?

[Wheatfield]

It doesn't give people born in rural provinces permits to permanently move to an urban area, so if someone is a migratory worker for Foxconn living in the dorms and they quit, they are now a unemployed homeless outlaw in the eyes of the local government. They are not able to receive medical care or housing outside of an employer and are supposed to go home. The government of china also has extremely high barriers to entry for foreign companies, the process of getting started there is complicated, and the banks, electric, and telecom companies are all government owned so businesses have an intimate relationship with businesses making blackballing someone more possible and making it difficult to get off the assembly line unless you are a loyal party member. None of these characteristics of doing business in China even remotely resemble a free market even if there is a laissez faire attitude towards the environment or treatment of migratory workers in fact, those problems are part of the problem that the society views that environment and those workers as property of the state rather than as free individuals.

China's economic landscape is not command and control, but it is still quintessentially communist.

If a worker in the USA loses his job, he loses his health insurance, and when his savings are gone, his abode as well. How is getting arrested for vagrancy in California substantially different from being arrested for the same thing in Beijing? The government of the USA also has barriers to the entry of foreign companies, a byzantine tax system and many, many roadblocks to a foreigner starting a company. Your government is just as owned by large American companies as Chinese companies are "owned" by the Chinese government. I suspect that the end result is pretty similar to each other in both countries.
Your various levels of government are always under lobbyist pressure to pass labour laws that are business friendly, even when they are against the best interests of the citizenry.
While you are correct in your assessment, when one sits back and makes comparisons such as this, one realizes that it is only a matter of degree that separates your country from theirs, and what has made the differentiation is the labour unions that most Republicans would seem to like to do away with.

[mikemike]

If a worker in the USA loses his job, he loses his health insurance, and when his savings are gone, his abode as well. How is getting arrested for vagrancy in California substantially different from being arrested for the same thing in Beijing?

If you are arrested for vagrancy in LA you don't have to worry about getting deported back to the wheat fields. The legality of your residence status also determines your access to food rations and grain subsidies and I didn't say medical insurance I said not able to receive medical care as in you go to the doctor and instead of providing treatment they tell you to go to your doctor back home.

Given the amount of services and needs that are fulfilled by the state and the employer, the wages make more sense too. Many americans with no more than a middle school education have $0 left over after paying for housing, food, transportation, medicine, work clothes, and entertainment while the chinese workers at foxconn have all of those needs fulfilled and still have some money in the bank to send back home to help their even poorer families.

[GeneV]

It doesn't give people born in rural provinces permits to permanently move to an urban area, so if someone is a migratory worker for Foxconn living in the dorms and they quit, they are now a unemployed homeless outlaw in the eyes of the local government. They are not able to receive medical care or housing outside of an employer and are supposed to go home. The government of china also has extremely high barriers to entry for foreign companies, the process of getting started there is complicated, and the banks, electric, and telecom companies are all government owned so businesses have an intimate relationship with businesses making blackballing someone more possible and making it difficult to get off the assembly line unless you are a loyal party member. None of these characteristics of doing business in China even remotely resemble a free market even if there is a laissez faire attitude towards the environment or treatment of migratory workers in fact, those problems are part of the problem that the society views that environment and those workers as property of the state rather than as free individuals.

China's economic landscape is not command and control, but it is still quintessentially communist.

Really off the mark, there mentioning communism. Communism would mean that the government owned Foxconn, and that the government set these standards. These standards are being set by the private market. The competitive advantage to the company from them was a big factor in getting Apple's contract.

As Bill points out, the consequences of losing a job here are not dissimilar. Actually, limiting the number who can move to the city and work would seem to move the bargaining power in favor of the workers. How does that make it harder to bargain for better conditions? They are working that way because that is their company's competitive advantage.

[ElJamoquio]

No argument that China is not a 'completely' or 'theoretically' Communist country, but at the same time giving large businesses a lot of freedom and workers very few freedoms is even moreso not a libertarian community.

Saying that losing your job here is bad, too... well, it's true, but in my mind, it's a bit like saying 'both Mexico and Massachusetts have environmental laws'. Sure it has a negative impact but the degree of 'negative impact' isn't nearly as bad. In the US (or a theoretical libertarian country), it's easier to form a union, it's easier to start a business yourself, it's easier to go work for someone else who's taken advantage of how easy it is to start a business here; you don't get deported if you quit, you've never had 'forced labor' driving down prices, you don't (at least in the case of a theoretical libertarian society) have the federal government actively working to keep your currency price low and hence your world-comparison wage low, etc., etc., etc.

[Ratmagiclady]

It's not a 'free market' if someone already *owns* it and then wants there to be no voice of 'We The People.'

[mikemike]

As Bill points out, the consequences of losing a job here are not dissimilar. Actually, limiting the number who can move to the city and work would seem to move the bargaining power in favor of the workers. How does that make it harder to bargain for better conditions? They are working that way because that is their company's competitive advantage.

We are discussing china here not the US, but deportation within the same country is not on the table here and your legal status, housing, food supply, access to medical care (not medical insurance plus you have COBRA here too), and other services are not so tightly coupled with your employment at a specific employer in the USA. These migrant workers are like H1B workers on steroids and you won't find any company with an office where 75% of the workers are H1B workers like you have at some of these chinese factories.

One potentially meritorious thing about this system vs. the US system dealing with "company towns" is that this might be more sustainable urban planning. If there were a US company lets say "wolfconn" that got the contract to build the next gen of ipads and ipods and they decided to throw up a huge new factory in a small-to-midsize town iPod City, USA which offered them an incentive to come to town and where the land was cheap, wolfconn would build the factory and thats it. Hundreds of thousands of workers would flock to the town and build new houses to live in and the town would double or triple in size in a matter of a few years. Foxconn would scale back iPod City, China and lay off half their workforce, they could convert the dorms into apartments and instead of cramming 100,000 people into spartan living quarters, they can house 10,000 families comfortably and if there are any losses, Foxconn is holding the bag. Years later when iPod City, USA goes downhill and becomes the next Flint, MI while Wolfconn just writes off a fully depreciated factory.

[GeneV]

We are discussing china here not the US, but deportation within the same country is not on the table here and your legal status, housing, food supply, access to medical care (not medical insurance plus you have COBRA here too), and other services are not so tightly coupled with your employment at a specific employer in the USA. These migrant workers are like H1B workers on steroids and you won't find any company with an office where 75% of the workers are H1B workers like you have at some of these chinese factories.

In a Libertarian society, don't you pay for your own healthcare? Doesn't that depend upon your having a job and an income? There is no safety net in the Libertarian society, so you lose everything when you lose your income.

It seems you are trying very hard to find something "government" to be the villain here, when it really is supply and demand--the Libertarian law. There are millions upon millions living in rural conditions which they want to escape, so workers have no bargaining power. They make less, live in mud huts and have no health care back in their village. The main issue with unemployment is that they have to go home. Legality of their status seems to be the least of their problems. MIGRANT WORKERS IN CHINA - China | Facts and Details

As long as there are more people who need a job than there are jobs, then in the absence of laws protecting workers, there is no bottom to what multinational corporations will expect of them.

[mikemike]

Psst... I guess we will have to agree to disagree about whether or not the freedom to move within one's country is a trademark of libertarian or a communist society and to what degree the migrant workers impact wages in China.

Borodin: Do you think they will let me live in Montana?
Capt. Ramius: I would think they'll let you live wherever you want.
Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pick-up truck, or umm... possibly even...a recreational vehicle, and drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Capt. Ramius: Oh yes.
Borodin: No papers?
Capt. Ramius: No papers. State-to-state.

-Hunt For the Red October

And as I said, when you take into perspective that by living on site a worker's housing, food, medical, utilities, clothes, and entertainment needs are covered even a pittance of a wage could make someone with equal experience and skills living in the US envious because a Foxconn worker has "made ends meet" and still has some money left over at the end of the month.

In a Libertarian society, don't you pay for your own healthcare? Doesn't that depend upon your having a job and an income? There is no safety net in the Libertarian society, so you lose everything when you lose your income.

It means that you need to have either money saved or the ability to earn money. If you have saved money you don't lose that and if you have skills you don't lose those when you lose your job. If you decided to retire tomorrow, you could always return to law or possibly use your legal knowledge in a barter arrangement or return to work if necessary.

If you focus too much on just money, you will lose sight of what is really important in life and possibilities to get through it happier by sometimes being creative with trading.