Slashdot Mirror
How Car Dealership Lobbyists Successfully Banned Tesla Motors From Texas
Funksaw writes "In a political op-ed on his blog, long time Slashdot reader and contributor Brian Boyko (the guy who did that animated Windows 8 video) — now a candidate for state representative — explains how lobbyists from car dealerships successfully banned Tesla Motors from selling cars in Texas. From the article: 'Tesla Motors doesn't just present a case study of why a lack of campaign finance reform blocks meaningful reform on the issues that Democrats care about, like climate change and health care. A lack of campaign finance reform blocks reforms on both the Left and the Right. Here's the big elephant in the room I'd like to point out to all the "elephants" in the room: With a Republican-controlled legislature, a Republican executive, and many conservatives in our judiciary, why the hell don't we have free markets in Texas? Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used? I'm not saying the conservatives are right in these assumptions; but I am saying that our broken campaign finance system makes a mockery of them.'"
They don't want a Free Market, they want a Free For Them Market, screw everyone else.
Also, with how I saw Red McCombs screwing around San Antonio while I lived in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.
Texas doesn't want electric cars because it goes against their oil industry, which pretty much runs the state.
Yep. Anyone can describe a utopian economic system ("Under communism, everyone will work together for the common good!" "Under capitalism, competition and individual choice will lead to the greatest possible efficiency!") but in the real world, they all tend toward cronyism and corruption. Every single time.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Ever see the shirt with the outline of an elephant humping the outline of a donkey? Republicans have NO desire for free market. They push corporatism. Demoncrats have NO desire for free market. They push socialism.
Simple, apt explanation. Are you stuck in primary school, Funksaw? This is sort of common-knowledge these days.
some car companies lobby for money from the government to stay afloat, when they should go bankrupt. they're given the money.
another car company lobbies the government for some cash to get off the ground, pointing out how competitors have no chance against established car companies that are propped up by the federal government. they're given the money.
the established car companies' networks lobby in Texas ....etc etc etc.
it's crony capitalism all the way down.
Republicans don't want free-market.
Democrats don't want free-market.
They both want different lobbys to pay them (in campaign donations) for the "privilege" of not being encumbered by regulations of the other party.
Libertarians (both big "L" and little "l") generally want free-markets.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This is exactly how neoconservatives view the free market. Politicians and laws are part of the market and fair game. A company will always strive to maximize profits, if buying laws and legislators maximizes profits so be it.
This is the free market as neoconservatives see it, whoever has the most capital wins.
Some backwards people just want to make a lot of noise and blow smoke.
Signature intentionally left blank.
The free market here is in politicians, not autos.
I think it's cute that the synopsis above thinks Texas has a lot of conservatives in its government. Republicans != conservatives, at least not universially.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Texas is trying to convince Space-X to build a launch facility near Brownsville, TX. Someone may have forgotten that Elon Musk runs both Space-X and Tesla.
Exactly. Since when have Republicans actually championed free markets (as opposed to doing them lip service)? Maybe you're thinking of Libertarians.
It's hard for me to have sympathy for tesla when every article claims that X state or Y state is ZOMG BANNING TESLA. No one is banning Tesla. It's intellectually dishonest. Tesla is whining that they don't like the rules, so they're just going to take their ball and go home. Look. It's the law. Want to sell cars? Get dealerships. Don't like the law? Lobby to change it. I would be a lot more interested in what Tesla and their supporters have to say if they would just present the facts honestly. It strikes me as a lot of whining and crying "unfair," when changing the law specifically for Tesla strikes me as less fair (however inevitable and necessary for that to happen *in due time*).
Where is the allowed acceptance of corporate campaign contributions covered in there? I don't see it. Notice my wording, running for and holding office is a choice, it's completely voluntary. By choosing to run for and, potentially, hold office you must agree to the rules. If those rules say you cannot accept compensation from for-profit corporations (as opposed to non-profit political organizations), then you cannot. Constitution not violated.
Here's what the Tesla site says:
http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas
Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php
And Auto News:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Republicans aren't free market libertarians, they are corporatists. Corporatists go complaining to the government when their long standing business model is challenged. Look throughout US history and you'll see examples going all the way back to the decline of the railroad empires.
It wasn't a new law that kept Tesla out of Texas. The law that car makers couldn't sell direct to consumers in the state has been there for years. Tesla can sell all the cars he wants in Texas. He just has to get someone to open dealerships just like GM, Ford, Toyota and all the others.
They're not saying that Tesla can't sell their cars in Texas. They're saying that Tesla can't deal them without using a third party dealership.
Its one of the old monopoly laws. Another one would be movie theaters. They used to be owned almost entirely by movie studios. That is, universal, etc would literally own the theater. They broke up most of those relationships and now you have to have separate corporations for many of these things.
Tesla could probably sell their cars just fine if they contracted with the local dealerships. Why they don't... I do not know.
Regardless, I agree that companies should be able to sell their products directly. After all, doesn't Apple have Apple stores that sell apple laptops directly? And then there are all the direct internet retailers. I can buy a computer direct from dell or a pair of socks direct from the gap. And the gap "makes" those socks. They're "gap" socks.
So I agree, the law is dumb. But it is actually very easy to get around it by just dealing with the dealerships instead of setting up your own.
AGAIN... I agree... it s dumb. But its manageable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I read the laws tesla is lobbying for on their website, it's a rather specific exemption from the dealership law for basically them:
"a manufacturer of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, or a distributor of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, that (i) owned and operated a new motor vehicle dealership in the United States on or before March 1, 2013, and (ii) has never sold its line make in the United States through an independent franchised new motor vehicle dealership, may own or operate a dealer or dealership, or act in the capacity of a dealer, at any location within the state and may obtain a dealer general distinguishing number under Section 503.029 of the Transportation Code."
"let's write ourselves an exemption, but slam the door on anyone coming after us"
Tesla is not banned from Texas, they are banned from having dealerships. I just test drove (and will probably buy) the Tesla sedan last Friday here through the Tesla showroom at the Domain in Austin. I now have to simply go online and order one, and it will be delivered right here to Austin, Texas. In addition Tesla has an agreement with a local repair shop for any servicing, and they are building a charging infrastructure here in the state. So you can't say they've been banned, only that they have been prevented from having a tradition all in one place solution.
And I find it so amazingly ironic that all of the Republicans in this state who pontificate about the free market and demonize regulation would fight to keep the dealership system. It is exactly the kind of regulation they usually abhor, and prevents the capitalist system from working. The hypocrisy is unfortunately sadly predictable for those on the right in Texas. This is the same group that has passed a voter ID law to suppress the voting rights of the disadvantaged, even though in the last ten years there have only been 4 cases of voting fraud that could have been stopped with the ID law.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing, but it _is_ very political. Planet Money had an explanation of the economics of car dealerships and how dealerships and politicians prevent sales directly to consumers.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
One should be able to petition his government without having to first fill their coffers; to that same end, one should not be able to purchase a greater amount of influence than any other American has.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So he spends a good deal of time talking about how contributions are perverting the process and finishes his post with ....
And if you can spare it, kick in some money to my campaign. Lord knows that after this post, Iâ(TM)m not getting any money from the Texas Automobile Dealers Association.
All of that regulation is for sale. The more power the govt has, the more it will be up on the auction block to the highest bidder. A more powerful govt is the last thing anyone should want.
I have come to believe that "the invisible hand of the free market" is an euphemism for "MY invisible hand ON the free market"
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
Laws go to the highest bidder. What could be more free market?
The invisible hand of the market determines who gets what resource by slipping fat checks into the right persons pockets.
Exactly the same thing can be said about Democrats. Don't play partisan politics. They are both the same.
I want to be a corrupt crony, you insensitive clod!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I call that the invisible hand job.
All the more reason to call them out on it.
I don't see much there for corporations, only for the people.
The issue is that Republicans are liars and at the end of the day are all just homophobic Democrats. Bush was not a conservative, not by any real economic measure, but that is Rove and Ailes fault. Of course when you look at the war-agitprop and unapologetic positions of Democrat leadership then you sson realize that democrats are just hedonist war-mongers. Their common fault is that they all believe that their party can fix what the other party has broken. I always refer to politics with the same analogy: It is just like professional wrestling. When the cameras are on and the stage is set they are bitter enemies, smashing each with rhetorical chairs and over-the-top storylines. When the lights are turned down and the crowd goes home, they are all backstage drinking beers and swapping wives. In the end its because the biggest corporatist-whores are the media themselves, the media that has never known a war that it at first didnt love and cheer-lead for, the media that always implicilty calls for legislative action, the same media that can get caught red-handed in a lie but never apologize or be punished. #CNNMakesYouDumb
The first amendment doesn't specify HOW one may petition the government for redress of grievances or guarantee equal access to that right - it just prohibits Congress from making laws abridging that right (which, campaign finance reform does in the opinion of some).
Consider, if you ban all money from such redress efforts as you seem to suggest would be "fair". That might require each individual to meet with their representative in person as stamps, paper, and internet access cost money and only those with sufficient resources could afford those. Of course, that creates an interesting unfairness in itself, as only those that can afford to pay for transport to the representative's office (Washington DC in the case of the President) could practically petition their government.
Almost all speech requires money -- either in form of direct/like kind costs (cost of paper, envelopes, stamps, posters...), opportunity costs (forgone wages), or indirect costs (petitioner paying someone to mow their lawn because they are too busy petitioning their representative to do so themselves).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
This is what the "free market" looks like, Texas-style.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not sure why this is news. Had it taken so long to figure this out.
But Democrats don't sell themselves as wanting completely free and unregulated markets. That's not to say they are hypocrites about other things but in this case it is more about Republicans.
Who knew?
Seriously, if they do, it must be in some far-off country I have no experience of. This one here, not so much.
Keep going back -- look up Whiskey Rebellion.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
welcome to our political/economic reality.
you have two options.
Be paid up with the right people
or
Fail in a public forum (Texas in this case) as a result of not being paid up with the right people and hope for political pressure to get you through.
Tesla i feel has the option to go either way, but I applaud them taking the high road, pun intended, here.
The real problem only arises when you can't afford either option. In which case you just might be reaching for a larger market than you as a company can support.
Not saying it's the best system, or even sufficiently "good" to pass most tests for "ok". but it's been this way since the beginning.
Tesla v Edison
North v South
Ford v the automobile industry
blah blah blah
I might be alone in this, but if a law/decision is made that limits a person, group of people, company, or business model there needs to be safety or environmental reasons for it or IMO it is based on personal rhetoric or personal gain. Of course, in this world gone mad, finding someone to say that allowing direct to consumer marketing is killing children and polluting the gene pool is pretty easy. So who you are paying shifts... then what?
I can imagine someone arguing this is the free market working. Lobbying and representation is a product, and those with the most money are purchasing it.
This past weekend I walked by the Tesla store in Houston. I guess one of their employees got a dealer's license or something. I know two people with dealer's licenses, one owns a small dealership and the other sells a few cars a month from his front yard, so I guess it's not THAT big of a deal.
the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used? I'm not saying the conservatives are right in these assumptions; but I am saying that our broken campaign finance system makes a mockery of them.
Good. They deserve to be mocked.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Those who banned Tesla are not -- by definition -- corporatists, because Tesla Motors is a corporation.
Those who banned Tesla are simply idiots. Replacing them with corporatists would be a big step up.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
The free market means the rich are free to do whatever the fuck they want to, and everyone else is free to shut the fuck up about it.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
No franchisee has given money to Telsa to start selling their cars, so there's no one who needs those protections.
You forgot about the domino theory. The reason the dealerships oppose this is that it simply opens the door to question their position. It's the same reason that pro-choice folks fight so hard against any laws that restrict abortion and pro-gun folks fight so hard against any laws that restrict gun-ownership. Maybe it even explains why Amazon used to fire all of it's employees in a state if they threated impose sales taxes on internet sales. The rationale often given is that if only one domino falls, then the others are at risk.
This is not “Regulator Capture”.
As your definition states it is when industry and regulators swap jobs often so the insider dominate. In Texas the regulators and car industry and not swapping jobs. This is a concern when the industry is highly technical – see Wall Street vs. SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, etc. Joint the SEC as a junior lawyer, understand the byzantine laws, go private for 10 times the price.
No, what I think you are looking for is: “” from the late Congressional rep Tip O'Neill. Car dealerships tend to dominate local politics since they tend to be owned by local families.
OK, RTFA.
EXISTING laws proscribe direct sale to the consumers. Argue if you want about how those laws cam into existence, but they are in fact, the law and predate Tesla.
Tesla wanted the laws changed. So they were actually the ones lobbying for a special exemption.
Texas didn't ban Tesla cars, they didn't change the existing laws to accommodate Tesla's sales model. You can argue about that being smart or not, but Telas's cars are NOT banned.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Disclaimer: I'm Canadian, but I have been to texas once.
Ok, 1) Read TFA, 2) don't know much about selling cars (hate BUYING them enough).
Is it possible for Tesla to franchise out a small Tesla dealership in these states? ie, play by the rules? Perhaps only to the barest letter of the "rules"?
Are they not allowed to set a "no haggle price" model with the dealership? I'm not sure why not, since The Saturn Car company did that. They either allow for a few points for the dealership in a "dealership price" in texas, or they take a few points hit when selling in this model in texas. or both. It would then give them access to those markets.
It really does seem like they're playing chicken, or "ok, if I can't play my way, I'm taking my marbles and going home".
Perhaps they hope to change the system. I would love to see that sort of thing happen.
The title of this was "How Car Dealership Lobbyists Successfully Banned Tesla Motors From Texas". Yet no where in the summary, link or video didn't it exactly explain how. It hints at not being able to bypass the car dealership laws, but then one of the dealers says that Tesla was looking for an exception to the car dealership laws.
Well, which is it? Was a new law passed banning Tesla from selling directly, or were the no-direct-sell laws already in place and Tesla wanted them changed? Because those are two VERY different things.
There is a difference between spending money to come see me and sending me a check.
My wife who knew Alex Fraser and went to his wedding heard all about this situation. Since then not much has changed except Milo Minderbinder saw the light of day around the time of expo 86 and let the transit board build advanced public transit but only in the lower mainland, from which his organization(s) are profiting nicely to say the least. So far he has not approved any real rapid transit for his empire on Vancouver Island though as it would cut into car sales there to say the least.
So Texas is definitely not the only place where the politics of the car dominate things. I was offered an opportunity to run for the organization up in Northern British Columbia against the incumbent socialist MLA. I turned them down. However the individual who did accept the free ride into automotive politics, Al Passarell an NDP turn coat didn't live to make a difference. Though he could have and most likely would have. It is almost as if someone up there is pulling the strings in BC. The ghost of WAC Bennett is up in the clouds working a remote control and this is how the Sky Train really works it is not run by computer at all
Funny but in the many years since the Milo Minderbinder political organization magically disappeared from the landscape, in the background the same organization is still pulling the strings just under a more liberal banner!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
This might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
But you forget; corporations are people too! Why, you ask? Well, because they said so, and their voices are much louder than those of us "human" people.
Neither party wants a free market. The difference is one of those parties makes a lot of speeches about wanting a free market.
OK, RTFA.
EXISTING laws proscribe direct sale to the consumers. Argue if you want about how those laws cam into existence, but they are in fact, the law and predate Tesla.
Tesla wanted the laws changed. So they were actually the ones lobbying for a special exemption.
Texas didn't ban Tesla cars, they didn't change the existing laws to accommodate Tesla's sales model. You can argue about that being smart or not, but Telas's cars are NOT banned.
Don't let such trivial things like FACTS get in the way of a good political mud-slinging. Whether you're red, blue, or green (or any other color) you must blindly applaud anything done by your guy and boo the others.
Did you know that, here, we can go to one of several websites and buy a new car from any manufacturer, usually with a significant discount over list, together with a mandatory manufacturer's warranty that has to be honoured by that manufacturer's service outlets?
The Health Service is creaking a bit though...
so from the title of the discussion, the blurb and the first, i dunno, 25 posts i was under the impression that the evil republicans came together to pass a law that bans them from selling cars. Down at post 100 or so, someone who's actually informed correctly states that there's a law where no manufacturer can own a dealership, which is something completely different. In fact some other poster states that they have a showroom and will ship directly to your area.
This is downright misleading in so many regards. I have no problem with the texas law. I have no problem with how tesla has to sell cars. This isn't something new, it's always been like this in texas.
The editors should be ashamed they didn't bother to do any homework on the subject.
There are two kinds of Libertarians.
Idiots who are too naive to understand that libertarianism leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism, and
Monopolist Vulture Capitalists.
They do all the time. The problem here is Texas politics, not "republicans". Get a list of Texas law makers, regardless of affliation, and put a check mark next to the ones with interests in car dealerships. That will illustrate the problem very nicely. And you'll see plenty of democrats in the list, my friend.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
The first amendment doesn't specify HOW one may petition the government for redress of grievances or guarantee equal access to that right
The 14th Amendment specifies that all persons are to receive equal treatment under the law, and since the 14th applies universally, then there very much is a guarantee of equal access, which current campaign finance laws illegally prevent.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Here's what the Tesla site says: http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas
Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php
And Auto News: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla
Could you put that into a car analogy for us?
...
( ducks and runs for cover )
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
"Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? "
No, no it is not. Ayn Rand lunacy is, but nothing actual rooted in reality. Hasn't worked in over 100 years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
so you \have no idea what you are talking about then?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I';m aware of it, but since it didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written, I doubt it was intended to apply. It is clear that the Constitution's use of 'the People' meant actual human beings.
You have the government you desire. Your non-response serves only to confirm that. Accept it and live with it. And do try to be just a tiny bit more original when trolling, mmkay?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So what you are saying is that this Democrat (who we all know favor strong consumer protection) wants to eliminate one of the oldest consumer protection laws on the books? If he had anything intelligent to say on the subject he would have proposed how to accomplish letting the manufacturer sell directly and provide the same protection to the consumer instead of lying by stating that the politicians acted to prevent Tesla from selling directly (as 47 other states also do, so perhaps it actually has some rational basis). Too many Democrats and Republicans alike are all about picking who wins and who loses, and not on reason, equality, or constitutionality; and this guy's true colors are showing in that regard. It sounds to me like he thinks politicians are for sale and he just wants in on the gravy train.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
They wanted to leave the USA and become their own country. Why would any one be surprised by this?
They don't want a Free Market, they want a Free For Them Market, screw everyone else.
Also, with how I saw Red McCombs screwing around San Antonio while I lived in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.
"Conservative or Free Market in Name Only"
One thing to remember when talking about Southern Conservatives is many of them were Democrats only decades ago - they're more Socially Conservative than anything else. Government handouts are frowned upon in group, but separately they all want their own special targeted assistance, call them tax breaks or subsidies or grants if you like, they're all the same, making someone else pay for their aid. And in this case it's a matter of harming a potential competitor, much like the Big 3 wanted when the Japanese were busy selling innovative little cars put together by highly efficient assembly methods.
Ooh, evil government! Liberals interfering with businesses! Such a lot of horse hockey.
Better competition should make you raise your game and improve on your product and services, but beg for government interference.
Liberals, Conservatives or Centrists can all be wonderful or rotten, just depends upon what their actual priorities are. Some are more of the other side of the aisle they'll even admit anyway.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Its a computer with a really nice set of wheels :-)
Greed is the root of all evil.
You obviously are not from Texas. When a small town in Texas has only one restaurant, it is a Dairy Queen, not a McDonalds.
Your not talking about Libertarians, you are talking about the hypocritical ultra-conservatives that call themselves the Libertarian Party of America. They have nothing to do Classical Libertarianism.
With a Republican-controlled legislature, a Republican executive, and many conservatives in our judiciary, why the hell don't we have free markets in Texas? Isn't it the very core of economic-conservative theory that the invisible hand of the free market determines who gets what resources? Doesn't the free market have the ability to direct resources to where they can most efficiently be used?
Republicans claim to be in favor of free markets. For the most part they are interested in lining their own pockets even at the expense of free markets. Even most democrats claim to be in favor of regulated *mostly* free markets, but too are in the business of selling us out to corporations in exchange for personal gain.
Just because our current politicians make their living by undermining a free market, does not mean a free market is not a worthy goal. If Tesla (and all car companies) were able to sell cars without going through a middle man dealership, this would constitute a free-er market, and be better for consumers.
So far, nobody's mentioned in the discussion the following angle on the story:
OK. So dealerships don't like being cut out. And they don't like it. Of course not. They're small businesses. They're owned by families, not giant corporations, and those families are terrified that all the rest of the giant corporations will cut them out the way that Tesla does. Is it really so much better when Tesla Corp (or Elon Musk, for that matter) keeps all the profit instead of sharing a small percent with a local family?
I'm not a car dealer. Just thought maybe this was a point worth considering.
I sincerely dislike whoever voted you down. I would further extend contention 3 however, and say cronyism is human nature. Gamesmanship is an art practiced by many. No matter what system is I'm place corruption is going to happen.
At that point...no matter what syste...the gov is supposed to fix it.
Unfortunately governments placing high value on wealth is not unique to capitalism.
Most Slashdotters can understand that being a Liberal does not necessarily make one a Socialist or Communist. Why then do we accept the pigeonholing of all Libertarians as Anarchists/Anarcho-Capitalists? Those among the political right who cast the diverse group we know as Liberals into Socialist/Communist box are mocked for their ignorance -- and rightfully so. Yet, those among the political left who cast the diverse group we know as Libertarians into the Anarchist/Anarcho-Capitalist box are applauded, rewarded as is the case here through moderation.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
What they can't do in the showroom is tell you how much the car costs (although who knows if they abide by this) or take your order. So no. They are not selling the cars in Texas, they are simply promoting them and then allowing the laws on interstate commerce to make room for the rest.
Bottles.
leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism
What's the case for your claim that libertarianism leads to "monopolism"? The ideology deliberately weaken government which is the both the most powerful sort of monopoly out there and the principal creator of monopolies historically.
And what's supposed to be wrong with vulture capitalism? Capitalism has always been fairly good at disposing of dying businesses and obsolete capital. I think part of the problem here is arbitrary moral rules that don't actually help anyone.
Well, some would say that a political entity being "more tactful/less blatant about achieving its end goal" is "more insidious"
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2712605&cid=39277125
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
What I don't get is that the bill that was written had it as a PENALTY. Thats what was voted on in congress. SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional as a TAX yet I find it odd that congress didn't have to go back and vote on the bill with the clarity of it being a tax.
Perhaps a dumb question but: How is it that the Affordable Care Act is being implemented when the congress voted on it based on penalties but that was found to be unconstitutional....and congress didn't have to re-vote on the bill to be passed after the SCOTUS ruling that said it had to be a tax?? I've been wondering that now for some time.
If they were indeed corporatists, they would be be championing and empowering Tesla as one of the new generation of technology conglomerates that allows the US to out-compete its economic adversaries. It seems to be some small-town protectionism from representatives who fear accusations of "destroying Texan jobs", or worse *gasp* "allowing Californians to make money off of Texas" when elections come around.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Because the basic assumptions of Libertarianism are flawed. Libertarianism as expressed by Rand, and economic theories based on or expounded by Libertarianism are flawed from the beginning because it assumes people will always act rationally and without fraud. Hence the ACposter was right, there are 2 kinds of Libertarians.
That is not to say that elements of Libertarian philosophy aren't useful in tempering over-reach by government regulators. For example, I think regulations strictly designed to limit competition such as limits on taxi vehicles should be reduced or eliminated. I think regulations that create undo barriers to entry for trades are unnecessary. For example, the state where I reside wants people who do hair weaving to be licensed as barbers which requires extensive training and apprenticeships. I think beyond the reasonable expectation that persons doing tasks that require "intimate" contact with people should be competent and not be a health hazard, the other requirements are designed as a barrier to entry and result in protected markets that do not function well.
But Libertarians these days spend their time demonizing government on all levels, and not recognizing the role that government does and should play in our society. They do not recognize economic terms like "public good" "excludability" "Rivalrous" to distinguish between markets that can only be public and non-exploitable. Everything to them should be privatized. That is a flawed understanding of economics.
You don't seem to know what the invisible hand is. It a market correction. The US revolution was an action by the "invidible hand." The market was skewed (everyone was forced to pay taxes for services not received). So the market issued a correction. The invisible hand has been misused to justify all sorts of bad acts. Worse, the law has been used as a buffer/diversion of the invisible hand.
Learn to love Alaska
The problem here is Texas politics
No different than Illinois politics. Except, of course, that both of our previous Governors, one Democrat and one Republican, went to prison after office. The last Governor is still incarcerated.
But I know bar owners here in the capital city, you think selling cars is politically rough and dirty...
Free Martian Whores!
I'm a libertarian and I believe none of those things you attribute to "Libertarians". You're stereotyping and confusing classic libertarianism with the writings of people like Rand.
Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.
Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?
Solving real world problems requires trade-offs, and the extremes are always (ha!) the wrong answer. But view any government power as a negative in the assessment. We want some service or oversight, great, what the least cost way to get what we want, viewing centralized power as a significant cost?
You're confusing that I think with people who don't want the services in the first place, and use "no government" as an excuse. There are very few such people, but they are noisy.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Trust me when I tell you that a free market is not always a good thing.
Our Electricity costs come to mind. Ever since they were de-regulated and allowed to become "competitive" via free market,
electricity has never been higher.
Who wouldn't want to buy a damn car without the nightmare of going to the dealer and having to play that silly ass game. . .
Me: How much is the car ? ..
Them: What would you like your payments to be ?
Me: I am capable of math thanks, how much is the damn car ?
Them: What will it take to get you to buy one today ?
Me: You telling me the overall price would be a great start . . . . .
Them: Okay. The price is X !
Me: Great, I'm paying cash ! Let's do the paperwork !
Them: CASH ?! Oh we can't do this price cash, I need to go talk to my manager . .
Me: You have fun with that, I'm going to go cut my wrists now. . .
Show me an example of an evil monopoly or vulture capitalist that has endured without government intervention.
I await your response.
On the other hand, I can show you many examples of unintended consequences that backfired. Dollars to doughnuts that the original legislation mandating dealer car sales was in response to some perceived market malfunction.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.
That's nice to know. However, most of the people who I know who describe themselves as libertarian promote some combination of those ideas to me. Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?
If you want to talk corporate person hood then what right did the dealerships have to block another dealership from operating? That's a big old court case just WAITING to happen.
And the dealers could have chosen to carry Tesla models too. So this leads me to believe there's another motive. Consider one of the biggest boosters of electric vehicles - it's President Obama. So it all boils down to hatred of the President not because he's a bad guy but because, and I'll piss some folks off here, but because he is black by the one drop rule.
I want to be a corrupt crony, you insensitive clod!
This is the internet, you're going to have to settle for being a corrupt brony.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I'm also a 'moderate libertarian' here, and oh heck is "There are very few such people, but they are noisy." true.
Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?
Very much so.
Let's look at schools and prisons. Both are something that you can, in theory, privatize. However it's been my experience that while private schools(especially religious ones such as Catholic schools, and I'm an atheist) can often educate a child better for less money, private prisons tend to be a mess. Ergo - private schools are okay, I support vouchers, though you constantly have to monitor said private schools to make sure they start and remain effective. Prisons, on the other hand, need to be public - but there's a lot of space because an overly powerful prison guard union can drag down a public prison as effectively as corporate greed can drag down a private one. It's all about balance, because once you get into colleges 'for profit' schools suck majorly - delivering low value education(worse rates at jobs/lower salaries) at high expense. They spend proportionally more on advertising and such...
I think it's because parents concerned enough to send their child to a private school, even profit ones, is a step removed, but they're there more or less constantly to do quality assessment. But I still prefer non-profits(not necessarily religious).
I don't think it's too much to ask that we regularly review various programs for effectiveness. If it's not effective, it should be dropped. If it's not the most cost effective way to do something, why aren't we using them? Not everything is about profit, but look at our prisons - other countries and even some states within the USA have shown that an emphasis on reform, alternative punishments like house arrest & ankle bracelets work and can cut the time you need to toss somebody into prison for by 2/3rds while producing a released prisoner that's 2/3rds less likely to offend again. That's HUGE, and I have to ask: How can we afford to keep paying for our current system?
I don't read AC A human right
Also, a system corrupted by cronyism should not be confused with free market capitalism and should not be considered the natural end of free market capitalism -- it's simply a system corrupted by cronyism.
Thank you for illustrating my point so neatly. Just as die-hard communists insist that real communism looks nothing like was practiced in the USSR, so do free-market fundamentalists insist that real capitalism looks nothing like what we have in the US ... both groups neatly ignoring the fact that in the real world, this is how their preferred system behaves. You can talk all you want about how it should work, or how you think it would work if certain conditions were met, but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to how it actually works.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Libertarianism as expressed by Rand, and economic theories based on or expounded by Libertarianism are flawed
Yes, well, assuming all Libertarians as Randites is like assuming Liberals are Marxists. Rand was not the founder of Libertarianism, just influential in some subsection of it.
But Libertarians these days spend their time demonizing government on all levels
And again, associating all Libertarians with the Anarchic variants. You're doing exactly what the GP pointed out as simplistic thinking.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Well, roughly speaking, dealerships originated because car companies were limited in scope and the market fractured between states that were no where near as integrated as today.
You know how as a company becomes larger it becomes less agile? Dealerships was a way for car manufacturers to reduce their scope, transfer risk, etc... Same reason that companies like McDonalds franchised.
The car manufacturer didn't have to worry about individual dealerships being non-profitable, not being able to adjust to local demands, etc... They just sold the cars to them using interstate commerce to avoid most issues. However, as we developed better data manipulation, control schemes and such it became practical for them to have their own stores, which they started to do - at which point all the dealers ran to the government for laws protecting them. Remember, they went to their local state governments, where the car companies had no real presence yet.
I don't read AC A human right
You should consider being an adult. Listening to people who talk to you, and not obsessing over political labels. If someone argues a ridiculous position, call them on it. This kind of tribalism is why we have no good leaders anywhere in government. It's far too easy for politicians to lead people around by the nose, simply by waving the right label flag in front of them.
"""Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible"."""
Some issues here.
First, it is Classic Liberalism. For the lack of a better description Classic Liberalism waned as a political force as implementation of its policies led to the Victorian workhouses. This led to Liberalism gaining a more social approach, leading to Social Liberalism which became the leading faction of Liberalism in the 20th century.
It is Libertarianism (ie. Neo-Classical Liberalism) that is concerned with minimalising government intervention. Libertarianism is basically Classical Liberalism in new clothing.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism
What's the case for your claim that libertarianism leads to "monopolism"? The ideology deliberately weaken government which is the both the most powerful sort of monopoly out there and the principal creator of monopolies historically.
And what's supposed to be wrong with vulture capitalism? Capitalism has always been fairly good at disposing of dying businesses and obsolete capital. I think part of the problem here is arbitrary moral rules that don't actually help anyone.
There is an old business adage: "Nothing Succeeds like Success". It breeds corollaries such as "Nobody got fired for buying IBM". (Microsoft, for the younger generation).
A successful business breeds a positive feedback process just as failing businesses tend to nosedive. As a business becomes more and more successful, it attracts more and more customers. It also can afford to negotiate for favorable supply contracts, buy up smaller competitors, and do other things that accelerate the growth curve even more by diving it an edge on the competition. Eventually, it gets so big that it can buy government on its own terms.
It doesn't need government to get there. Government - with the sometimes exception of local government - actually prefers to avoid dealing with smaller businesses, so you have to be well on your way towards monopoly before you can even start getting governmental favors.
And "moral rules" generally do help people. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. Even (or perhaps, especially) the ones that seem anti-common-sense. One of the most dangerous business fallacies is the pseudo-Darwinistic conceit that only the strong and the nasty survive. In the natural world which Darwin formulated his theories on, we have cute fluffy bunnies, delicate pretty butterflies and ape tribes which prosper because some members take care of others progeny instead of breeding themselves.
Neither big or little L libertarians assume the non-existence of fraud, with the exception of anarchy-oriented types, which aren't even a plurality the last time I checked. The majority assume that the state exists to act as in impartial referee, which includes identifying when one party lies to another within the scope of some contract, a/k/a commits fraud.
The assumption of rationality is also more nuanced than "will act like a Vulcan" - the philosophy assumes that people will act in the way they believe most benefits them, and that belief will typically be better informed than that of an idealized general (i.e., politically prescribed) solution and almost certainly be better than the actual general solution produced by the political process.
The last para is approximately true of the party, but hardly the case for most people of a libertarian persuasion that I know (indeed, the opposite -- most are economists that think about how to reduce the role of gov without destroying social goods).
Protecting dealerships is not consumer protection. In MA we had to fight for a Right to Repair law which the dealerships fought tooth and claw.. Protection of dealerships by Franchise Laws is not pro-consumer.
Your proposal is broken (do we need the old "your proposal to eliminate spam will not work because" checklist?).
It's broken because for-profit corporations would give to political candidates through non-profit political organizations.
It's broken because "by choosing to run for and, potentially, hold office you must agree to the rules" is a horrible mistake: what if the rules say "you must be a old rich white straight protestant male"? If you claim the constitution does not apply "because rules", then why would it not apply to that rule?
It's broken because freedom of association is a fundamental freedom, and a corporation is merely an association of owners.
It's broken because "campaign contributions" are mosty just a proxy for "political ad buys", and freedom of political speech should not be limited to those who own the press or TV station, but allowed to those who wish time on those channels.
I could go on, but maybe you see my point? Anyhow, the political influence of car dealership owners in Texas isn't a problem with campaign contributions in the first place, it's both a good old boys network thing, and the simple fact that most owners of large dealership chains could personally run against most state congressmen and win, due to name recognition and in-place advertising relationships.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?
yes
They are no different than rich kids wearing Che shirts who think they are communists while they enjoy their life of starbucks, designer clothes, affluence, and consumerism.
The Whiskey Rebellion wasn't about who got to make whiskey. Anyone could if they were willing to pay the tax. A better example would be the Opium Wars in which foreign businesses wanted special rights to sell opium in China, against local law, a trade not permitted to native Chinese.
The fact that you choose Ayn Rand to be the representative of libertarianism in general is your problem. This is probably why your view of libertarianism is very juvenile.
Yes there are a lot of crazy people claiming to be libertarians lately. That doesn't mean that the entire spectrum of libertarian ideology is flawed.
I could say that liberal philosophy as expressed by Karl Marx is flawed. It assumes that people will all be willing to work hard regardless of how much they are paid, and will never attempt to exploit this system.
This would not only be an unfair characterization of liberalism, but also an unfair characterization of Marxism. The fact that there are many Marxist ideologues out there does not change this.
I am a libertarian. I recognize terms like "public good". I don't think everything should be privatized. A libertarian who thought *everything* should be privatized would just be an anarchist.
Furthermore, libertarianism today is basically what classical liberalism was during the enlightenment. It was the progenitor of the modern liberal/progressive movement. Yes tehre are people out there who call themselves libertarians but are really just people who don;t want to pay taxes, just like there are people out there who call themselves socialists, but really just want to mooch off rich people. This isn't an accurate representation of the ideology they claim to represent.
Core libertarian ideals include:
Autonomy, Freedom as a virtue in itself (The denial of a freedom must be justified rather than the granting of freedom)
Legal equality of opportunity (e.g. as opposed to equality of outcome)
Equality under the law (e.g. gay marriage)
Ownership of ones own body (e.g. legalization of drugs)
Decriminalization of victimless crimes(e.g. prostitution)
Free markets as a tool for economic efficiency
Maybe you don't think some these are ideals that should be limitless. Well I don't either. Just because some simple minded people calling themselves libertarians want to relive Atlas Shrugged doesn't mean that is all there is to libertarianism.
I find it works best to use "classic liberalism" when talking to those on the left, and "classic libertarianism" when talking to those on the right; otherwise people often dismiss you before even understanding your position. I mostly talk politics with people on the right, so that's the first term that leapt to mind.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I would like to point out the false dichotomy of the outcomes of any social/political/economic syetem as "perfect utopia" vs. "complete failure".
Even with it's flaws, the United States has been been a success story for capitalism. Yes there is corruption, etc, but compared to what came before (e.g. totalitarianism, fuedalism, etc), the US is like a utopia.
I don't know where this idea that the free market requires no maintenance (i.e. that it "regulates itself") came from. It's true that the free market regulates it's own prices for goods and services, but that doesn't mean that it is the solution to every problem a society faces. I've heard people claim that everyone would become murderers and thieves in a free market. I don't think any sensible persons definition of a free market includes removal of a justice system.
We can have a free market even if the government is in charge of preventing and punishing criminals and fraudsters. In fact it actually works better when people are able to make more informed choices due to removal of fraud and coercion.
Don't you mean TexASS. Not Austin, that is a better place.
I live in Dane county Wisconsin, home to Madison. I only have one choice for cable due to Franchise agreements. How are you going to blame that on Republicans?
Sadly, and although Texas has some of the nicest people I have ever dealt with, the legal and political system in Texas is a notoriously backward and dim problem that other states simply can not even take seriously. It is as if someone left the asylum doors open and they joined the government of Texas, became judges or lawyers in Texas and then were bashed in the head hard. Nothing short of an escaped lunatic who has suffered a major brain injury could be part of making or even tolerating the governmental and legal system in Texas. A serious rebellion in that state is a reasonable notion.
It is clear that the Constitution's use of 'the People' meant actual human beings.
Or at least the human beings who were white men that owned property...
In the video in the article, Bill Wolters, president of the Texas Automotive Dealer Assoc claims "everyone wants an exception to the law" I'm thinking if it is true, that EVERYONE wants an exception, then perhaps there is something WRONG with the law?
Mr Wolters also claims that Tesla could do BETTER selling through a franchise dealer network. But shouldn't that be Tesla's decision? And if they COULD do better, wouldn't they actually do it?
Complete and utter BS. The only thing Tesla wants is a monopoly. Tesla isn't banned from selling cars in Texas; they can sell their cars in Texas through dealerships. Why don't they want to? Because doing so provides downward pressure on prices. When you have multiple dealerships, you can go to different dealerships and peg one against another and get the best price. Dealerships then pressure the manufacturer to sell them the car at a lower price so they can in turn get a higher profit off of the lower price. When the manufacturer owns all the dealerships, you lose all of your leverage -- every bit of it. You can't go to the dealership down the street and get a better price anymore, because Tesla owns that dealership as well. GM, Ford, etc. were banned from selling directly to the public way back when for a reason... because they were trying to drive up prices.
He's talking about the only two kinds that ever existed though.
The difference is one of those parties makes a lot of speeches about wanting a free market.
Which party is that?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
+1 intelligent
I used to call myself libertarian, because I believe in these tenants, but I've found the very idea and the language surrounding it to have been co-opted by the wacky anarcho-libertarians shouting "get your stinking government hands off my.... (ahem medicaid?)"
(sorry that last bit was a joke on the modern Republican memes)
Anyway, I believe in extraordinary protection of individual freedom that is also aligned with government control and/or regulation of fundamental industries. That is to say, I find it absurdly easy to control public utilities for evil, whether it is power/sewer or internet/television.
In this model, I support some of the early 1970s and 1980s Northern European efforts at statist-republics, where individual freedoms of association, speech, assembly, expression, etc are held sacrosanct, but where fundamental services (these are things in which competition is impossible, unusual, or dangerous), such as public utilities, medical care, public safety (police, fire), safety nets for the poor and elderly, military, supervision of public health, etc, are strictly controlled (if not publicly owned).
When these things are pursued for profit, they inevitably fall short of their goals and their mandate (increase profit) are counter to their apparent goals (provide better service). I still find it a bit scary that hospitals in areas of the US not large enough to support multiple comparable institutions, are simultaneously in charge of maximizing profits (which, in business, means minimizing effort in providing service), and also maximizing care. There is NO business incentive other than the sheer humanity of the hospital middle-managers and front-line workers, to maximize care.
The same goes for dozens of utilities (see pre-1978 Bell Telecom).
Interesting discussion.
If this is what success looks like, I don't want any part of it. As a point of fact, you made so many false assumptions, that it invalidates your entire thesis.
One, for example, is the assumption that humans make choices based on selfieh desires. Yes, monsters do. But most humans do not.They rather make choices based on all kinds of reasons, some of them selfieh, most of them not selfish. How many parents do you know? Aah, but now you will redefine selfish to be self-and-childish. So how many beggars do you see? Would they do that if there was a high failure rate? Whoops, better redefine selfish to be self-and-child-and-social-guiltish.
But reason doesn't work that way, and your logic fails. Your model doesn't duplicate the real world, and thus it becomes a miserable model for most real people.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Agreed to some extent, it seems a lot of us libertarians cannot grasp that if an entity gains the power to run people's lives, it's a governmental entity regardless of whether or not it is officially recognized as one. So, instead they prop up some other megalomaniacal entity so long as it does not have the bad word written on the big club they beat you with.
Maybe the delusion persists because it is self-serving to ignore the consequences of acting on such beliefs: Prop up a a favored dictator while pretending to improve the condition of society. And, instead, they are just hoping that this bully will beat the shit out of someone else for a change and maybe look the other way if they want to join in. I have seen some indications of this in many political/economic/religious movements.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Rent seeking is among the most dangerous threats to a free society. These greedy bastards don't want the right to make money, they want the right to make money forever without that position being challenged.
I prefer the terms "Dem' publicans" and "Repo-crats"
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
And you would appeat to be talking about the "no true Scotsman" excuse.
"Galleria" is the name of the mall that the store is in. That term doesn't apply "they", the Tesla stores,just that one store is in Galleria mall.
... make new dealerships just for Tesla. People can start a dealership, contract with Tesla, then sell it to Tesla.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The invisible hand of the free market better be holding a roll of visible cash.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Actually, what you're describing as your position is classic Liberalism.
Because otherwise the label is entirely meaningless because it just means people like the sound of the name and it has nothing to do with their real politics. After seeing outright anarchists with the label and people that George Washington would have called Royalists with the label I think we've already reached the meaningless stage for many.
A successful business breeds a positive feedback process just as failing businesses tend to nosedive. As a business becomes more and more successful, it attracts more and more customers. It also can afford to negotiate for favorable supply contracts, buy up smaller competitors, and do other things that accelerate the growth curve even more by diving it an edge on the competition. Eventually, it gets so big that it can buy government on its own terms.
Except that's not what actually happens. As it gets big, it gets clumsy, bureaucratic, and attracts nimbler competitors. As to buying government on its own terms, why is that libertarians' fault? As I noted, they propose weakening government which in turn reduces what the business above allegedly can get from government.
Also, we can look at actual history here. The biggest monopolies were either governments or backed by powerful governments. Businesses of considerable power such as the Congo Free State or the East India Company were backed by powerful governments (here respectively, Belgium and other European countries, and England).
And "moral rules" generally do help people.
Sure, they do. What works in a kindergarten doesn't necessarily work in an economy. It's worth noting here that there are plenty of examples of striking failure when someone applies a poorly thought out system of morality to societies.
One of the most dangerous business fallacies is the pseudo-Darwinistic conceit that only the strong and the nasty survive.
Another dangerous conceit is to assume something should be right or wrong based on a superficial consideration of the activity. I believe that is what is going on here. There's no consideration of whether libertarianism promotes monopolies. It is merely assumed to be inevitable.
I agree that protecting franchises is not pro consumer per se, but that was their original goal and result until the 1950's, the franchise laws of most states have gone too far in protecting the franchisees because legislatures fail to understand that the 20% of the total sales taxes they take in and 7% of the retail employment in their states are paid by consumers, not by the dealers. Disassembling the existing system by giving manufacturers the power to impose shrink-wrap terms and conditions on consumers is not a move in the right direction. Boyko either lied about the situation, or he doesn't understand it himself. Tesla spent more money in Texas trying to influence lawmakers than the car dealers association. Texas lawmakers failed to enact an exemption specifically for Tesla. I do not think a bill that cuts out an exemption (even from dubious laws) for one company is a good idea, but apparently this wannabe politician does.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Just straight BS.
Why not just be more accurate and say it's a bunch of people with little in common other than they like the name and like to pretend to wrap up in the flag? It may be annoying if the utter batshit insane anarchist wrapped up in flag next to you says something to annoy people and they point back at both of you, but that's the consequence of association. Since it's about self-labelling Libertarianism is about all those things people complain about and more, and all those virtues you mention and more. There's no point in complaining if people are attacking a different part of the amorphous blob to the one you are in if you insist on using the label instead of going for one issue at a time. "I'm a libertatian" can be accurately seen as saying that someone advocates a return to Medieval Feudalism with the current rich as the lords and knights and zero social mobility on merit, or it can be just as accurately be seen as the exact opposite if you ask a different libertarian. The major problem I see is that the former have the resources to use the latter as useful idiots to push towards exactly the thing George Washington fought against - absolute power in the hands of a few landlords.
In a libertarian system they end up being the defacto government and effectively use their intervention to stifle competition. It's feudalism once a generation has passed and social mobility based on merit would cease to happen. Have you got your patron lined up?
When the rich have nothing to stop them creating barriers to entry for those that threaten to take away their riches it's only human nature for them to protect the livelihood of themselves and their families. Unchecked and you end up with feudalism.
I really don't understand why so many Americans want to throw away what George Washington and others fought to give them. I suppose it's a good old American style confidence trick to hide such a thing under a name with "liberty" in it.
The US began as a collection of little failed Utopias - but it turns out that if you are not a perfect citizen you have a greater chance of getting burned as a witch in such a perfect society. It's only when the idea of Utopia was given up on and a drive to do the best for the people as possible instead of trying to go for a perfect society that things got better. What is there now, imperfect as it is, is better than any vision of a Utopia.
That was FEMA's view and is why they fucked things up so badly in New Orleans and prevented volunteers from coming in to help. IMHO that's why the disaster response was inferior to what poor third world countries have put together in such a situation.
...economic theories based on or expounded by Libertarianism are flawed from the beginning because it assumes people will always act rationally and without fraud...
Isn't that essentially the (faulty) foundation assumption of the laissez-faire or "rational economic actors" theories of economics championed by Milton Friedman, et al.?
That is, the branch of economic "science" that is built on a flawed foundational assumption?
...see "Cargo-cult Science," as described by Feynmann...
"Free markets as a tool for economic efficiency"
And you're one of the naive idiots who can't see how this necessarily leads to the "economic efficiencies" of monopolism and vulture capitalism.
To be truly "competitive", a market has to be properly regulated. A "free market", in the sense the libertarians call for (laissez-faire capitalism) leads to the Gilded Age all over again. And those of us who have studied history understand how truly bad in all senses the Gilded Age was and never want to repeat the mistakes that naive, ideologically childish idiots like you would have us repeat.
Ignoring politics...
Some profit-oriented people bought up many, many bridges, which the railroads needed to cross. They then hiked the tolls to the sky.
Los Angeles had a vibrant streetcar system in the early 20th century. GM bought them all up, for disassembly. If you visit LA, note the large number of oddly-wide streets, and parks that cut across neighborhoods in long straight lines. That is their genesis.
BP bought up a ton of solar-energy patents. BP-Solar exists, but not in a profit-making mode. It's just PR, and the goal is to stifle innovation in the field.
Oh, there are so many other examples. AC vs. DC (Edison won), the first car being a (French) electric, and ... ah, forget it. Go read some books on the history of technology covering the past 200 years.
exactly, under capitalism man exploits man as equals, under communism man exploits main as totalitarian ruler, completely the other way around.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Republicans are quick to argue in favor of the 'Free Market' when it suits their purposes to do so, but they aren't really in favor of them. The Libertarians are the true free market purists, but they aren't allowed at the adults' table in the Republican Party. This is somewhat analogous to the situation with the Progressives and the Democratic Party, occasionally useful as allies on selected issues but easily ignored and pushed aside when not in step with the party majority.
Hmm, I've never heard libertarianism described in quite such a way before, and it does sound to be a worthy position. But take a concept like Equality of Opportunity - to me that would suggest that everyone should have, at a minimum, equal access to education, and probably equal access to adequate health care and diet as well, at least as a child - those things all directly and deeply impact a person's lifelong capacities during an age where they can't reasonably be expected to have a major say in their own development. What are your thoughts?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never made an assumption that humans make choices based on selfish desires. I suppose this could either be completely true or completely false depending on the details of how you define selfishness. Until you do, I don't even think it is a coherent statement.
I would say that the difference is that the term "libertarian" is not an amorphous blob like "democrat", or "republican". It is a word for an ideology that actually does still have a meaning.
If 4 billion new people that worship Thor started calling themselves Chirstians, that wouldn't immediately change the definition of Christianity to people who worship Thor. It would just mean that now a big chunk of self described Christians are not actually Christians.
Maybe if these Thor worshipping Christians held their stake long enough the definition might change in practice, but I don;t think enough time has passed to really cede the term libertarian to these crazy people that seem to be dominating the conversation for the last 5-7 years.
Libertarianism as an ideology has been around since the 18th century.
And you are one of the naive idiots who thinks that a free market necessarily means no regulations at all.
The Second Amendment prevents the Federal (and, via the 14th and recent incorporation decisions, inferior governments) from infringing on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. Is it your position that therefore the federal government must actually supply arms to all people so they can exercise that right equally?
Similarly, Congress can't pass a law that inhibits the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". However, surely, you don't think the government is obligated to somehow "level the playing field" so everyone finds it equally easy to "assemble" - esp. by actually restricting those most able to do so (such as unemployed bums those involved in OWS) because others (such as people who have a job) don't have time to camp out for weeks in a park.
You are quite confused about the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is completely about restrictions on government, not about imposing restrictions on those governed (such restrictions mostly appear indirectly in Article I, Section 8).
The courts have established that any restrictions on what an individual spends on their campaigns would be unconstitutional, so that belies your claim about "everyone must spend equal amounts of money" or have "equal access".
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I don't want freedom for everyone, I want freedom for ME!
Open up a single dealership, all shares owned by Tesla themselves. They don't even have to own a showroom, just a mail drop off point at a forwarding service should suffice. If that's what the system demands, make them see that it's flawed.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I think these principles are quite open to interpretation, which is why many self described libertarians disagree on the specifics.
I would say that at a minimum equality of opportunity means that there should be no laws mandated or protecting any kind of discrimination, and at most this might mean actively ensuring some basic level of access to things like education and healthcare.
I don't think full blown equality of outcome could be considered a libertarian position (i.e. equally distributing wealth between everyone, or mandating that every school be public and equally funded, etc), although I do personally happen to believe in single payer universal healthcare.
Where libertarianism starts to diverge from liberalism is when we get into this idea that in order to have equality of opportunity, you need to take money form the rich and give it to the poor. To the degree that this should happen is the primary disagreement. Regardless, this is why most views shared by libertarians are actually in common with those shared by liberals. They are very close on the evolutionary tree of political ideologies.
There are lots of people nowadays, usually former republicans now calling themselves tea party libertarians that don;t really believe in things like marriage equality, ownership of your body, decriminalization of victimless crimes, etc. They just don't want to pay taxes. These people are not true libertarians. Not in some abstract sense, but because libertarians by definition believe in liberty. And these people don't believe in liberty (at least not in liberty for anyone but themselves). These are just greedy fuckers. I really don't like the idea of these people co-opting a term that incorrectly implies that they stand for liberty.
So you're an equal to the president of GM, are you?
Prisons, on the other hand, need to be public - but there's a lot of space because an overly powerful prison guard union can drag down a public prison as effectively as corporate greed can drag down a private one. It's all about balance, because once you get into colleges 'for profit' schools suck majorly - delivering low value education(worse rates at jobs/lower salaries) at high expense. They spend proportionally more on advertising and such...
I'm a European that doesn't fit into any political category really and I like to think out of the box. I've discussed it with friends who - like me - are into business. An experiment I'd very much like to conduct is to have private prisons but with the right kind of incentive system for the company! That is, since the purpose of prison is rehabilitation and a prison is successful if an inmate doesn't re-offend after release the incentive system for the company operating the prison should reflect that. Thus, the initial payment made to a prison company for an inmate should not be enough to make it profitable - instead the company should keep receiving a payment every year for X years after a prisoner has been released, if the released inmate doesn't re-offend. That is, if the inmate has been successfully rehabilitated, the prison only then starts to make a profit. It is no problem at all for any serious business if profits are delayed like that - just think of e.g. how many years it takes for a new aircraft model to start making a profit after enormous development costs. Ten years is relatively short for a business in that kind of context.
So really it is not the system at all, just the people involved. So psychopaths, put them any where and they will corrupt everything they touch so that it favours them at everyone else's expense. So how much smoother will any possible system run, once psychopaths have been removed and kept out of positions, of control, governance and influence. So it is really cronyism and corruption or is it always just psychopathy.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
That would form a large barrier to entry, on top of capital costs for prisons, limiting entry into the market. In such a market, I would expect to see merging of large players, and collusion. Because once you are down to a small number of players, if all the players collude to decrease service regardless of recidivism, then there comes a point where they all say together, we can't make a profit so we are shutting down, and the government will have to change the rules to accomodate them or face the wholesale release of hardened criminals into the population. Well, they could try to go with the Reagan air traffic controller approach: fire everyone and have the army guard the prisons while they try to find investors willing to spin up new companies to take over despite the barriers to entry and risks and knowledge that the government could pull the same move again if they can't figure out to be profitable in time. That experiment would likely be an abject failure (soldiers don't make for very good police, and even worse rehabilitators - their training isn't geared for that) and attempts to find/create replacement guarding companies would be challenging.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Well, that all may be true, but those Randian approaches and assumptions do seem to be the ones that are most often espoused by Libertarian Party candidates, and most self-styled libertarians I've ever talked to or read from. So while you may be right about the greater diversity of liberterian voters, if you vote for the Libertarian Party expecting to get anything other than a Randian dystopia, you are deluding yourself.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Or maybe those people are more intellectually honest in examining historical evidence of what are the end results of "classical libertarian" philosophy.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. When you remove power from an elected government over the economy, you transfer it to the next largest players, large corporations or enterprises. This effectively places it in the hands of board of directors and executives (or a handful of owners/partners if privately owned) representing a much smaller proportion of the population (investors, if they're lucky, and the hired executives themselves if the investors are duped), and which are even more subject to cronyism than any government, with no recourse to general elections as a remedy. This is not an improvement.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Microsoft got most of its growth and monopoly before the common use of software patents. If you had chosen Intel and patents, or Microsoft and copyrights, you might have had a point. But without copyrights the software industry and its products would look very different indeed, and only in some cases for the better. It's very doubtful that software usability (and therefore adoption) would have been as advanced.
Usability works against a support-funded model, which would probably be the only alternative for-profit business model in a copyright-less software world. While usability would still be a concern for custom projects developed internally by large companies, those would have been a fraction of our contemporary packaged-software market, Usability therefore wouldn't have had as much investment and development as it has had under current copyright-based business models.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Mjeah. Problem is, that "business case" will largely make it more profitable to teach the inmates how not to get caught when they get out and continue their criminal careers. ;-)
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
My apologies. I saw coherence between your post and the GP to your post, and took you to be one and the same. GP was positing that capitalism was useful because people base deecisions on selfish desires, and capitalism took advantage of our selfish desires and matched them together.
Your post continued that train of thought.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Market economic theory is based on the fundamental assumption that participants are rational actors interested in maximizing the personal utility of any exchanges. Since things like happiness obtained through altruism are not easily quantifiable and highly variable across the population, in practice they are generally ignored in most economic analyses. So the result is that most economic theories and models are predicated on selfish actors.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
You appear to misunderstand social dynamics. Those who desire power and the ability to exploit it will naturally do whatever it takes and exploit whatever loopholes may exist in the system to achieve those aims. They will seek out and recognize like-minded individuals and work together to achieve those aims.
This is the basis of cronyism and only a system with appropriate controls, such as fair general elections by an informed populace, can prevent it. Current corporate law does not prevent such actions leading to cronyism, and in fact has a number of exploitable loopholes which facilitate the concentration of power among a connected few.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
This is a personal anecdote so I can't accurately generalize against all Libertarians, but all those that I have encountered and discussed their position with really break it down to "what is the least amount of government that benefits ME".
Maybe there are those with an altruistic bent, but under questioning I've yet to meet one.
Campaign finance limits benefit incumbents. Why? Incumbents already have access and power. Think people! There are car dealerships in every district in Texas. It's easy for those dealers to call their representatives and ask that the law be kept the same to keep tesla out.
Tesla, on the other hand, has a lot of work to do. They have to convince a majority of representatives, all of whom have dealers in their districts, that it is in the best interest of their incumbents to allow Tesla to sell cars in Texas.
So, clearly the best way to help Tesla is to limit it's ability to lobby representatives? That's not going to help Tesla.
Because the basic assumptions of Libertarianism are flawed. Libertarianism as expressed by Rand, and economic theories based on or expounded by Libertarianism are flawed from the beginning because it assumes people will always act rationally and without fraud.
According to Atlas Shrugged, all you have to do is give people a place to work free of government regulation, and selfish free-market innovators will invent perpetual motion machines that draw electric power from static electricity in the air.
If this Brian Boyko were a real geek, he wouldn't misuse the phrase "begs the question".
I think these principles are quite open to interpretation, which is why many self described libertarians disagree on the specifics.
They are, somewhat. That's why you can find libertarians that can justify pro-abortion and anti-abortion simultaneously.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Government needs to be there and be strong enough to act as a referee to keep companies from cheating. Otherwise you will have situations where a winning company can do anything it wants to keep startups from forming and becoming successful. On the other hand, if the government is strong but morally weak, then itit can be used to create the same barriers to entry.
VERY nice.
Don't you mean a corrupt Kony?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.
That's nice to know. However, most of the people who I know who describe themselves as libertarian promote some combination of those ideas to me. Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?
Yes, you should insist that people who are anarchists admit that they are anarchists and not libertarians. It is also you that is ignoring the philosophy of a smaller government is something that captures a wide swath of people with a variety of other political philosophies in terms of how that is accomplished and how far to go with that scaling back of government.
Mixed in with this are people (who I think are naive) that wish to simply eliminate government organizations completely. Since they are still pretty much fighting for the same thing... to cut back government... they often campaign and support efforts similar to other libertarians who simply don't like large government organizations running thing. There are even differences in opinions on what kinds of government services ought to be cut.
Treating this as a monolithic philosophy with specific dogma is something that simply doesn't exist.
Far from it. I argue that we need regulations. It's not a bad thing to evaluate a regulation to see if it's served its purpose and should be removed either, but plenty of the regulations we have removed that were direct responses to Gilded Age abuses have come back to bite us.
Glass-Steagall's slow whittling away and repeal is a great example. Without GS, we got a nice little boom/bust cycle and put ourselves right back to Black Monday (1987) and then Black Tuesday (1929) and now we're stuck trying to claw our way back out of the same sort of problems that created the gap of the 1930s.
History repeated because the "libertarian", "anti-regulation" tantrum wing of the GOP got their way and removed regulations that were actually needed. Deregulate first, think later is a bad policy and only those too dumb to understand history think otherwise.
Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. When you remove power from an elected government over the economy, you transfer it to the next largest players, large corporations or enterprises.
And to smaller players like people and small businesses. Your model is broken. But that should be expected when you're just arguing by cliche without considering what is going on.
liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views
So then you support the abolishment of private property?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Are you one of the naive idiots that believes calling someone a "naive idiot" helps bring them around to your point of view?
it assumes people will always act rationally and without fraud
There's your problem, this statement is not true. Libertarianism makes no such assumptions.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
There are two kinds of Libertarians.
Idiots who are too naive to understand that libertarianism leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism, and
Monopolist Vulture Capitalists.
Slashdotters can understand that being a Liberal does not necessarily make one a Socialist or Communist. Why then do we accept the pigeonholing of all Libertarians as Anarchists/Anarcho-Capitalists?
You seem to have misread the comment to which you "replied". There's another option.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I would say that the difference is that the term "libertarian" is not an amorphous blob like "democrat", or "republican". It is a word for an ideology that actually does still have a meaning.
Democrat and republican still have meanings, just like libertarian. The difference is that there is no difference; all three labels are used by people who are the very opposite of the label.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Where libertarianism starts to diverge from liberalism is when we get into this idea that in order to have equality of opportunity, you need to take money form the rich and give it to the poor. To the degree that this should happen is the primary disagreement.
If all you're arguing over is degree, what the hell is the difference anyway? Why not just try to steer that party, instead of pretending to be fundamentally different? It has been shown that you need to take money from the rich and give it to the poor in order to have equality of opportunity because it has been shown that we can not and will not prevent the rich from using their economic advantage to gain still more economic advantage at the expense of the poor, and it has also been shown that not enough rich people are willing to give to the poor without being forced in order to "solve" the "problem" of the poor.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
but it's electric political crap...
Enviornmental impact laws are government pressure, not market pressure, by definition. I'm not going to dispute Republicans being all for certain kinds of market regulation above and beyond disallowing coercion, but that particular example was particularly poor. At least some rules that make organizing harder aren't regulating a market, they are protecting individual workers from coercion. Without specifics, your other point is useless.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
I think Tesla has a better image now than its initial days.
Why can't they allow Dealers to sell Tesla cars in Texas and open their own stores as well? Even if dealers don't want sell their cars they can always sell it through their own stores.
The law has nothing to do with tesla or political parties as much as the SD title wants you to believe otherwise.
basically there is a law that does not allow a manufacturer to sell cars in the state directly and it was in place before tesla came into play. It is a protection mechanism that promotes competition and protects the consumer. If you want to buy a chevy you can shop around different dealers to get the deal you want. If you buy a tesla you pay their price or you dont get one... period. You cant go to the next dealer and pit one against the other to get a better deal.
this is why its in place.... is it perfect? No, of course not... anytime the government gets involved something will get messed up.
Be wary of statements from activists... they are usually less honest than lawyers or politicians ;)
Only naive ideologs argue for "no government regulation" or "no taxation" or "privatize everything". It's a sophomoric position, easy to spew but it doesn't make any kind of sense.
That's nice to know. However, most of the people who I know who describe themselves as libertarian promote some combination of those ideas to me. Should I be telling them that they are not really libertarian?
Sounds like your friends are anarchists, not libertarians.
Most Slashdotters can understand that being a Liberal does not necessarily make one a Socialist or Communist. Why then do we accept the pigeonholing of all Libertarians as Anarchists/Anarcho-Capitalists?
The answer is their lizard brains are taking a binary me vs you, or us vs them, or fight vs flight absolute stance, because it is more ancient and thus more heavily activated in association with competition and aggression. These I would not call human. A human is conscious of such cognitive bias in their decision making. A human knows that feelings and emotions are the result of triggers placed by evolution, and thus are great for deciding issues of mate selection and tipping us off to movement in the shadows; However, instead of ignoring the instincts a human will harnesses them and examines these impulses with their more recent ape minds and forebrains, learning to wield them as tools. A human realizes that in order to advance the species they must not let the slowly evolving ancient mental hardware hamper their faster changing cultural firmware and neither of these hamper their very quickly adapting cognitive software.
You see, a human would assay the political landscape and more heavily weight current issues than past alliances, and weight far less the ideals pandering to primal drives (like the need for competition, stability, safety, and compassion -- or conservative, free market, regulative, environmental and health concerns). You see, the politician is exaggerating everything while pandering to your base desire to protect and provide for mates and children, regardless of if they are truly in danger or if the risk is acceptable. The politician also panders to your primitive instincts by exaggerating risks to financial ambition and market competition. They even peddle exaggerations to the compassionate nurturing instincts when exaggerating the very real strife of the lowest classes. Do not dismiss this political skill, it is a highly effective and dangerous tool; Do not think the politician foolish for using it as an undercurrent to further their actual goals. However, a human is above all of this nonsense; Humans will see the larger picture and prioritize those goals which appear to be currently suffering over those which are currently dominantly achieved in order to constantly seek equilibrium.
A human would at times be aligned with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or other parties. Humans can use all the parties as tools to further the human's own political goals. A human is a tool using creature. A smart human uses the right tool for the right job. Those with a tendency for acting lizard-brained could be cured of their false dichotomies and foolish absolutisms; However, it is not politically advantageous to educate the populous in thinking with their whole minds. The education system is ruled by those who would be threatened by decreased primal instinct influence. So, what should be 1st grader elementary school ethics, is ridiculously missing; The "humanities" should include a course on being human and harnessing of feelings, weighing them against logic, and presenting to youngest children the situations and teaching them first how to identify bias (and thus how to be human) long before teaching them other trivialities such as algebra or geography. None teach the young thirsty minds how to harness their brains and think for themselves, and so you all suffer.
Once in college the young and idyllic are encouraged to ignore all feelings when doing "rational" thought -- and thus become more easy the victim to the ancient ancestral cognitive biases; Instead they should acknowledge the "He's attacking me!" feelings when one attacks their paper or point of view... In other terms: They rarely SYN-ACK, only SYN or ACK. The people have learned not to go screaming hysterically when they get spooked by the wind while walking down a dark road, but have failed to harness such impulses with cognitive powers: "Wait, did my subconscious detect so
exactly, under capitalism man exploits man as equals, under communism man exploits main as totalitarian ruler, completely the other way around.
You do not know what communism is.
Nowhere in your rant did you address the original question: "Why then do we accept the pigeonholing of all Libertarians as Anarchists/Anarcho-Capitalists?"
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Why do you hate the poor so much? As if the poor can't help them selves?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Nearly everyone is out for his own interests; they just express that attitude in different ways.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Um... GS did nothing except make the economy even more a tool of the ruling elite. We still had years of depression, including a double-dip recession WITHIN THE DEPRESSION in 1937. The recessions of the decades following GS were really no different than those in the 19th century... except now, Keynesians decided that, in response to a recession, you should load up on government debt instead of doing the opposite as was done to quickly alleviate a downturn in 1920.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Well "classical liberalism" and "libertarianism" are the ideological products of the enlightenment and have led the the greatest improvement in quality of life and equality in human history. Yeah we have some corruption and greed. We don't conquer other territories in order to rape their women and turn their populations into slaves anymore. We have somewhat of a respect for human life and the rights of people to determine their own destiny.
You can point to the Koch brothers as the epitome of libertarianism, but this would be like pointing to richard nixon as the epitome of democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Not really. Small companies and individuals don't normally organize as well as hierarchical power structures in large enterprises. Despite the latter's inefficiencies, their executives command much more resources at their disposal than organizations of the former. Individuals and small companies in aggregate have much more diverse interests, resulting in a harder time building conscensus for more than single issues. While there are notable apparent exceptions such as the NRA, but they are often supported by large corporate interests. One of the few real exceptions might be environmental movements, but their available resources are miniscule compared to the IBMs, Exxons, GMs, Walmarts, and Goldman Sachs of the world. The power imbalance is striking. If you don't believe that go look at the wage distribution of Walmart employees.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The whole point of libertarianism is that there is no right person with power to bribe in the first place.
But Democrats don't sell themselves as wanting completely free and unregulated markets. That's not to say they are hypocrites about other things but in this case it is more about Republicans.
Uh, neither do republicans, except for a scant few like Ron/Rand Paul.
Yes, but it does not depend on every single decision to be rational to work. The more decisions that are rational, the more it works.
The idea that the market should be controlled, is based on the idea that a small group of elected officials can be smart enough to control something as complex as a market.
I don't think either assumption works perfectly, however I think free markets work a hell of a lot better than government control. I think governments can effectively control small subsections of markets, but this is expensive and difficult. Sometimes this is in everyone's best interest, but free markets are the best default option, until a compelling case can be made for government control.
The word selfish has a lot of connotations. It can refer to people who are willing to exploit others for their own gain, but it can also refer to people who are motivated help others because it makes themselves feel good.
Free markets working are not predicated on only this 1st sense of the word selfish. Even when people donate to charity, but they do so in a way that maximizes the effect their money has on the goals they are trying to accomplish, this is a free market at work.
As I said, free markets don;t work at perfect efficiency. Things like rationality, and better informed people affect the efficiency of a free market, but under most circumstances it works better than if prices were controlled by a government. Just try to imagine a world where politicians were deciding the prices of everything from potato chips to computer chips. It would be a disaster.
Perhaps they can sell them at Love Field, but only if they are driving within the state. Does that help?
I am not arguing for no regulations. No regulations would be anarachy. I am arguing for minimal and effective regulations.
Maybe repealing Glass Steagall was a bad idea given the current environment at the time.
I don't think this is necessarily a case for government regulation. Part of the reason for corporations getting too big to fail is because of other government regulations. Corporate lobbyists successfully pass laws to give corporations advantages, and then we pass more laws to give them some disadvantages to even things out. All of these laws usually have unintended consequences.
Libertarians don't want to only remove the laws that hinder corporations. They also want to remove the laws that gave corporations unfair advantages in the first place, the ones that made the restrictive laws seem necessary.
Our laws are already so complicated that only the rich can afford the lawyers required to understand the law. This is why the rich pay a lower tax effective rate than the middle class. It's because of all the loopholes created by legal complexity.
The "libertarian wing" of the republican party are not libertarians. They are republicans that only care about 1 libertarian principle and take it to the extreme to the exclusion of all the others.
Deregulating without thinking is not a libertarian ideal. Doing anything without thinking is a bad idea. I don;t think it's fair to attribute the bad decisions by republican politicians as natural results of libertarian ideology.
Our laws are a giant cluster fuck. Republican and Democrat politicians repealed one law to benefit their friends. This is not sensible deregulation regardless of your ideology.
The debate over more laws vs less laws misses the point. We need effective laws first and foremost. Once we have that, we can worry about minimizing waste by removing unnecessary laws or optimize our society by adding more laws.
what is the meaning of a democrat? Someone who believes in democracy? What is the meaning of a republican? Someone who believes in republics? These terms have long departed from their original meaning, if they ever had one. What I am saying is that libertarian kind of still means what it's latin roots would suggest. Maybe that's about to change, but I would rather it didn't.
Well libertarianism is not a party. There is a Libertarian party, but this is only a small subset of people describing themselves as libertarians. In fact after the last election the national Libertarian party was taken over ex-republicans and a lot of people left in response.
While I don;t think it is conclusively proven that charity will *never* be a viable option for social safety net, I would say that for now this is probably true. But you don't need to advocate for a charity only solution to be a libertarian (although many do). Just like you don't need to be a communist advocating complete monetary equalization to be a progressive. These are 2 extremes on the same spectrum.
I would agree that we need regulations (in the form of taxes and social programs) in order to provide equality of opportunity to the poor. But many regulations are a direct result of corporate lobbying. Surely you don't think those regulations are good. I think we can probably remove a good chunk of laws as well as shrinking/focusing the scope or removing many government agencies that are not cost effective. For example I don;t think the government should be subsidizing corn farmers, bankers, and oil companies.
Successful businesses get fat and bloated until they are taken apart by smaller more nimble competitors.
That is unless they can buy themselves some barriers to entry to keep from being eaten.
Even if they can buy themselves barriers to entry (government based or otherwise) their monopoly fails as soon as they start monopoly pricing. If their barrier to entry is government based their monopoly might be to the extent of the legal market, but they will have competition as soon as they go for the gravy.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
On one hand, you could say that the auto dealer lobby succeeded in preventing tesla from selling their cars directly in Texas;
On the other, you could say that tesla refuses to sell their cars through the dealer networks already in place.
There's the argument about free markets, but if tesla did what every other car manufacturer does and declares a list price and suggested sticker price, and let dealers compete for customers based on either price (by selling for less than sticker, or throwing in accessories, or service) they're not willing to allow a free market to function, with one uniform price in place through out the country...
Just to take the contrarian view...
Marx said capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly. Despite all historic evidence, that is all they need.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The reality is that the left is just as guilty of crony capitalism as the right, turning this into a left/right issue is EXACTLY how NOT to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
Murphy was an optimist
Yes, but most people judge and ideology by the small percentage of people that make the most noise. On the left, that's the Marxists, on the right it used to be the evangelicals and now it's the libertarians...
On both sides you have people who have adopted the tactic that says "If you don't agree with me 100%, then you are far (right/left) EXTREMIST" - and we all know which side started this particular nonsense. It was the lefties with their endless cries of the R word.
Murphy was an optimist
While I don;t think it is conclusively proven that charity will *never* be a viable option for social safety net, I would say that for now this is probably true. But you don't need to advocate for a charity only solution to be a libertarian (although many do). Just like you don't need to be a communist advocating complete monetary equalization to be a progressive. These are 2 extremes on the same spectrum.
Either you believe taxation is wrong or you don't. If you do, then you're going to be depending on charity. Depending on charity to any degree is folly, however. There has been social inequality throughout history, and there has been poverty throughout history. In short, living with less government requires better people, but we don't seem to be getting measurably better — so there's really no reason to believe that charity can be a meaningful part of a social safety net which produces a healthy civilization.
I would agree that we need regulations (in the form of taxes and social programs) in order to provide equality of opportunity to the poor. But many regulations are a direct result of corporate lobbying. Surely you don't think those regulations are good.
We may have too much government; what I firmly believe is that it is too centralized.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think you need to travel abroad - and you'll discover that we have it pretty darn good here.
Murphy was an optimist
Either you believe taxation is wrong or you don't.
I don't believe taxation is wrong. Charity is part of the social safety net right now, alongside taxes. I pay taxes and I donate to charitable organizations like doctors without borders.
I don;t think it's a good idea to depend solely on either government or charitable programs. I think we should have sensible government welfare programs and encourage donations to worthy charities.
I think excessive taxes are bad. I think government waste is bad. I think excessive government control which hinders the economy for the benefit of certain corporations and special interests is bad. But no I don't think taxes are wrong per se.
We may have too much government; what I firmly believe is that it is too centralized.
So you want more power in the hands of the states?
BS. Democrats sell themselves as being the benevolent protectors of the little guy, and then they get into power and screw the little guy, all the while smiling and telling them how much they care about them.
Republicans don't sell themselves as wanting "completely free and unregulated markets" either. They write just as many stupid regulations as anybody else.
Murphy was an optimist
Successful businesses get fat and bloated until they are taken apart by smaller more nimble competitors.
That is unless they can buy themselves some barriers to entry to keep from being eaten.
Even if they can buy themselves barriers to entry (government based or otherwise) their monopoly fails as soon as they start monopoly pricing. If their barrier to entry is government based their monopoly might be to the extent of the legal market, but they will have competition as soon as they go for the gravy.
Interesting work of fiction. Doesn't match the real world too well, however.
Consider Microsoft. How many people bought DR-DOS or one of the also-ran OS's when Microsoft got fat and bloated? How many times, in fact, have you stopped buying a brand because the product support consists of phone menu hell? Not very many, based on where we are today.
Being fat and bloated means that you can undercut your competitors, endure long periods of losses, and, if you want, simply purchase a competitor, then pump cash into it until it has totally destroyed the competition. Ashton-Tate, anyone? Borland? Or am I supposed to believe that these once-venerable companies are now history because Microsoft bought a few congressmen?
I'm not a fan of Big Government myself, but the idea that in the absence of government interference excellence will drive out inferiority doesn't ring true. If that was the case, McDonalds wouldn't be what it is today. We wouldn't have evolved from people who had other people paid to shine our shoes, pump our gas, deliver our milk into unpaid self-service "employees". People will not only put up with a lot of crap, they'll even volunteer to do so.
Corporate personhood goes back to English common law. So corporations could be taken to court.
The recent decision was about corporate persons having first amendment rights.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The 'personhood' of common law was well understood to be sharply limited and not to include natural rights.
Thing is, I don't know anybody who wants more government than we need. The big disagreement is about how much government we need. As far as personal liberties go, everybody wants government to allow the ones they want, and to not allow at least some they don't like. Everybody wants government to put some regulations on commerce (contract enforcement, at a bare minimum), but not too much (for whatever value of "too much" they believe in).
So, what do you think are some characteristics of libertarians?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm sorry but the 19th and 20th centuries are rife with counterexamples, from the robber barons of the Gilded Age, the Wall Street leveraging that caused the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, and the US Savings and Loans scandals of the 80s where significant or massive economic damage is perpetrated, requiring decades for recovery. And that's just in the US. The mortgage crisis of 2008 is only the latest example. Even if it is true that a majority of power actors seek to protect the economy, there are significant examples that even a minority of colluding power actors who control a critical segment of the economy can be willing to inflict horrific damage if they can also enrich themselves sufficiently in the process.
That is only true if the proper regulatory environment exists, enforced by that government you want to reduce. Otherwise constructs like company towns can be used to eliminate everyone of the freedoms that you espouse.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Certainly they were corporations at the time. They had the right to speak and petition the government for redress of grievances.
I don't know how a corporate person could 'assemble' or 'exercise religion'. That was left to the people that owned parts of the corporation.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Microsoft was not fat and bloated then (at least not in comparison to it's competition), it was the lean, mean small guy eating IBM's lunch.
Microsoft is getting fat and bloated now.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As to McDonalds. The food is crap. But it's fast and consistent. Not my (or your) job to convince people to eat better. No accounting for taste.
Most McDonalds are franchises. A way for chains to keep the operating parts small and lean.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There were corporations (very few) but I see no evidence that they had any sort of personhood other than in contract law and in court.
So the Texas auto dealers bought a law keeping Tesla out of Texas, for about the price of 4 Teslas?? Are we ashamed of the lack of campaign finance regulations, or how cheap it is to buy votes?
The monopolist vulture capitalists love you man! Pull your head out of the dirt and look around. Big business is out to get you and they just love the idea of little or no government oversight or regulation!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
Small companies and individuals don't normally organize as well as hierarchical power structures in large enterprises.
I have yet to see evidence of this inherent superior organizational capability of large enterprises. It is a prior that a large enterprise had to start as something that organizes well, but it's been demonstrated that large businesses build up bureaucracy and inertia.
Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?
Classic libertarianism may indeed ask all this, but they seem to have trouble coming up with any answers. That is, any answers other than the same old rigid anti-government spew you claim to disavow. We know the questions, libertarians - classic or otherwise - aren't the only ones asking them, but in the absence of concrete and specific sensible answers, well... You're all still just "those crazy libertarians" to me.
As we all know, no *true scotsman* would believe in anything that leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism.
How the heck is there a reasonable politician in Texas?! I mean I would vote for this guy and I am from Canada! Not to mention he appears to be literate:
"So because Tesla doesn’t go through a completely unnecessary middleman who turns the pleasant experience of buying a car into something resembling haggling for a donkey in Marrakesh, they can’t sell their cars in Texas."
OK. Having bought a new car myself years ago, "haggling for a donkey in Marrakesh" made me really laugh at work. I remember at the time thinking, this is so weird, how is it this is the only thing we "haggle" over, what an outdated system, I wonder why that is? (this is Canada)
Anyway nice piece, and I wish him luck politically. Jokes aside, I travel down to Dallas every other year to BGGCON and it is full of reasonable Texans (who still sound a bit funny), so I know for a fact that they are not all nuts. I also am long time friends with a girl from the big state, and she seems reasonable enough. It does seem they could use some reasonable political representation for a change.
That said we currently have our own nutbars in power in places around Canada as well as out dated laws and corporate interests directing corrupt politicians... As the churchies might say "Judge not, lest... blah blah blah...
http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+Motors+Successfully+Fights+Off+Auto+Dealership+Assault+in+North+Carolina/article31854.htm
"A North Carolina House committee denied a bill that tried to stop Tesla from selling directly to consumers
Tesla Motors landed a major win in North Carolina this week when the state threw out a bill that attempted to block the automaker from selling its vehicles directly to consumers. "
Daniel Dvorkin is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Word for word. Weird, huh?
On an unrelated note, have you had any weird dreams lately?
I am not a crackpot.
The 14th Amendment specifies that all persons are to receive equal treatment under the law, and since the 14th applies universally, then there very much is a guarantee of equal access, which current campaign finance laws illegally prevent.
Everyone is treated the same under the law. Those the government likes best get the most access. Everyone is free to act in a manner to get more favorable treatment, and thus it's "fair" even if impractical if step 1 of getting access is making $10,000,000,000.
Learn to love Alaska
Sometimes I hate it when you're right, you know that?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Said another way, everyone is free to petition the government, but nothing requires the government to listen, so they won't, unless you make it worth their while to listen. Again, not breaking the letter of the Constitution, but certainly the spirit.
Learn to love Alaska
Again, not breaking the letter of the Constitution, but certainly the spirit.
IMO, the spirit of law is the important part.
Said another way, everyone is free to petition the government, but nothing requires the government to listen, so they won't, unless you make it worth their while to listen.
OK, so the I guess the question becomes, how do we common folk make it worth their while? Obviously voting isn't the answer.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
OK, it is possible that there are varieties of Libertarianism that exist TODAY that do not conform to the descriptions I've mentioned. They are certainly not common and do not hold any significant cultural or intellectual sway in our society. Those that are the firebrand of the current Libertarian movement have inculcated (quite effectively) a gut notion in the "collective psyche" of our nation the notions that government is evil, that it should be drowned in a bathtub, that there should be no regulation of the market and that we should vote for people who will instill those values. People Like Rand Paul and his father come to mind, but people like Eric Cantor, also come to mind.
The problem is, libertarians make no allowances for such. They assume the market will handle all aberrations. But it is humans that suffer for this folly.
Voting is the answer, the problem is you can't get enough people together to agree that voting is the answer.
The two parties are the same, but have polarized the nation so that the "people" will never see it. A few might notice, but they are dismissed. Most people see Abortion or Gay Rights, and not matching economic and military policies (or focus on the different words, even when the actions are the same).
Confirmation bias and false dichotomy have trumped voting, but voting is still the only answer. At least until 10% or more of the nation has been killed by drones wielded by the government. That's what it would take to change public opinion.
Learn to love Alaska
More or less my perspective. Though I don't think an anarchic market is necessarily "free" - as much as I think that certain restrictions are necessary in a society to maintain the overall freedom (like, you can't just go around killing people ... you can't just go around preying on other businesses) I tend to overall support a "live and let live" philosophy.
I tend to consider the term "libertarian" poisoned by the faux-libertarian randroids, so I don't call myself such a thing.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Too few people are aware of the conflicting motivations and biases in our heads. Interesting read, thanks. No mod points just now.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I see the temptation to abandon a label once it has become tainted, but I feel like this would leave me constantly needing to change labels.
Look at the way the republicans successfully made "liberal" into a dirty word, forcing democrats to call themselves "progressives" instead. I think the battle to prevent a label you care about from being subverted is a battle worth fighting.
Speaking of which, "liberal" was the first label for the libertarian ideology, that was then assumed by neo-liberals, before they allowed neo-conservatives to turn it into a pejorative, and abandoned it for "progressive". I'd be happy to reclaim the "liberal" label for libertarianism. I would proudly call myself a liberal. I don;t think neo-liberals are bad people or anything, but I think the term liberal suits libertarians better, considering it's root is from the latin word form freedom.
There are a lot more small companies in the US than large conglomerates, and yet the US Chamber of Commerce has policies that tend to favour the large corporations. Small companies don't work well with each other enough to have their responsiveness/nimbleness be an enough of an advantage against the economies of scale (and yes the bureaucratic inefficiencies) of the hierarchically organized big players. Multiple levels of hierarchy works against the upper levels being in touch with the leaf workers, but is nevetheless a huge force multiplier when commands are simple and directly articulated.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
One thing to remember when talking about Southern Conservatives is many of them were Democrats only decades ago - they're more Socially Conservative than anything else. Government handouts are frowned upon in group, but separately they all want their own special targeted assistance, call them tax breaks or subsidies or grants if you like, they're all the same, making someone else pay for their aid.
Just remember - the tipping point that switched them from Democrat to Republican was the Civil Rights Act, which passed before most of the Great Society programs. So back when the Dixiecrats were still Democrats most of the government handouts didn't exist yet.
One party has a significant minority that is loudly in favor of regulating markets in a way that gives consumers a fair shake. The other party says "TAX BREAKS WILL LOWER THE PRICE Y'ALL PAY FOR STUFF!" ad nauseum and deep sixes anyone who says different.
Show me an example of a corporation that has endured without government intervention.