I think my post addressed that. But to be quite frank, I think very little of our wealth is due to slavery. Aside from being criminal, slavery was not an efficient economic system. And it has been economically demonstrated that the only ones who were expected obtained value from slaves are those who first enslaved them; subsequent "buyers" payed the discounted present value of all future cash-revenues that the slave and their descendants were to generate. Furthermore, to the extent that it did benefit the minority of plantation owners in the South who had slaves, they externalized the costs of keeping slaves by getting laws passed like the fugitive slave act.
In any event, the argument about needing proof of illegitimate possession applies here. Furthermore, we commonly recognize that if someone buys something legitimately thinking the good wasn't stolen, we don't make them a criminal and punish them.
What do you mean, ignoring history? Libertarians don't ignore history; we realize that history illustrates our theories about States, that they cause massive war and destruction.
Or are you talking about past deeds whereby some current property possessors aren't legitimate owners, because they obtained their property by theft, or by getting the government to steal it from someone else and give it to them (e.g., Donald Trump)? We needn't ignore that; once you can prove that someone's possession was ill-gotten -- that they stole it -- you can take it from them. However, as they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the current possessor is the legitimate owner.
A simple definition of a pure free market is a situation where there is no initiation of aggression, all voluntary transactions are allowed, and no involuntary transactions are forced.
This can be, and always is even absent a State, abrogated to various degrees. For example, a rapist forces an interaction on his victim that she does not desire; their interaction is not mutually consented upon. Or maybe someone prevents a transaction from happening that would have voluntarily happened We can dismiss the case of children and the mentally retarded referring to custodial issues and ability to consent to various things, for now.
Of course, the biggest abrogator of the free market is the State, or government, which prevents all sorts of voluntary interactions from happening (working under certain conditions, drug-use, prostitution, selling contraband, etc); and requires other involuntary interactions (e.g., taxes, jury-duty, the draft, and so-on and so-forth).
Thus, libertarianism as I would call it, simply means consistently applying the rules of non-aggression and private property to all; no exceptions. Theft and robbery are always wrong. Private property is to be respected, and not trespassed on, stolen, destroyed, or taxed. Rape is always wrong. Murder is always wrong and not right just because some idiots in D.C. "declare war", anymore than would murder be right if a serial murderer "declared war" on his victims before killing them. Nor is stealing ok because the State declares "eminent domain," that they need your property for bigger and better things; or because Donald Trump tries to persuade NJ to take away a little old lady's house through eminent domain. If someone doesn't want to give their property to you, or trade with you, you don't get to give her $X -- however generous you may feel that is -- and say she's been adequately compensated.
A free market does not require that there be symmetric information, nor does it require that all contracts be guaranteed. In the real world, there can be no true guarantees. And no-one has an obligation to enforce someone else's contract unless they previously agreed to do such. Caveat emptor, and caveat venditor; buyer and seller beware. Neither is required to do the other's homework (although fraud is of course prohibited).
You say you don't have the stomach to let some infant die of disease X while trust-fund children are wealthy, that's all fine and well if you want to help diseased infants with your own money. If, however, you want to take money from trust-fund children or the rich, then that's just theft or robbery. What you're really saying is that because other people have chosen to use the money they've earned in ways you disagree with -- but that are not aggressing against anyone -- you're going to sanction pointing a gun at them and forcing them to give their money, killing them if necessary. It is not the fault of the rich, qua the rich, or their children that some people aren't so well off. To a certain extent, life is a lottery. But if anyone is at fault for subjecting children to a lottery, it is their parents for sure; not strangers who had nothing to do with the conception of the child.
Rephrasing, whenever you are dissatisfied with some situation -- maybe it's the preservation of a various forest, or children with diseased, or whatever -- you can use your own money and influence to address it. You can attempt to use reason and passion to convince others to voluntarily join in your efforts (and there are private conservatory efforts; near where I live, there is a privately owned bog). However, you aren't justified in using force to make others help you. This is just stomping your feet and having a temper tantrum when you don' get your way. In fact, it's worse; it's hitting the kids around you to get what you want.
And nor does "democracy" justify that. For there are 9 men and 1 woman, and the 9 men "vote" that they ought to all have sex with the one woman, well she's outvoted 9-1. That doesn't mean that they're entitled to have sex with her, or that their actions would be anything but rape.
My bad, upon re-reading it, I think you were being sarcastic (?), and actually saying it was a good thing:
"If it was insurance, evil companies could reduce the rates for people who had good results(and someone _eventually_ would offer such reduced rates), rather than setting their rates based on who they are legally required to cover."
I took that as you saying it would be bad if insurance companies did such. But it seems you were being sarcastic (hence the "evil companies" phrase).
I do however disagree with this:
"Note that I do think that society should provide coverage for people who require expensive treatment, especially when it is ongoing, I just don't think that it is something that can be worked into a private model."
Just because someone else requires expensive treatment, doesn't mean I and other taxpayers should have to pay for it. That's not anyone else' fault. I think this is for personal savings, family, and charity to deal with.
It may suck if someone requires expensive treatment. My uncle has diabetes and thus needs dialysis. However, that doesn't mean that the State, or anyone else, is entitled to steal taxpayers money at gunpoint (which is really what all taxation is, theft, the initiation of aggression).
However, on the flip-side, imagine how much cheaper medical treatment would be if not for Statist crippling of the free market: The FDA which makes drug R&D very costly; the State-supported AMA, a cartel of doctors, which prevents competition; mandatory things that insurance must cover; etc. And of course, things would also be cheaper because there wouldn't be inflation (inflation is caused by printing money; we wouldn't have that if on a gold standard). And we'd become wealthier at a more rapid rate, as the free market produces more wealth and higher standards of living absent State-intervention.
Yea, always demonize the "evil" health insurance companies, while ignoring regulations that require them to "insure" every ridiculous thing (so that instead of insurance, what we really have is an insane amount of pre-paid medical care and wealth-redistribution from the healthy to the unhealthy).
Why the hell should someone in the top 1 percentile pay the same health insurance premium as someone who is average or below-average? Why not make normal people pay the same rates as football players too.
Of course, it's perfectly fine if insurance companies don't know your genetic makeup, I'm sure they'd agree. As long as you also don't know it. But what you can't have is a situation where individuals know their genetic makeup, but insurance companies can't request genetic testing for their information; because that results in insurance companies systematically being defrauding and losing money. Or, there will be many more regulations, effectively eliminating the last vestiges of real health insurance -- which is supposed to be for catastrophes, not colds or acupuncture of people who have indiscriminate unprotected sex -- and replace it with nothing more than a socialist health system, where wealth is redistributed from the healthy to the unhealthy.
Well, of course if you pay for something, the insurance company doesn't have the right to know that information. However, if you apply for insurance then, you may be defrauding them. There are obvious incentive problems there.
I'm sure that any insurance company will be fine with not knowing your genetic makeup, as long as you don't either. When this thing becomes more common, insurance companies may want genetic testing, and will be justified in such. It's their business, you don't have to be insured by them; they're not forcing anything on you. If I owned an insurance company, I wouldn't want to insure people coming to the table with certain knowledge that I'm going to be screwed.
Of course, the reason why total insurance coverage may be dropped is because of laws that prevent insurance companies from only insuring specific things and not others. Otherwise, they wouldn't insure you for those things you're almost certain to have, but would for other things. Or for things your almost certain to have, they'd only insure you for having damages beyond $X amount, based on statistics.
I might get ATI Radeon 3850 due to it's Avivo video processing, which scales up 1080p to up to 1600p. Of course, for that to be useful, I'd have to get one of the 30" 2560x1600 monitors.
But as for keeping up with the latest gaming performance GPU, that's not much of a concern (hence why I go for the lower 3800 series card). I would even go with a 2600 if not for the poor reviews on HDTV upscaling, noise-reduction, sharpness etc. But as far as games go, I play the Descent series, the Tomb Raider series, and the NFS series. And that's 3 years ago, so I'm just speculating if I play those again. I also might check out OpenRaider. And maybe I'll check out Cerberon (Descent into Doom 3), so that would be my most GPU-intensive stuff. I think any modern GPU will crush the games I play.
You make it sound like RP supported the bill with a YES vote. He did not vote on the bill, because he was not there when it was being voted on. He was campaigning. Since a few others already made the symbolic NO vote against tyranny, providing arguments, there was really little more for RP to add; aside, of course, from his own unique eloquent opposition to tyranny.
We didn't always have cells, so they certainly aren't necessary. Private property owners have the right to set the rules, and determine how to enforce them. If customers don't like it, they're welcomed not to go there. Maybe the building's structure blocks cell signals anyways (that's the way it is at my work).
Certainly, people can ask the restaurant to call 911.
Great post. Rothbard was the most brilliant & prescient economist of the last century, rivaled only by his mentor, Mises.
Before he died, Friedman -- who had been critical of a real gold standard & in favor pf fiat money -- said that in retrospect, we'd have been better with a gold standard. At least he admitted his tragic mistake; Samuelson never admitted grave idiocy in predicting the USSR overtaking the US in GDP.
Wealth can't be created by printing out more money. That's just inflation, w/c causes non-uniform price-increases, redistributes wealth, and misallocates resources (malinvestment); this is what causes the business cycle. If inflation -- the printing of money, & expansion by fractional reserve -- created wealth, the countries in Latin America would be the richest in the world.
More wealth -- that is, increased living standards -- can only be created by savings, productive investment, and innovation; also the increasing of the division of labor internationally, and the reduction in international barter (different fiat currencies, instead of a universal gold standard).
Bullet-point are extremely useful for providing a broad structure to part of what the guy's going to talk about. They are particularly helpful to the audience, who can thus appropriately organize their note-taking activities. That said, having too much is distracting (like Gates' cluttered background image). The other problem with Gates' cluttered background image is that it distracts attention from him, and overwhelms him visually. Jobs' background focuses attention on him (but in a non-obvious way; e.g., not arrows pointing towards him).
Also, I noted that PowerPoint is also useful for creating detailed references on presentations. (see my other post in this thread).
The problem with minimal outlines is that then people have to frantically take notes; I can do this quite easily, as I take notes right in PowerPoint, and type fast (or in Adobe Acrobat Professional, if it's been PDF'ed). This also distracts the focus from learning, if one gets behind.
Here's my idea: dual PowerPoints, one for presentation, one as a detailed reference. Perhaps some way to combine them (nested?) in one powerpoint file, for those viewing on computers (who might want to expand on certain topics).
I had an accounting professor who didn't assign a textbook because his notes were like a textbook. Very detailed. This is convenient for referencing purposes. However, it's less convenient for presentation. The powerpoint for presentation should provide structure to what's being lectured on, and give visuals for things not easily described, or that would be a pain to take notes on.
From the pov of the listener, I think it's always a good idea to record lectures or talks, so that you can listen to them again if you want to.
Notice, I said "natural right". State laws are arbitrary, like the declarations of mafia leaders. In some parts of the world, there are alot of things that are illegal. So what? Means nothing about right/wrong. In Germany during WWII, it was illegal to be a Jew.
They have the right to set whatever policies they want, whether nice or not, whether discriminatory or not. Since it's their private property, they should have the right to say no characters can have names that start with S, or no reference to homosexuality, or have different standards for homosexual and heterosexual references to couples. Whoever doesn't like it can play another game online, using someone else's property, with policies more to your liking. As private property owners, they have the natural right to set whatever policies they want, whether you or anyone else perceive them to be fair. As a free person, and self-owner, you have the natural right to tell them to go to hell.
"Note that Old Europe was starkly divided on class lines, and life generally sucked for all but the top echelon of society."
Completely irrelevant.
"I don't know anything about Ancient Ireland, but did you notice that it isn't around anymore?"
An idiotic statement. No society has lasted from the dawn of mankind until present. Period. So this observation is meaningless. The US won't be around 1000 years from now either; Ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece aren't around either. So what? 1000 years to the credit of Ancient Ireland is pretty significant.
Also, saying "it isn't around anymore" is a fallicious argument. Just because a given system "isn't anymore" doesn't mean it isn't the best possible system of political organization.
The rest of your examples are specific problems with a particular government. It doesn't mean that all states are evil, or that it is bad as a concept.
All States are evil by definition: they tax (rob) and use violence to prevent competition. You also seem to be willfully ignornat of the reality of States: they allow individuals within them to externalize the costs of aggression, hence these individuals are more aggressive, ceteris paribus. It is an institutional problems of all States, although more-so in some than others (e.g., it is particularly problematic in Democracy, where rulers are only temporary, hence the tragedy of the commons exists from their perspective, as they have no incentive to bother with preserving anything, but only the expropriate as much as possible while they're in office).
"Also, why do you have the right to your property. Any inherent reason? I'm sure most communists would disagree."
You have the right to your property because you homesteaded it, and because that is the only non-arbitrary way to have property. The communist ideaology would mean death for mankind, as it would prevent the ownership of property, which is essential for survival. Capital could never be accumulated -- hence no long-term savings could occur, nor any planning for the future -- without private property ownership. As for property not homesteaded by the current owner, ownership can also be justified by voluntary exchanges from original homesteaders, or so-on down the line.
"Anyway, you agree to our laws by living here. If you don't like it, leave, is a very valid sentiment. The only reason it wouldn't be is if this was some sort of state that prevented people from leaving."
That's pure BS. The argument that anything is justified so-long as emigration isn't restricted is pure and complete BS, and completely fails to understand what justice is. Anyone who could say such either has no conception of justice, or isn't thinking about what the implications of what he's saying. What you're saying is that if me and my neighbors have a peaceful neighborhood, and some mafia lord moves in and aggresses against us, "if we don't like it, we have to leave" otherwise we have no cause to complain. In the current context, your statement is fallicious, as it assumes what it's trying to prove: that the State is justified. If you didn't assume that the State was justified in the first place, you couldn't say, "if you don't like it, leave".
According to your "logic", somehow, Nazi Germany would have been justified if only Hitler had let the Jews leave. That is, if he gave them the choice to "leave or be exterminated". Of course, such an ultimatum would completely violate their property rights. It's like me coming into your house and saying, "If you leave, I won't murder you. If you stay, I will". According to your argument, somehow, there is nothing wrong with this.
I don't have the "right" to my social status -- and that is completely irrelevant for my arguemnt; I do, however, have the right to my property. As for the need for roads, safe water, law, etc, all of this can be provided by the free market, and in fact has been provided in the past, before big businessmen -- doomed to failing in free-market attempts to cartelize the industries -- turned to government to accomplish the task.
Private roads were provided in Old Europe, known as turnpikes. On this topic, see the Walter Block's publications CV, specifically Transportation Systems section. Free-market justice was provided -- absent a State -- in Ancient Iceland and Ancient Ireland. Ancient Ireland existed as a peaceful, and intellectually advanced, stateless society for almost a thousand years. In terms of respect for women's rights, their society was centuries ahead of its time. Regarding a general introduction to the argument for a statless libertarian society, see Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty.
Regarding a the desireability of States, no we do not want to "have one of these". In the past century, States have murdered 174 million of their own people during peacetime. That is, these are the number of people murdered in State-sponsored democide. Another 36 million people have been murdered by wars. That's 200 million people murdered by States.
And those are only the most obvious cases. There's also all of the people who die because of road-socialism (the over-use of roads and poor management, due to the inability to perform economic calculation when there is no private property, and the lack of incentives).
Absent States, these murders would not have occured. It isn't profitable on the free market to murder hundreds of millions of people. And anyone attempting to commit mass-murder in a private libertarian society, wouldn't be able to externalize the costs of his aggression onto others by taxing. He'd have to fund it himself. Obviously, one is much more likely to engage in aggressive action if one faces hardly no consequences of such actions. E.g., G.W. Bush does not -- in any significant way -- pay the price of war; he doesn't experience the death, nor is he burdened by its financing.
PS: Re, "if you don't like it, leave" -- a childish, silly and fallicious argument. A mafia organization invades your neighborhood, continually expropriates your property, and commits violence, and the response to any protest is "if you don't like it leave". That presumes the criminal -- in my example, the mafia members, representative of the State -- has a right to be there, and that you don't. Mere rhetoric.
I've read up on "government", or rather "State". It is possible to have "government" without having a State. See Ancient Ireland and Iceland.
In any event, your flawed utilitarian arguments that we need a State to have lawfulness and peace, do not justify robbery and coercive force.
All that a State is is a group of gangsters that has widespread respect, that taxes, and that prevents any competitition in the administration of justice. It is a universal law of economics that when competitition is prevented, the quality of service decreases and the price of service increases.
Using a simple analogy for a "State": me and 9 other people get together and "vote" that you should be "taxed" (read: robbed) for the "common good". If you protest, we assault and possibly murder you, and take your money.
Yet another way in which the govenrment can spend the money it steals from us in mass-quantities, or justify stealing more money from us. If the project is such a great idea, let it be funded by voluntary means (donations, contributions, etc), rather than by coercive involuntary means (taxes, government borrowing, inflation).
Why is it that some people think that just because they feel they have a good idea, that justifies stealing money from others, e.g., violating the property-rights of others?
Since it seems we're talking cross-purposes, I'd like to clarify my position.
I'm talking about natural law, not fiat (or legislated) law. For thousands of years, there was no such thing as fiat-law, but only common law (which is much better). Hence, I'm not talking about what is or is not currently prohibited by coercive force. I'm talking about what should or should not be prohibited by force. I use the maid example because it is obvious, but the same thing applies to doctors, corporations, etc, because all of that is private property.
If MS wants to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, political affiliation, etc, in their hiring process, that is their right to do so. If the State tries to prohibit this by coercive force, those within the State doing such are acting criminally by natural law. (of course, that they have the right to do so, doesn't make doing so morally correct, anymore than that I have the right to be a jerk makes such morally correct).
The idea of hundreds of corporations colluding on the free market -- for any purpose -- is a stretch, and it has never ever been done, and never will be either. The only time cartels are possible is with enforcement of them by States.
Regarding a medical board setting standards, in a free market, if a medical board set standards that discriminated who could enter med school based on things irrelevant to medicine (gender, race, religion, etc), it would quickly become irrelevant, as no-one would pay attention to it or subscribe to its services.
People don't "lose freedom" by working for companies: it was a voluntary choice. What you're describing -- the syndicate form of organization -- is one (usually foolish) form of organization that could be laid out in a corporate charter. Any arrangement that people enter into voluntarily -- of their own free will -- is compatible with freedom. A syndicate just happens to be a very foolish form of organization. See Mises, Ludwig von. Syndicalism and Corporatism.
Just a response to one point -- although this isn't my only point of disagreement -- the "right to fair consideration". No, people don't have the right to "fair consideration", because no-one has the right to step on someone else' private property to begin with. If I'm inviting people into my house, or throwing a ball, I don't have to give anyone fair consideration; I have the right to discriminate who gets in or who doesn't based on any criteria I choose (hair-color, height, age, sex, race, weight, etc) or none at all. That doesn't change just because I'm offering people money to do a job for me (e.g., say I was hiring a maid).
Now, those who engage in such kinds of discrimination are going to pay the financial penalty, but they demonstrate by their actions that they'd rather pay that penalty than not engage in such discrimination.
Regarding the argument of some that it is reasonable for women to be hostile to this, due to past injustices...Past injustices don't justify a paranoid, unintellectual reaction to studies. Either this is true, or it isn't.
I'd also note that many of the things you describe as "rights", aren't or shouldn't be. "The right to vote" is newspeak for "the 'right' to aggress against others" (namely, to openly express and act upon one's desire to take that which they haven't earned). Regarding discrimination in the workplace, no-one has the "right" to work at a specific company. I'd argue, however, that there are alot of managers who would like nothing more than to have all female employees. Furthermore, to the extent that women are discriminated against* in the workplace, this creates a profit opportunity for entrepreneurs willing to hire them at lower wages.
On a related argument, a professor of mine gave a very interesting lecture, for which I have notes, discussing the wage-gap between men and women and the glass ceiling. He argues that the "wage gap" (women receiving 70% the pay of men) is really nothing more than the result of the fact that women (not men) get pregnant, and tend to thus take time off and stay at home to be parents. When you look at never-married men vs. never-married women, and teenaged boys vs. teenaged girls, there is no statistically significant wage-gap.
As regards the glass-ceiling, he argues this is due to a difference in the dispersions of IQ among men and women. He argues that although the average IQ of men and women may be the same, the distribution for women is more concentrated on the mean, while the distribution for men is less concentrated on the mean (fatter tails). That is, there are fewer very dumb or very smart women, and more very dumb or very smart men. Likewise with regards to other social characteristics, such as aggression. If you look at the highest peaks of many areas -- chess, business, science, etc -- they are dominated by men; however, you also see prisons and insane-asylums overwhelmingly occupied by men.
The reason for this is that men are expendable, and women are not. If 99% of the female population dies out, the human race is in severe trouble; if 99% of the male population dies out, the remaining 1% (provided adequate fecundity and stamina) can relatively quickly repopulate.
Interestingly, someone else brought up the issue of "emotional quotient" or "EQ". From their description of it, it seems to measure maturity, the ability to sacrafice immediate gratification for more long-term gratification. As emotional intelligence is "an awareness of and ability to manage emotions and create motivation", this would seem to be an appropriate characterization of part of the issue. Economists -- particularly those of the Austrian school -- call this "time-preference". Lower time-preferences are civilizing forces, and lead to success. Criminals and children, for example, are characterized by high time-preference (a rapist is someone who simply can't wait; children will give up $1000 tomorrow for $1 today; etc). I don't see why this doesn't fall under the rubric of general "intelligence".
* The term "discriminate" here is used in the very narrow sense, in that being female is considered as a negative aspect, all else equal. In reality, all private property, and every choice of free people, is based on discrimination.
As an MBA student (Simon school), it seems like many people here don't appreciate the role of management. There are good managers, and there are bad managers, just like there are good techs and bad techs.
Most of the concentrations don't relate to the kind of management that this post is discussing: namely, the kind that deals directly with employees in technical positions. However, those that do include manufacturing operations amangement, service operations management, and possibly marketing. The other concentrations are at a higher level, and deal with things like corporate accounting, financial decisions, corporate organization, corporate strategy, investing, and so-on and so-forth.
I'm in business school for investing, however, I am very influenced by Philip Fischer, thus think that investing in companies with competent management at all levels is critically important (poor management can run any company -- no matter current financial position -- into the ground). I highly recommend Philip Fischer's Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits & Other Writings; I have found the book so useful that I have it very extensively underlined and annoted. I think that reading this book will give people a good understanding of what is necessary for a company to succeed in terms of quality-of-organization*.
For a book -- actually a "novel" -- that deals specifically with the kind of management (low-level) that this post is dealing with, I'd highly recommend Goldratt, Eliyahu M. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. This book is the story of a plant that's going under, told from the perspective of the manager, who is highly technically competent. However, technical competence -- and even good people skills, which he has from the start -- isn't enough to ensure good management. A manager needs to know how to leverage his tehcnical and people-skills to benefit the firm, in terms of profit (specifically, NPV).
Now, one issue barely discussed in this book directly -- but that the reader gets a sense of -- is that alot of times managers have the wrong incentives. There are different ways to create incentive-structures for a division. Basically, it comes down to (crudely) a profit-center vs. a cost-center. If a manager is very constrained, it may be appropriate to treat his division as a cost-center, rewarding him based on how much he can reduce real costs. However, in many cases, a profit-center would be more reasonable. There are other larger issues, such as the tendency of many mechanisms of managerial performance to bias management decisions for short-term profitability at the expense of NPV (that is, disconsidering long-term profitability). This is an issue of corporate governance at the micro-scale, and one solution is to have retroactive bonuses that can still be paid off after managers leave, depending on how well the division is situated (this encourages managers to manage for the long-run, and to find good successors).
In any event, the manager being described by the original poster seems to be incompetent, in that he is actually hindering the work of his subordinates by constantly requiring them to help him with simple tasks that anyone should be able to deal with. However, the tone of many here seems to indicate a lack of understanding of what managers are there for. Managers are there to organiz
There is a name for what you're describing, and that's syndicalism. Let a bunch of workers get together and form syndicates, as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. Of course, the reality is that, in such a system, if there is freedom, workers would be able to sell their shares of ownership, and concentration in ownership could (and most likely would, due to specialization) arise.
However, within corporations as most of them exist now, the sole purpose of that corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's why shareholders invest their money in equity-issuances to begin with. They're the owners, and almost all corporate charters declare that the purpose of their existence is to maximize shareholder wealth (NPV) by engaging in their specific line of business.
Slashdot Mirror
I think my post addressed that. But to be quite frank, I think very little of our wealth is due to slavery. Aside from being criminal, slavery was not an efficient economic system. And it has been economically demonstrated that the only ones who were expected obtained value from slaves are those who first enslaved them; subsequent "buyers" payed the discounted present value of all future cash-revenues that the slave and their descendants were to generate. Furthermore, to the extent that it did benefit the minority of plantation owners in the South who had slaves, they externalized the costs of keeping slaves by getting laws passed like the fugitive slave act.
In any event, the argument about needing proof of illegitimate possession applies here. Furthermore, we commonly recognize that if someone buys something legitimately thinking the good wasn't stolen, we don't make them a criminal and punish them.
What do you mean, ignoring history? Libertarians don't ignore history; we realize that history illustrates our theories about States, that they cause massive war and destruction.
Or are you talking about past deeds whereby some current property possessors aren't legitimate owners, because they obtained their property by theft, or by getting the government to steal it from someone else and give it to them (e.g., Donald Trump)? We needn't ignore that; once you can prove that someone's possession was ill-gotten -- that they stole it -- you can take it from them. However, as they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the current possessor is the legitimate owner.
You might be interested in checking out Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp
A simple definition of a pure free market is a situation where there is no initiation of aggression, all voluntary transactions are allowed, and no involuntary transactions are forced.
This can be, and always is even absent a State, abrogated to various degrees. For example, a rapist forces an interaction on his victim that she does not desire; their interaction is not mutually consented upon. Or maybe someone prevents a transaction from happening that would have voluntarily happened We can dismiss the case of children and the mentally retarded referring to custodial issues and ability to consent to various things, for now.
Of course, the biggest abrogator of the free market is the State, or government, which prevents all sorts of voluntary interactions from happening (working under certain conditions, drug-use, prostitution, selling contraband, etc); and requires other involuntary interactions (e.g., taxes, jury-duty, the draft, and so-on and so-forth).
Thus, libertarianism as I would call it, simply means consistently applying the rules of non-aggression and private property to all; no exceptions. Theft and robbery are always wrong. Private property is to be respected, and not trespassed on, stolen, destroyed, or taxed. Rape is always wrong. Murder is always wrong and not right just because some idiots in D.C. "declare war", anymore than would murder be right if a serial murderer "declared war" on his victims before killing them. Nor is stealing ok because the State declares "eminent domain," that they need your property for bigger and better things; or because Donald Trump tries to persuade NJ to take away a little old lady's house through eminent domain. If someone doesn't want to give their property to you, or trade with you, you don't get to give her $X -- however generous you may feel that is -- and say she's been adequately compensated.
A free market does not require that there be symmetric information, nor does it require that all contracts be guaranteed. In the real world, there can be no true guarantees. And no-one has an obligation to enforce someone else's contract unless they previously agreed to do such. Caveat emptor, and caveat venditor; buyer and seller beware. Neither is required to do the other's homework (although fraud is of course prohibited).
You say you don't have the stomach to let some infant die of disease X while trust-fund children are wealthy, that's all fine and well if you want to help diseased infants with your own money. If, however, you want to take money from trust-fund children or the rich, then that's just theft or robbery. What you're really saying is that because other people have chosen to use the money they've earned in ways you disagree with -- but that are not aggressing against anyone -- you're going to sanction pointing a gun at them and forcing them to give their money, killing them if necessary. It is not the fault of the rich, qua the rich, or their children that some people aren't so well off. To a certain extent, life is a lottery. But if anyone is at fault for subjecting children to a lottery, it is their parents for sure; not strangers who had nothing to do with the conception of the child.
Rephrasing, whenever you are dissatisfied with some situation -- maybe it's the preservation of a various forest, or children with diseased, or whatever -- you can use your own money and influence to address it. You can attempt to use reason and passion to convince others to voluntarily join in your efforts (and there are private conservatory efforts; near where I live, there is a privately owned bog). However, you aren't justified in using force to make others help you. This is just stomping your feet and having a temper tantrum when you don' get your way. In fact, it's worse; it's hitting the kids around you to get what you want.
And nor does "democracy" justify that. For there are 9 men and 1 woman, and the 9 men "vote" that they ought to all have sex with the one woman, well she's outvoted 9-1. That doesn't mean that they're entitled to have sex with her, or that their actions would be anything but rape.
My bad, upon re-reading it, I think you were being sarcastic (?), and actually saying it was a good thing:
"If it was insurance, evil companies could reduce the rates for people who had good results(and someone _eventually_ would offer such reduced rates), rather than setting their rates based on who they are legally required to cover."
I took that as you saying it would be bad if insurance companies did such. But it seems you were being sarcastic (hence the "evil companies" phrase).
I do however disagree with this:
"Note that I do think that society should provide coverage for people who require expensive treatment, especially when it is ongoing, I just don't think that it is something that can be worked into a private model."
Just because someone else requires expensive treatment, doesn't mean I and other taxpayers should have to pay for it. That's not anyone else' fault. I think this is for personal savings, family, and charity to deal with.
It may suck if someone requires expensive treatment. My uncle has diabetes and thus needs dialysis. However, that doesn't mean that the State, or anyone else, is entitled to steal taxpayers money at gunpoint (which is really what all taxation is, theft, the initiation of aggression).
However, on the flip-side, imagine how much cheaper medical treatment would be if not for Statist crippling of the free market: The FDA which makes drug R&D very costly; the State-supported AMA, a cartel of doctors, which prevents competition; mandatory things that insurance must cover; etc. And of course, things would also be cheaper because there wouldn't be inflation (inflation is caused by printing money; we wouldn't have that if on a gold standard). And we'd become wealthier at a more rapid rate, as the free market produces more wealth and higher standards of living absent State-intervention.
Yea, always demonize the "evil" health insurance companies, while ignoring regulations that require them to "insure" every ridiculous thing (so that instead of insurance, what we really have is an insane amount of pre-paid medical care and wealth-redistribution from the healthy to the unhealthy).
Why the hell should someone in the top 1 percentile pay the same health insurance premium as someone who is average or below-average? Why not make normal people pay the same rates as football players too.
Of course, it's perfectly fine if insurance companies don't know your genetic makeup, I'm sure they'd agree. As long as you also don't know it. But what you can't have is a situation where individuals know their genetic makeup, but insurance companies can't request genetic testing for their information; because that results in insurance companies systematically being defrauding and losing money. Or, there will be many more regulations, effectively eliminating the last vestiges of real health insurance -- which is supposed to be for catastrophes, not colds or acupuncture of people who have indiscriminate unprotected sex -- and replace it with nothing more than a socialist health system, where wealth is redistributed from the healthy to the unhealthy.
Well, of course if you pay for something, the insurance company doesn't have the right to know that information. However, if you apply for insurance then, you may be defrauding them. There are obvious incentive problems there.
I'm sure that any insurance company will be fine with not knowing your genetic makeup, as long as you don't either. When this thing becomes more common, insurance companies may want genetic testing, and will be justified in such. It's their business, you don't have to be insured by them; they're not forcing anything on you. If I owned an insurance company, I wouldn't want to insure people coming to the table with certain knowledge that I'm going to be screwed.
Of course, the reason why total insurance coverage may be dropped is because of laws that prevent insurance companies from only insuring specific things and not others. Otherwise, they wouldn't insure you for those things you're almost certain to have, but would for other things. Or for things your almost certain to have, they'd only insure you for having damages beyond $X amount, based on statistics.
I might get ATI Radeon 3850 due to it's Avivo video processing, which scales up 1080p to up to 1600p. Of course, for that to be useful, I'd have to get one of the 30" 2560x1600 monitors.
But as for keeping up with the latest gaming performance GPU, that's not much of a concern (hence why I go for the lower 3800 series card). I would even go with a 2600 if not for the poor reviews on HDTV upscaling, noise-reduction, sharpness etc. But as far as games go, I play the Descent series, the Tomb Raider series, and the NFS series. And that's 3 years ago, so I'm just speculating if I play those again. I also might check out OpenRaider. And maybe I'll check out Cerberon (Descent into Doom 3), so that would be my most GPU-intensive stuff. I think any modern GPU will crush the games I play.
You make it sound like RP supported the bill with a YES vote. He did not vote on the bill, because he was not there when it was being voted on. He was campaigning. Since a few others already made the symbolic NO vote against tyranny, providing arguments, there was really little more for RP to add; aside, of course, from his own unique eloquent opposition to tyranny.
We didn't always have cells, so they certainly aren't necessary. Private property owners have the right to set the rules, and determine how to enforce them. If customers don't like it, they're welcomed not to go there. Maybe the building's structure blocks cell signals anyways (that's the way it is at my work).
Certainly, people can ask the restaurant to call 911.
Great post. Rothbard was the most brilliant & prescient economist of the last century, rivaled only by his mentor, Mises.
Before he died, Friedman -- who had been critical of a real gold standard & in favor pf fiat money -- said that in retrospect, we'd have been better with a gold standard. At least he admitted his tragic mistake; Samuelson never admitted grave idiocy in predicting the USSR overtaking the US in GDP.
Wealth can't be created by printing out more money. That's just inflation, w/c causes non-uniform price-increases, redistributes wealth, and misallocates resources (malinvestment); this is what causes the business cycle. If inflation -- the printing of money, & expansion by fractional reserve -- created wealth, the countries in Latin America would be the richest in the world.
More wealth -- that is, increased living standards -- can only be created by savings, productive investment, and innovation; also the increasing of the division of labor internationally, and the reduction in international barter (different fiat currencies, instead of a universal gold standard).
I disagree.
Bullet-point are extremely useful for providing a broad structure to part of what the guy's going to talk about. They are particularly helpful to the audience, who can thus appropriately organize their note-taking activities. That said, having too much is distracting (like Gates' cluttered background image). The other problem with Gates' cluttered background image is that it distracts attention from him, and overwhelms him visually. Jobs' background focuses attention on him (but in a non-obvious way; e.g., not arrows pointing towards him).
Also, I noted that PowerPoint is also useful for creating detailed references on presentations. (see my other post in this thread).
The problem with minimal outlines is that then people have to frantically take notes; I can do this quite easily, as I take notes right in PowerPoint, and type fast (or in Adobe Acrobat Professional, if it's been PDF'ed). This also distracts the focus from learning, if one gets behind.
Here's my idea: dual PowerPoints, one for presentation, one as a detailed reference. Perhaps some way to combine them (nested?) in one powerpoint file, for those viewing on computers (who might want to expand on certain topics).
I had an accounting professor who didn't assign a textbook because his notes were like a textbook. Very detailed. This is convenient for referencing purposes. However, it's less convenient for presentation. The powerpoint for presentation should provide structure to what's being lectured on, and give visuals for things not easily described, or that would be a pain to take notes on.
From the pov of the listener, I think it's always a good idea to record lectures or talks, so that you can listen to them again if you want to.
Notice, I said "natural right". State laws are arbitrary, like the declarations of mafia leaders. In some parts of the world, there are alot of things that are illegal. So what? Means nothing about right/wrong. In Germany during WWII, it was illegal to be a Jew.
They have the right to set whatever policies they want, whether nice or not, whether discriminatory or not. Since it's their private property, they should have the right to say no characters can have names that start with S, or no reference to homosexuality, or have different standards for homosexual and heterosexual references to couples. Whoever doesn't like it can play another game online, using someone else's property, with policies more to your liking. As private property owners, they have the natural right to set whatever policies they want, whether you or anyone else perceive them to be fair. As a free person, and self-owner, you have the natural right to tell them to go to hell.
"Note that Old Europe was starkly divided on class lines, and life generally sucked for all but the top echelon of society."
Completely irrelevant.
"I don't know anything about Ancient Ireland, but did you notice that it isn't around anymore?"
An idiotic statement. No society has lasted from the dawn of mankind until present. Period. So this observation is meaningless. The US won't be around 1000 years from now either; Ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece aren't around either. So what? 1000 years to the credit of Ancient Ireland is pretty significant.
Also, saying "it isn't around anymore" is a fallicious argument. Just because a given system "isn't anymore" doesn't mean it isn't the best possible system of political organization.
The rest of your examples are specific problems with a particular government. It doesn't mean that all states are evil, or that it is bad as a concept.All States are evil by definition: they tax (rob) and use violence to prevent competition. You also seem to be willfully ignornat of the reality of States: they allow individuals within them to externalize the costs of aggression, hence these individuals are more aggressive, ceteris paribus. It is an institutional problems of all States, although more-so in some than others (e.g., it is particularly problematic in Democracy, where rulers are only temporary, hence the tragedy of the commons exists from their perspective, as they have no incentive to bother with preserving anything, but only the expropriate as much as possible while they're in office).
"Also, why do you have the right to your property. Any inherent reason? I'm sure most communists would disagree."
You have the right to your property because you homesteaded it, and because that is the only non-arbitrary way to have property. The communist ideaology would mean death for mankind, as it would prevent the ownership of property, which is essential for survival. Capital could never be accumulated -- hence no long-term savings could occur, nor any planning for the future -- without private property ownership. As for property not homesteaded by the current owner, ownership can also be justified by voluntary exchanges from original homesteaders, or so-on down the line.
As for ultimate arguments for the justification of self-ownership and private property rights (homesteading), see Hans Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Also see Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Creed (search for Property Rights, case-sensitive).
"Anyway, you agree to our laws by living here. If you don't like it, leave, is a very valid sentiment. The only reason it wouldn't be is if this was some sort of state that prevented people from leaving."
That's pure BS. The argument that anything is justified so-long as emigration isn't restricted is pure and complete BS, and completely fails to understand what justice is. Anyone who could say such either has no conception of justice, or isn't thinking about what the implications of what he's saying. What you're saying is that if me and my neighbors have a peaceful neighborhood, and some mafia lord moves in and aggresses against us, "if we don't like it, we have to leave" otherwise we have no cause to complain. In the current context, your statement is fallicious, as it assumes what it's trying to prove: that the State is justified. If you didn't assume that the State was justified in the first place, you couldn't say, "if you don't like it, leave".
According to your "logic", somehow, Nazi Germany would have been justified if only Hitler had let the Jews leave. That is, if he gave them the choice to "leave or be exterminated". Of course, such an ultimatum would completely violate their property rights. It's like me coming into your house and saying, "If you leave, I won't murder you. If you stay, I will". According to your argument, somehow, there is nothing wrong with this.
I don't have the "right" to my social status -- and that is completely irrelevant for my arguemnt; I do, however, have the right to my property. As for the need for roads, safe water, law, etc, all of this can be provided by the free market, and in fact has been provided in the past, before big businessmen -- doomed to failing in free-market attempts to cartelize the industries -- turned to government to accomplish the task.
Private roads were provided in Old Europe, known as turnpikes. On this topic, see the Walter Block's publications CV, specifically Transportation Systems section. Free-market justice was provided -- absent a State -- in Ancient Iceland and Ancient Ireland. Ancient Ireland existed as a peaceful, and intellectually advanced, stateless society for almost a thousand years. In terms of respect for women's rights, their society was centuries ahead of its time. Regarding a general introduction to the argument for a statless libertarian society, see Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty .
Regarding a the desireability of States, no we do not want to "have one of these". In the past century, States have murdered 174 million of their own people during peacetime. That is, these are the number of people murdered in State-sponsored democide. Another 36 million people have been murdered by wars. That's 200 million people murdered by States.
Then there's DDT. See Englund, Eric. The Mosquito: Environmentalism's Weapon of Mass Destruction . Every year, 2.7 million people die of malaria; all of this is prevantable, provided the use of DDT, which is cheap and effective. Despite that, States have banned it.
And those are only the most obvious cases. There's also all of the people who die because of road-socialism (the over-use of roads and poor management, due to the inability to perform economic calculation when there is no private property, and the lack of incentives).
Absent States, these murders would not have occured. It isn't profitable on the free market to murder hundreds of millions of people. And anyone attempting to commit mass-murder in a private libertarian society, wouldn't be able to externalize the costs of his aggression onto others by taxing. He'd have to fund it himself. Obviously, one is much more likely to engage in aggressive action if one faces hardly no consequences of such actions. E.g., G.W. Bush does not -- in any significant way -- pay the price of war; he doesn't experience the death, nor is he burdened by its financing.
PS: Re, "if you don't like it, leave" -- a childish, silly and fallicious argument. A mafia organization invades your neighborhood, continually expropriates your property, and commits violence, and the response to any protest is "if you don't like it leave". That presumes the criminal -- in my example, the mafia members, representative of the State -- has a right to be there, and that you don't. Mere rhetoric.
I've read up on "government", or rather "State". It is possible to have "government" without having a State. See Ancient Ireland and Iceland.
In any event, your flawed utilitarian arguments that we need a State to have lawfulness and peace, do not justify robbery and coercive force.
All that a State is is a group of gangsters that has widespread respect, that taxes, and that prevents any competitition in the administration of justice. It is a universal law of economics that when competitition is prevented, the quality of service decreases and the price of service increases.
Using a simple analogy for a "State": me and 9 other people get together and "vote" that you should be "taxed" (read: robbed) for the "common good". If you protest, we assault and possibly murder you, and take your money.
I'd gladly accept reduced fertility, and even diabetes, if I could gain an extra 50% of lifespan (39 years for a man).
Yet another way in which the govenrment can spend the money it steals from us in mass-quantities, or justify stealing more money from us. If the project is such a great idea, let it be funded by voluntary means (donations, contributions, etc), rather than by coercive involuntary means (taxes, government borrowing, inflation).
Why is it that some people think that just because they feel they have a good idea, that justifies stealing money from others, e.g., violating the property-rights of others?
Since it seems we're talking cross-purposes, I'd like to clarify my position.
I'm talking about natural law, not fiat (or legislated) law. For thousands of years, there was no such thing as fiat-law, but only common law (which is much better). Hence, I'm not talking about what is or is not currently prohibited by coercive force. I'm talking about what should or should not be prohibited by force. I use the maid example because it is obvious, but the same thing applies to doctors, corporations, etc, because all of that is private property.
If MS wants to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, political affiliation, etc, in their hiring process, that is their right to do so. If the State tries to prohibit this by coercive force, those within the State doing such are acting criminally by natural law. (of course, that they have the right to do so, doesn't make doing so morally correct, anymore than that I have the right to be a jerk makes such morally correct).
The idea of hundreds of corporations colluding on the free market -- for any purpose -- is a stretch, and it has never ever been done, and never will be either. The only time cartels are possible is with enforcement of them by States.
Regarding a medical board setting standards, in a free market, if a medical board set standards that discriminated who could enter med school based on things irrelevant to medicine (gender, race, religion, etc), it would quickly become irrelevant, as no-one would pay attention to it or subscribe to its services.
People don't "lose freedom" by working for companies: it was a voluntary choice. What you're describing -- the syndicate form of organization -- is one (usually foolish) form of organization that could be laid out in a corporate charter. Any arrangement that people enter into voluntarily -- of their own free will -- is compatible with freedom. A syndicate just happens to be a very foolish form of organization. See Mises, Ludwig von. Syndicalism and Corporatism.
Just a response to one point -- although this isn't my only point of disagreement -- the "right to fair consideration". No, people don't have the right to "fair consideration", because no-one has the right to step on someone else' private property to begin with. If I'm inviting people into my house, or throwing a ball, I don't have to give anyone fair consideration; I have the right to discriminate who gets in or who doesn't based on any criteria I choose (hair-color, height, age, sex, race, weight, etc) or none at all. That doesn't change just because I'm offering people money to do a job for me (e.g., say I was hiring a maid).
Now, those who engage in such kinds of discrimination are going to pay the financial penalty, but they demonstrate by their actions that they'd rather pay that penalty than not engage in such discrimination.
Regarding the argument of some that it is reasonable for women to be hostile to this, due to past injustices...Past injustices don't justify a paranoid, unintellectual reaction to studies. Either this is true, or it isn't.
I'd also note that many of the things you describe as "rights", aren't or shouldn't be. "The right to vote" is newspeak for "the 'right' to aggress against others" (namely, to openly express and act upon one's desire to take that which they haven't earned). Regarding discrimination in the workplace, no-one has the "right" to work at a specific company. I'd argue, however, that there are alot of managers who would like nothing more than to have all female employees. Furthermore, to the extent that women are discriminated against* in the workplace, this creates a profit opportunity for entrepreneurs willing to hire them at lower wages.
On a related argument, a professor of mine gave a very interesting lecture, for which I have notes, discussing the wage-gap between men and women and the glass ceiling. He argues that the "wage gap" (women receiving 70% the pay of men) is really nothing more than the result of the fact that women (not men) get pregnant, and tend to thus take time off and stay at home to be parents. When you look at never-married men vs. never-married women, and teenaged boys vs. teenaged girls, there is no statistically significant wage-gap.
As regards the glass-ceiling, he argues this is due to a difference in the dispersions of IQ among men and women. He argues that although the average IQ of men and women may be the same, the distribution for women is more concentrated on the mean, while the distribution for men is less concentrated on the mean (fatter tails). That is, there are fewer very dumb or very smart women, and more very dumb or very smart men. Likewise with regards to other social characteristics, such as aggression. If you look at the highest peaks of many areas -- chess, business, science, etc -- they are dominated by men; however, you also see prisons and insane-asylums overwhelmingly occupied by men.
The reason for this is that men are expendable, and women are not. If 99% of the female population dies out, the human race is in severe trouble; if 99% of the male population dies out, the remaining 1% (provided adequate fecundity and stamina) can relatively quickly repopulate.
Interestingly, someone else brought up the issue of "emotional quotient" or "EQ". From their description of it, it seems to measure maturity, the ability to sacrafice immediate gratification for more long-term gratification. As emotional intelligence is "an awareness of and ability to manage emotions and create motivation", this would seem to be an appropriate characterization of part of the issue. Economists -- particularly those of the Austrian school -- call this "time-preference". Lower time-preferences are civilizing forces, and lead to success. Criminals and children, for example, are characterized by high time-preference (a rapist is someone who simply can't wait; children will give up $1000 tomorrow for $1 today; etc). I don't see why this doesn't fall under the rubric of general "intelligence".
* The term "discriminate" here is used in the very narrow sense, in that being female is considered as a negative aspect, all else equal. In reality, all private property, and every choice of free people, is based on discrimination.
As an MBA student (Simon school), it seems like many people here don't appreciate the role of management. There are good managers, and there are bad managers, just like there are good techs and bad techs.
Most of the concentrations don't relate to the kind of management that this post is discussing: namely, the kind that deals directly with employees in technical positions. However, those that do include manufacturing operations amangement, service operations management, and possibly marketing. The other concentrations are at a higher level, and deal with things like corporate accounting, financial decisions, corporate organization, corporate strategy, investing, and so-on and so-forth.
I'm in business school for investing, however, I am very influenced by Philip Fischer, thus think that investing in companies with competent management at all levels is critically important (poor management can run any company -- no matter current financial position -- into the ground). I highly recommend Philip Fischer's Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits & Other Writings ; I have found the book so useful that I have it very extensively underlined and annoted. I think that reading this book will give people a good understanding of what is necessary for a company to succeed in terms of quality-of-organization*.
For a book -- actually a "novel" -- that deals specifically with the kind of management (low-level) that this post is dealing with, I'd highly recommend Goldratt, Eliyahu M. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement . This book is the story of a plant that's going under, told from the perspective of the manager, who is highly technically competent. However, technical competence -- and even good people skills, which he has from the start -- isn't enough to ensure good management. A manager needs to know how to leverage his tehcnical and people-skills to benefit the firm, in terms of profit (specifically, NPV).
Now, one issue barely discussed in this book directly -- but that the reader gets a sense of -- is that alot of times managers have the wrong incentives. There are different ways to create incentive-structures for a division. Basically, it comes down to (crudely) a profit-center vs. a cost-center. If a manager is very constrained, it may be appropriate to treat his division as a cost-center, rewarding him based on how much he can reduce real costs. However, in many cases, a profit-center would be more reasonable. There are other larger issues, such as the tendency of many mechanisms of managerial performance to bias management decisions for short-term profitability at the expense of NPV (that is, disconsidering long-term profitability). This is an issue of corporate governance at the micro-scale, and one solution is to have retroactive bonuses that can still be paid off after managers leave, depending on how well the division is situated (this encourages managers to manage for the long-run, and to find good successors).
In any event, the manager being described by the original poster seems to be incompetent, in that he is actually hindering the work of his subordinates by constantly requiring them to help him with simple tasks that anyone should be able to deal with. However, the tone of many here seems to indicate a lack of understanding of what managers are there for. Managers are there to organiz
There is a name for what you're describing, and that's syndicalism. Let a bunch of workers get together and form syndicates, as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. Of course, the reality is that, in such a system, if there is freedom, workers would be able to sell their shares of ownership, and concentration in ownership could (and most likely would, due to specialization) arise.
However, within corporations as most of them exist now, the sole purpose of that corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's why shareholders invest their money in equity-issuances to begin with. They're the owners, and almost all corporate charters declare that the purpose of their existence is to maximize shareholder wealth (NPV) by engaging in their specific line of business.