I found you because you are interested in Sceletium Tortuosum. I added you because I like your writing. But this question strikes a nerve in me.
Big corporations stand to gain and lose from a Libertarian platform. The real inertia is that they are doing well now and don't really want to rethink the issues. (I think refusal to constantly rethink yourself quickly results in stagnation.)
Consider that Libertarians respect no copyrights. Disney has fought to keep Mickey Rat out of public domain for years. Indeed, they could pay their enslaved "characters" even less, but they fear other people printing the image of their rodent. (Recall in the 80s they sued day care centers with crudely drawn Disney characters painted into murals. I think this is also representative of how corporations can "force" someone to do something. Quite literally, they can "own" all the references you have to formative memories. Imagine if you had to pay Disney to talk about your visit to the Tragic Kingdom that you took with you grandparents. Sound silly? Unlikely? Well, you are already not allowed to paint a recollection of the scene and profit from selling it.)
You individual return on which companies would do well is difficult to judge. Probably not Disney. Probably not Sony Music, Int'l. Probably not "content" and intellectual property companies. They have really warped America to their own ends. On the other hand, companies that manipulate material -- dig mines, make paper, build bridges, etc. would probably do better. In the late 20s we put a lot of laws in place to limit their practices.
Interested in libertarianism? Check out www.freestateproject.org. They are trying to find an extant, single state which would operate under a Libertarian philosophy. The general idea is that everyone interested would move there and operate a poilty governed by a decision to join rather than a happenstance of birth. Is it for everyone? No, but I think that the nice thing about America (that the EU doesn't understand) is that we could have one state be socialist and another have a heriditary governer not unlike a king and another be militaristic. But, that makes me a "states rights" guy, which here in Yankeedom is tantamount to racism...
LOL, it was actually after defending the free state project last night in another discussion that I was prompted to pose this question.
I think that ultimately, in a libertarian state, things would get shaken up a little and some businesses would falter, while others would prosper. I asked this question because it seems like the most common arguement against libertarian government is... "But then you'll just be handing the corporations the reigns." And I don't think that is what would happen at all. In fact, I tend to think that if corporations didn't have a megalithic, corrupt federal government to bribe, they would have less power over our choices than they do now.
I also definitely believe in states rights, although I think the state's laws should still be bound by the constitution. And I'm the most non-racist guy you'll ever meet.
Glad to hear you enjoy my writing, and it was great to see sceletium tortuosum finally find another fan here on lj. Did you happen to catch my article in Heads last month?
Sorry to be the big nurd, but I don't even know what "Heads" is. But I would be happy to know more.
I signed up with Free State. I don't expect I will *love* all the Ayn-Rand-reading-uber capitalists, but I *do* like the idea of style of gov't being an elective right. The way we tie laws to a geographical district and then notions of identity to the geographic district strikes me as serfdom. I admire countries that accept anyone into their military and rewards them with citizenship. (Like Turkey. I wish the US had accepted the Mexicans who asked to serve in our forces for the recent war.)
Keep writing, keep posting, keep up the nocturnal lifestyle, my friend!
Ah, Heads is a cannabis magazine, but every month they run articles on "legal" highs. I was pretty impressed with their objective coverage of salvia divinorum, so I decided to see if they would be interested in an article on kanna. LOL it was my first professional sale and I couldn't let my mother see it.
I added you because I like your writing.
But this question strikes a nerve in me.
Big corporations stand to gain and lose from a Libertarian platform.
The real inertia is that they are doing well now and don't really want
to rethink the issues. (I think refusal to constantly rethink yourself
quickly results in stagnation.)
Consider that Libertarians respect no copyrights. Disney has fought
to keep Mickey Rat out of public domain for years. Indeed, they could
pay their enslaved "characters" even less, but they fear other people
printing the image of their rodent. (Recall in the 80s they sued day
care centers with crudely drawn Disney characters painted into
murals. I think this is also representative of how corporations can
"force" someone to do something. Quite literally, they can "own"
all the references you have to formative memories. Imagine if you
had to pay Disney to talk about your visit to the Tragic Kingdom that
you took with you grandparents. Sound silly? Unlikely? Well, you
are already not allowed to paint a recollection of the scene and profit
from selling it.)
You individual return on which companies would do well is
difficult to judge. Probably not Disney. Probably not Sony Music, Int'l.
Probably not "content" and intellectual property companies. They
have really warped America to their own ends. On the other hand,
companies that manipulate material -- dig mines, make paper,
build bridges, etc. would probably do better. In the late 20s we put
a lot of laws in place to limit their practices.
Interested in libertarianism? Check out www.freestateproject.org.
They are trying to find an extant, single state which would operate under
a Libertarian philosophy. The general idea is that everyone interested
would move there and operate a poilty governed by a decision to
join rather than a happenstance of birth. Is it for everyone? No, but
I think that the nice thing about America (that the EU doesn't understand)
is that we could have one state be socialist and another have a heriditary
governer not unlike a king and another be militaristic. But, that makes
me a "states rights" guy, which here in Yankeedom is tantamount
to racism...
Reply
I think that ultimately, in a libertarian state, things would get shaken up a little and some businesses would falter, while others would prosper. I asked this question because it seems like the most common arguement against libertarian government is... "But then you'll just be handing the corporations the reigns." And I don't think that is what would happen at all. In fact, I tend to think that if corporations didn't have a megalithic, corrupt federal government to bribe, they would have less power over our choices than they do now.
I also definitely believe in states rights, although I think the state's laws should still be bound by the constitution. And I'm the most non-racist guy you'll ever meet.
Glad to hear you enjoy my writing, and it was great to see sceletium tortuosum finally find another fan here on lj. Did you happen to catch my article in Heads last month?
Reply
I signed up with Free State. I don't expect I will *love* all the Ayn-Rand-reading-uber capitalists, but I *do* like the idea of style of gov't being an elective right. The way we tie laws to a geographical district and then notions of identity to the geographic district strikes me as serfdom. I admire countries that accept anyone into their military and rewards them with citizenship. (Like Turkey. I wish the US had accepted the Mexicans who asked to serve in our forces for the recent war.)
Keep writing, keep posting, keep up the nocturnal lifestyle, my friend!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment