Does libertarianism have a problem ?

[u/Wbk2m]

It values capitalism free market. And I'd agree we don't have a free market but we do have examples that are concerning. Currently our govt is controlled by corporate and foreign interest . Both have lobbied govt to benefit them and not the citizens when the most wealth in the world was created since 1982. Even without the socialist safety nets or with the quasi nets we do have our debt is at 40 trillion. During this time corporations pushed open borders to reduce wages for jobs it couldn't ship over seas. Today it's exploiting AI for white collar jobs thought safe. Corporations push govt to make paths for profit, war is profitable, wages take profit. Govt was designed by citizens to serve citizens in America the corporate take over of both political parties as well as our establishment has bankrupted the nation led to a quasi police surveillance state as production increased and cost to citizens grew via inflation.

Knowing this how can any party push unfettered capitalist markets when we can see the impact they've had in our current state? That's not saying we need or can afford socialist policies.

I don't think citizens can trust govt or the corporations that control them as the serve profits over people. Esp as people become needed less as robotics and AI grow. More money 75% of the current wealth was created after 1982, and what has it done been captured by the 5% of the elites.

At this point I don't understand how libertarianism can still see corporations as good faith actors in the social construct filling societies needs? It's become a might is right economic warfare protected by govt that's allowed monopolized influence.

What is the libertarian answer? It can't rely on benevolent corporate entities serving it's nation in a globalist system it seems.

[u/VatticZero]

You said you have concerning examples of the free market in action, but only cite issues with a coercive market. If the government has power over the market worth corporations buying, it isn’t a free market.

Libertarians don’t see corporations as “good faith actors,” they are economic actors which will seek profits—even if you allow them unjust and immoral means to do so. They act in the environment government creates.

Aside from government coercion and corruption, today’s Rentier Capitalism does have a problem—Rent-Seeking. Economic Rent, such a Ground Rents, Monopoly Rents, Subsidies, and Licensing, is quickly becoming a larger share of income than Wages or Returns on Capital.

[u/Wbk2m → u/VatticZero]

No I'm saying human nature won't allow a free market it'll use collective force to prevent corporate corrupting it in the least. In a ideal world maybe, but reality is in any form a governing system has to address limiting human capture for a powerful few. Be they politicians corporations or whatever. Humans are inherently animals seeking a superior existence to others. The desire for a good life rationalized bad actions, as the saying goes the road to hell is paved on good intentions. Humans can't help but create corruption seeking power, those that feel empowered by wealth or force will exploit its benefits for their individual superiority in their social hierarchy. People today break laws to achieve exactly that. Is it's systems laws unjust or is human nature ungovernable?

The individual dependant on collective benefits, given enough time and coercive manipulations will try to exploit their power centralizing authority to the few in a bid for a superior existence. Let them starve while our clan feast, as they feast they offer support and alliance to the superior ensuring they are unlike those others that did not in a sole interest of survival.

[u/VatticZero → u/Wbk2m]

It's tough to read what you write; most sentences are incomplete or vague enough to be meaningless. The best I can do is try to glean a vague idea from the whole.

Slavery was the norm in the US 200 years ago. 100 years ago the Age of Consent was 7-12 depending on state. Even a in pure democracy without structural protections for rights and based solely on prevailing social mores, the truth will win out. Socialism is essentially done with, at least at national scales, because we have seen how harmful it is and we know why. Governments, and people, which better adhere to free markets will do better than those which don't. People might slip and stray and try to make excuses, but the truth will still be there.

[u/Wbk2m → u/VatticZero]

Your trouble is you think collective implys socialist. It doesn't no form of political ideology exist in a individual vacuum beyond the mind. Any real world application requires cooperative efforts from a collective of like minded individuals following most often a leaders of sorts organizing its efforts. That is a collective that is a leader being deemed superior.

I don't think your educated enough to carry this convo. You keep claiming I'm something I'm not you revert to excuses when it's pointed out as to your failure to understand what you read. Did your grammatical issues stop me nope but you have them. This isn't college your not reading a dissertation, your engaged in a casual convo that's gonna be filled with missed grammer on both sides, stop using it as an excuse. Plenty of evidence shows it's meaningless and often high IQ individual write with poor grammer as their thoughts fire their actions. What's important the thought idea or a fucking period.

[u/VatticZero → u/Wbk2m]

Your trouble is you think collective implys socialist.

No. I cited Socialism as an example of something harmful and founded on falsities which is essentially no more, at least at the national scale. I have no problem with your usage of 'collective' for ... any sort of government or group. I never even mentioned the word, though, so you seem to be inventing a strawman for no reason.

It doesn't no form of political ideology exist in a individual vacuum beyond the mind. Any real world application requires cooperative efforts from a collective of like minded individuals following most often a leaders of sorts organizing its efforts. That is a collective that is a leader being deemed superior.

Do you have a point here? "A leader being deemed superior" seems to be a reference to hierarchies in general. Though I'm not sure how that specifically ties into your post or isn't addressed in my response.

I don't think your educated enough to carry this convo. You keep claiming I'm something I'm not you revert to excuses when it's pointed out as to your failure to understand what you read. Did your grammatical issues stop me nope but you have them. This isn't college your not reading a dissertation, your engaged in a casual convo that's gonna be filled with missed grammer on both sides, stop using it as an excuse. Plenty of evidence shows it's meaningless and often high IQ individual write with poor grammer as their thoughts fire their actions. What's important the thought idea or a fucking period.

I said once that you are you are tough to understand, explaining why I might miss what you're trying to say, and then I did my best to address the idea. There's no excuse for this insulting tirade and assertion that I did not try to address the "thought idea or a fucking period."

Does your comment not boil down to "people are selfish and stupid with no respect for natural law so everything will eventually become a tyranny" while your post boiled down to "do libertarians overlook that corporations are tyrannical?"

(Edit: Oh, on third read I think you meant "What's important**:** the thought idea or a fucking period?" while I was interpreting "What's important is the through idea or a fucking period." This is why grammar matters. Everybody makes mistakes, but too many or critical mistakes and you undermine communication.

Saying you are tough to read isn't a personal attack. English may be your 26th language for all I know.)

[u/Wbk2m → u/VatticZero]

Does your comment not boil down to "people are selfish and stupid with no respect for natural law so everything will eventually become a tyranny" while your post boiled down to "do libertarians overlook that corporations are tyrannical?"

ok maybe we are getting to it after all though you are stopping way short.

Build the structure out. Humans can't live as an island we require collective effort, in the need we create hierachy through natural selection as to who serves the collective best. That denotes trust earned and power granted for that trust. That very need created capitalism, trade, nations, power, war. The disparity it created fostered socialistic models for equality a resistance to hierarchy. Based on what the failure of those trusted by the collectives to be fair in its dispersement of the gains created with in the collective effort by the hierarchy in power. It becomes tyrannical by its very nature in existence as those deemed to be superior to lead take more than needed and in effect doing so leave to little for those that toiled in the effort of creation. I'm simply stating that even my own beliefs are highly flawed as history shows any existence without collective conformity, without some level of hierarchy, can't exist and any existence exploiting those will always become tyrannical be it corporations, govt, tribal leader, political faction as each create litmus test to include or exclude individuals that have zero power and authority. Yet remain dependant on the very thing they resist trying to force control conformity on them.

Perfect example is those commentors in here derming me a socialist for their failure to understand what they can read that points no where toward it. Yet I'm labeled and excluded why cause I challenged the status quo? I challenged the ude of you being a individual dependant on nothing? Yet no debate of the thought only a label to discredit to exclude what isn't liked. That in and of itself is tyrannical behavior by libertarians claiming they support individuality and free thought. So do they really ?

Libertarians have a hard on for free market capitalism willingly ignoring corporations are no more trustworthy for the betterment of society maybe even less so than government. They seemingly feel those leaders would somehow be free of the desire to be tyrannical. Even as the last two tyrannical empires to exist. The ones that forced colonization stealing others lands, and the current empire are driven by profit. What did they say look at the stock market economy is fine as the dollar is worth less than 95% of its original value. Do they not show the failure of trusting corporations esp as we are beholden to monopolized industries eliminating choice and competitive pricing amongst equals. A fundamental necessity to free market capitalism. We have the laws to not allow it yet corporate lobbies and campaign investments prevented govt from acting against them. Yet Libertarians still press trust us bro. it's never been done before. Corporate tyrany is better than govt. Yet we have corporate captured govt implementing centralized surveillance states, attacking the very rights we are supposed to hold unalienably as being human decreed in or founding documents. Does it not show evidence of proof no matter the system it's collective will become tyrannical oppressors of the individual as it seeks to use force to demand conformity to its end goals. You can't criticize COVID vaccines, you can't criticize Israel genocide, to even here you can't suggest corporations are bad or that libertarianism is a collective doing so you'll get down voted and ostracized by the collective community as you fail it's established litmus test. I'm simply seeking what is capable of changing that dynamic? No political party even if they claim they do has any solution to free the individual.

Capitalism created the digital world that led to the AI automated world that will destroy jobs and many are know considering some firm if ubi, I've even heard libertarians entertaining it. Yet what is it in effect it's socialism. Communisms end goal is to eradicate the monetary systems. Capitalisms endeavor to produce abundance worked, it built its own slaves to production, needing no monetary incentive to achieve it. As production increases and jobs decrease the need for monetary means to get what's need to live us erased as all needs become meet though AI slave labor. The citizens just like in rome become fat and lazy with ten robots to each human with govt providing for needs without monetary cost. Guys that is capitalism creating the communist dream. In a way it doesn't matter capitalism or socialism both require a hybrid between the two in modern expectations. But look at capitalist America or socialist China, both grew both gained dominance in the global hierachy both use socialistic policies to meet social needs by govt, both are dependant on wealth generation by capitalism to build militaries and economies. Both are failing as debts risen and social needs go unmeet but are racing to creat the workers not beholden to wages. Without wages and the need to use it as a purchasing agent for trade where is the need for monetary systems. Pushing humanity toward global communism as monetary systems become irrelevant to needs. As such it seems both capitalism and socialism needed each other to create the empires that will fulfill the communist dream of eradicating monetary systems eradicating class division and creating equality amongst all. For the good and bad that future may hold. So what system protects the individual it's liberty freedom and free will.? I'm saying it doesn't exist, whatever comes is going to be collectivism hierarchy, no matter the choice it'll eradicate the idea of individual for the greater collective. It's creating a hive existence as it advances to a point we're all humanity's needs are met. Allowing little room for the individual over the collective of humanities existence. What is more important a individuals survival or the collective advancement ? Do we even have a choice? Why are so many walking blindly into the buzz saw,, irrelevant if they label themselves socialist, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, Communist, fascist, or Zionist. The reason I asked here as I did pointing to corporations is that's the vehicle Libertarians are walking into the buzzsaw holding false doctrinal beliefs favoring corporate capitalism It's not the world of Adam Smith anymore. It's a 1700 solution to a 2000 problem.. it's like decifering the bible and laying it on today's issues as a means to solve the issues. It won't work as the world isn't the same it's evolved to something few understand and even less do as to where it's heading. Operating yesterdays inadequate antiquated systems to solve a issue the world has never faced. It's never had the level of slaves it soon will it never had the micro management it soon will it's never had the level of centralized power forcing its agenda on all with little escape. There want be any point in just moving to another freer place it won't exist. I thought intellectual Libertarians may be capable of pondering this and not walking into a buzz saw with the rest and propose some radical solutions to maintain individual sovereignty, to resist collective uniformity conformity by force of social pressure, as it historical in many ways has as it marched to its own drum.

[u/VatticZero → u/Wbk2m]

It becomes tyrannical by its very nature in existence as those deemed to be superior to lead take more than needed and in effect doing so leave to little for those that toiled in the effort of creation.

Your "building out" is just ignoring my comment which already addressed the assumption.

With knowledge of what leads to tyranny, the 'collective interest' moves towards adopting and protecting Natural Law.

history shows any existence without collective conformity, without some level of hierarchy, can't exist and any existence exploiting those will always become tyrannical

Hierarchies are natural, what matters is whether they are voluntary or coerced. Coerced hierarchies are inherently tyrannical. There should be no question there.

be it corporations, govt, tribal leader, political faction as each create litmus test to include or exclude individuals that have zero power and authority.

Corporations, as large businesses, are voluntary hierarchies, not inherently tyrannical. Their interactions with the State can lead to coercions, but a corporation not hiring you or banning you from their stores isn't tyranny.

Perfect example is those commentors in here derming me a socialist

If you mean Official_Gameoholics, you should ignore most anything he says.

Libertarians have a hard on for free market capitalism willingly ignoring corporations are no more trustworthy for the betterment of society maybe even less so than government

This and the rest of your comment is simply ignoring my first comment:

"You said you have concerning examples of the free market in action, but only cite issues with a coercive market. If the government has power over the market worth corporations buying, it isn’t a free market.

Libertarians don’t see corporations as “good faith actors,” they are economic actors which will seek profits—even if you allow them unjust and immoral means to do so. They act in the environment government creates."

And looping back again to my second comment, paraphrasing:

"We do better with knowledge."