[lovich]

I hadn’t heard of Barlow or these articles prior to this post but after reading them all I am left with the same question I have for every libertarian, cyber or otherwise.

When the corporation that runs as a planned economy with only a few unaccountable leaders at the top has as much power as any other existing government, what makes them any different in terms of morality or “goodness”?

I have never gotten a coherent answer and a few times I’ve received violence in response to the question(also a lol as one of the violent ones was also the one to introduce me to the concept of NAP).

Libertarians seem incapable of rationality and are about as convincing as any true believer of a religion you don’t believe in as an outside observer.

[_0ffh]

The corporation (that runs internally as a planned economy) will get more and more inefficient the larger it gets, because that is what planning an economy does. Which in turn means it will loose market share and be forced to lean up until it is competitive again.

[lovich]

Or it just uses its power to influence government regulations and suppress or buy out competition.

Like what one of the current crop of mega corps has an internal market for how its capital is allocated. The closest example I could think of in history was IBM and its blue dollars.

[_0ffh]

Buying out maybe, but that only exacerbates the problem for the company in the long run. Regulatory capture is what actually works, but not within the libertarian framework, because regulation again is not a market mechanism, but government intervention into the market - exactly what libertarians say we should have less of in the first place.

Mind you, not different, or "better" intervention, but less, or even none at all. One could argue the point about libertarianism is that you can't trust the government to do a good job because it is based on force, and not voluntary market interactions, and hence lacks the proper incentives. It's just a bunch of guys on a spending spree with other peoples money, and their incentive is to make as much of it as humanly possible land in their own pockets.

[olelele]

To me the biggest problem w. libertarianism & game theory etcetera is that humans are not only motivated by greed/personal gain.

Pure anecdata; the libertarian/capitalist anarchists I've met have all been close to sociopathic in their disregard for others. I always figured that people who have an underdeveloped sense of empathy project this onto everyone else.

[_0ffh]

I prefer to judge such advice by the available facts, not by hearsay about the moral character of the advisor - especially not hearsay spread by his enemies. Your ad hominem has no bearing on the argument.

So, how is trusting politicians and bureaucrats to be selfless and focused on their duty to society working out for you?

[lovich]

Cool, how is letting companies go even more hog wild a solution when right now the problem is occurring from their semi hog wildness.

And it’s not an ad hominem on its own when the argument he is making is that the people espousing a certain world view are doing so because they believe everyone else has their same myopic view on reality and empathy.

[olelele]

I come from Sweden and would say it worked great until '86 or so.

[omnimus]

To me it seems that in the end main measure is how deep/powerful are hierarchies in a system. How much power has one individual over the other.

Many libertarians and liberals believe that it's the freedoms one has that make system anti hierarchical.

But as you point out when you have absolute freedom in market based society then you eventually end up with intensely deep hierarchies.

In other words you are free to do everything but there is no guarantee you can do anything - even the most basic things like get food or shelter. And most end up with the short side of the stick.

[abc123abc123]

The reason is that your question makes no sense, and shows a lack of understanding of how markets operate.

Corporations work on markets, with customers, and need to dynamically adapt to the demands of the customers. Therefore the concept of planned economy goes out the window.

Leaders in a corporation are accountable to the share holders, so again, what you say makes no sense.

Morality relates to value carriers, in the form on conscious human beings, it has no relevance to "the corporation", so for ethical questions you ask the person.

I know you will never research this, but for others who are interested in the only ethical and realistic system to govern society, libertarianism, to great places to start is Johan Norbergs The capitalist manifesto, and Ludwig von Mises Liberalism.

[lovich]

When I say corporations run as planned economies, I meant their internal operations. There is no market dynamics going on when the board and C*Os tell you the budget you have for the year and what you are working on.

When I say leaders I am referring to the shareholders. Take Meta for example. Zuckerberg is the only one who has an ultimate say.

I am aware of the theorists you say I will never research. I am also aware you will never change your mind if you think the internal dynamics of mega corps are beholden to market dynamics.