In today's economy we have 2 types of big players. You have Governments, and you have Corporations. Now I am an individualist, which means that I reject all forms of collectivism, and while a corporation might look like it's a voluntary association of people, let's examine the issue more closely.
Chomsky on Corporations
Noam Chomsky comes to my mind here, he is a well known academic leftist and activist, he proclaims himself as being anarcho-syndicalist, which is basically an euphemism on communist. Now strangely I agree with him on many things, except economics and the methodology of achieving freedom. The truth is that both libertarians and communists want freedom, but their methodology is the exact opposite, and communism always leads to tyranny for various reasons. But this is another topic.
Chomsky criticizes the evils of the government, but thinks that governments actually have some sort of accountability, whereas he refers to corporations as "private tyrannies" , which are not accountable at all.
Well let me tell you something. I suppose he didn't heard of the Board of Directors, or how the corporate structure is largely run by elected people, by the shareholders. Now of course he probably refers to the stakeholders and the workers having little rights in it. But if we look at a corporation as a country, the shareholders being the citizens, that is absolutely legitimate to set it up this way. The workers are only rented, they have no rights.
That's like saying we should let French people vote on Czech laws, it violates the sovereignty of the corporation. So yes he wants the big daddy government to interfere and give worker's rights to the workers there in the corporation. Which is exactly how the EU was set up for the governments, and how the French actually do interfere with Czech laws.
Corporations are Governments
It's hilarious. Which brings me to the next point, that actually Corporations are Governments if you think about it. I mean do I have any actual rights in a Corporation as a shareholder, absolutely not other than voting and having the right to go to meetings, but that is exactly what the Government gives you as a citizen.
They are making the laws, the elected officials, and your rights are violated. So if some guy owns 51% of a corporation, then tough luck, your vote doesn't matter. I mean you can easily see, how any collectivist system is setup to fail, that is why I am an individualist.
Corporation as Nation State
We can already see the forming of a Global Government which is totally collectivist, but it has both left and right elements, that only wants to get more taxes to fund the socialist ponzi schemes on the left, while evil Nazi eugenicist agenda on the right. But at the same time you have International Corporations who own more wealth than Governments (if we exclude the land and natural resources).
Now let me tell you something, I think this is the way towards privatization and a libertarian society. This is exactly what the libertarians want, a fully privatized world, this is the endgame of the free market, the libertarian dream.
Just think about it, all these Govts are running welfare scams, and pension ponzies, but their debt is so high, that barely anyone can bail them out, and they don't want hyperinflation, so they decide to join together in blocks in order to share the burden. The EU is a prime example.
And while people are bitching about the IMF taking national assets as collaterals for their loans (like in Greece). If Greece fails to pay their debt (which they will), then the IMF takes over, and it's sent to private hands. I think it was their electricity provider, that was the collateral. So yes a crappy Government service that is probably 50% inefficient, and charges way too much for electricity, will get into private hands (even if they are bankers), and will be managed better, and the current prices will drop.
This is exactly the way toward libertarianism. I get that people hate the bankers, but isn't this the roadmap? You let the inefficient die, and keep the efficient one. It's economic Darwinism, the basis of capitalism. Isn't this the real free market?
Now I get that monopoly is bad, and a Corporation is a defacto government, and if the Big Govt collapses then the Corporation would probably have his private armies. But that will be like returning to city-states. It's massive decentralization. So even though it's the bankers, it seems like it's a libertarian conspiracy.
While on the other hand you have the NWO conspiracy, the exact opposite of this, a 1 World Government, which will have Communist/Fascist/Nazi elements in it, from wealth redistribution, to micromanagement, eugenics, totalitarian tyranny, and all othe horrible stuff. A truly Orwellian plan.
Reformation
So I get that most people don't like the bankers, they are corrupt, I get it, but they can still be reformed and made more transparent with blockchain technology. But they are still orders of degree better than these eugenicists population reduction Nazis.
So you can choose between a Neo-City-State Corporate Libertarianism (hopefully decays into Individualism over time), or a 1 World Government run by Communists, Fascists and Nazis. These are the 2 major factions in the war for liberty. Who will you support?
Source: https://ibloga.blogspot.de/2014/10/eu-tyranny-new-law-against_30.html
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jan 13. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $5.70 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 13 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
See, I agree with the part about corporations being their own sort of government. It's something I think most libertarians just don't get.
That said, there will be corporations. Working together makes things possible that wouldn't be solo, which is why massive corporations generally stomp mom & pop businesses. Anyone who chooses not to join a collective will eventually lose out to the people who do form collectives.
As for central government becoming nation-states... you do realize that nation-states spend most of their time on war right? Nazi Germany was a nation state. It's all about warlords and territory at that point, which is not a recipe for anyone's freedom.
EDIT: Still planning to reply to your other long post, just haven't had time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting. Not sure I agree entirely, but certainly one to ponder.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What will replace pension funds in your idea of this? Or will anyone not capable of producing for the corporation just have to provide for himself?
Probably anyone over 65 would just die after being kicked out?
By the way here in my country many of government held companies have been privatized charge more and are even less efficient than when the government handled them, I commented about this on another post and the OP said it was probably because they were sold to government cronies, which is fair enough, but a couple of them were sold to foreign corporations and still don't work well.
Don't think I am against what you are saying but I do believe we have to think about every aspect.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Don't think of libertarians as being greedy heartless people. Actually our solution is much better in the long run. While it may cause some problem in the short run, it's easier if it's abolished completely as it is.
People will have 2 options, either manage the money themselves and invest on their own, or invest it in a private pension fund that will manage it for them. People could choose based on their risk appetite which one suits them better.
Now I would rather invest my own money myself, I am a good investor, I make +247.6197% profit in 1 trade ,that took about 10 days. Government pension funds are actually making negative returns yearly, because they invest in negative yielding bonds.
You can't even compare the two. I mean I could retire in just a few short years if my investments go the way it did so far. And I'm below 40.
Why would I have to pay 10-15% of my income on pension contributions, that generate negative yield, and run exactly like a Ponzi Scheme? If I were not forced to of course.
Yes, either the companies are cronies, or it's the entire financial system that sucks.
Pensions are invested in negative yield bonds. It's not just that it doesn't make any profits, it actually loses money. It's literally worse than a Ponzi Scheme, at least the Ponzi Scheme doesn't lose money, it just reallocates it.
Besides what is this government appointed pension manager? That is not very free market to me. If it's still a government fund, but privately managed, that is not the same as having 10-20 private pension providers that are not involved with the government.
To answer your question: A blockchain based decentralized pension fund with cryptocurrency investments would be the best in my opinion, or manage your own money. Fuck the negative yields, and fuck the sloppy 1% interest rates. It should be 20% minimum / year (and with no inflation).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I understand your point of view, but then I would ask, who would be in charge, libertarians? No it would be the people who have the means (money, land whatever), and they wouldn't necessarily agree with you.
Look what I am trying to say is whatever one may want there are forces out there that are very powerful and they will always have followers because they can buy people, not with ideas, but with something more concrete like money, and I can assure you many people prefer to go the easy way even if they end up hurting at the end.
I really think this should be considered.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We can do better. I'll agree that breaking up governments into corporations is a step forward, but the systems truth is that they are the same. Governments sit in roughly the same place that corporations with monopolies reside at. Replacing one with the other will only be a very temporary gain.
The central issue is collusion. In governments, collusion is renamed corruption. It is the Achilles heel of capitalism and it arises in corporations at the same rate that corruption arises in governments. Some other forms it takes are planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity, and even artificial desire by rebinding instincts of people to create markets. That is all to say it is a systemic property and it appears with absolute certainty given enough time.
Examples of society form from a number of elements that interact in a somewhat stable configuration. That very same stability causes it to resist the incremental change approach because the other elements feedback to re-exert the stable form. It is a similar but inverse to the problem of evolving the eye where many components are required and the omission of any fails to form a gestalt. Partial solutions that don't include enough essential elements will fail and the pattern will re-exert itself. There is no credit given to someone stranded 10 miles out at sea who swims 5 miles, even if it is in the right direction. We can do better.
Attempts at partial solutions may, arguably, be more harmful to the possibility of a real solution than conserving effort. In neural networks, this is called 'the local minima problem'.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No system is perfect. There is only the right system needed at the right time. So is the power hierarchy. The power to people is still very weak and it's proven that democracy to vote will never solve the most basic problems toady with ever complex steps and procedures. It's what type of politician involved that matters. The arguments over Pro and Con and comparison is not one luxury those in third world countries can afford. Provide their basic need and they don't care if you are left right or center. Even in US how many % of the voters bother to know their constitution or amendments rights if they don't have legal issues with them, less than 10%. In the end you get a white supremacist as president democratically. Now only stock exchange have milliseconds transactions done across the globe and actually if FB got the guts to let people votes with authentification, the voices of 1B people in the largest social media platform can be heard as the first step. From there you will see how pointless when you see low importance on type of government civic system or political ideology. People just want problems solved and needs provided.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The eugenicists are also on the left, the lefties love their eugenics!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I thought they love equality?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
God no! Now they're coming out with more dodgy crap about all future generations being mixed race and not white. Because white people are evil! The left have been spouting their pro-Eugenics rubbish for years, that includes the nutters of the Green Party. Equality is good if it's on their terms basically, not everyone having their own beliefs and being able to say what they want.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit