Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Google apps still has no google profiles support.

This is a most unfortunate generalization. Please note that no reasonable "libertarian" (by which I define as any south-leaning position to the political left of Randianism and which I include both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism) is in favour of corporate rule. This can be deduced simply by recognizing that the corporate structure itself is a) by nature anti-competitive and b) granted limited-liability status by the state; the corporate entities you distrust today would cease to exist in a libertarian society (which, to be clear, would eschew all unnecessary barriers to the marketplace, properly conceived). Indeed, one need not look very far past your nation's embarrassing "bail-outs" to see that your corporations are the product of your governance and not the other way around (not that a causal relationship even matters in such a case).

That aside, if you're still determined to justify your irrational distaste of free-market voluntaryism, I strongly urge you to do so on more principled grounds -- ideally through an examination of the logical inconsistencies found at the heart of the ideology (such as those accentuated by Robert Nozick) or, if you're dealing with uneducated hobgoblins (which I suspect you are), through some rhetorical appeal to social contract theory.

Also, please note that the Iron Law of Oligarchy is an economic principle, not a political one. Many of you seem to be confusing your apples with your oranges here.

Regards,
Baron Wilhelm von Grimsby IV
--

Respect +10

Yeah, Grimsby just made the "i can't take libertarians seriously" argument his bitch.

I don't buy the "politics aren't economics" argument, because one defines the other, and vice versa. We're capitalists because that's the politically feasible choice, electorally speaking. Our economic policy is defined by politicians who run the country (into the ground or not, matter of perspective). The two cannot be disentangled.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Indeed.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Your reasoning is as disconcerting as your over-sized wizard hat, friend.

While it may be true that most politicians in your nation are capitalists, to blame capitalism proper for the follies of said politicians is akin to blaming weapons for the unfortunate deeds committed by murderers. Indeed, there is no reason to attribute responsibility to the former for the actions of the latter given that neither economic systems nor weapons are moral agents in and of themselves. To believe otherwise is to commit a most juvenile fallacy and, perhaps even more troublesome, is to promote the mistaken belief that persons are not responsible for their actions.

On a note well-related, I daresay that the crux of your nation's issues stems for the general renunciation of personal responsibility among both the electoral populace and the men-of-power (who, for reasons which exceed the limitations of my contribution here, have been startlingly successful in distracting the former via media-perpetuated tales -- consider, for example, the recent ruse of the orange-skinned brutes which, for reasons unbeknownst to me, has been accepted as "entertainment" by your now buffoonic culture). Should my supposition be correct –– and I would be hard-pressed to believe that it is not –– then the proper solution to your nation's follies would seem to lie in the promotion of actions which reinforce -- rather than deny -- the Sartrean precept that one is always responsible for one's actions. Unfortunately for you, the voluntary exchange of goods and services between individuals (i.e., "libertarianism" proper) just so happens to promote these very ideals at the forefront (though, perhaps arguably so, at the economic level only).

Best regards,
Baron Wilhelm von Grimsby IV
--


As an addendum to my contribution above, I would be wise to make explicit (were it, for some reason, not already clear) that the corporate structure fails precisely because its principal function entails the eschewal of personal responsibility on behalf of its members. It is, once again, impossible ipso facto to be a voluntaryist and a person in favour of corporate rule.

^I friggin love this guy.

Take that Frenchie!

----------------------------------------------------------------

On topic: everyone and their brother has been adding me to Google+. I've made one update. When will we as a society have social media overload and rebellion?

Explaining the theory doesn't counteract the reality. It's adorable that you're an idealist, but the fact is that in an unregulated market, corporations will form to gain the size advantage over rivals and eat competition.

That said, I have no idea what you're trying to get at in your post. Of course an economic construct isn't a moral agent, but the people supporting it are, as are those who developed the idea in the first place. People and their ideas are necessarily intertwined, so politics and economics are inseparable.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

While I am hardly surprised to learn that you have failed to understand my response, in the spirit of diplomatic amité, I will hereby explain myself as clearly as possible:

"Corporations" cannot thrive in an unregulated market due precisely to the fact that a corporation, by all reasonable definitions, exists only as a product of the state; the legal mechanisms which grant limited liability to business-entities would simply not exist in a "libertarian" society.

If you cannot understand this (or, alternatively, if you are simply choosing to redefine commonly-understood terms as you see fit) then I'm afraid I cannot continue this discussion with you any further.

Best,
Baron Wilhelm von Grimsby IV
--

Poor form.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The word "corporation" is not restricted to legally incorporated bodies, nor in legal terms is it even restricted to limited liability companies. I assume the definitions in the OED can be considered "reasonable"? corporation: 2. A number of persons united, or regarded as united, in one body; a body of persons.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

I'm quite certain the person above is not merely referring to "a body of persons" united in a general sense and is referring, as one would suspect, to the large business entities protected by the state. Of course, I could be mistaken but it would be most unusual indeed to refer to a general collective of persons as a "corporation" devoid of the legal connotations typically expressed.

Regards,
Baron Wilhelm von Grimsby IV
--

Indeed you are mistaken. The third sense in the dictionary refers to the legal sense of the word ( 3. a. Law. A body corporate legally authorized to act as a single individual; an artificial person created by royal charter, prescription, or act of the legislature, and having authority to preserve certain rights in perpetual succession.), while the examples of the second sense I provided above clearly refer to groups acting as one, but with no legal standing.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris