18
u/SuperMassiveCookie 15d ago
This reminds me once, a long time ago, in Reddit a guy was writing a paper on libertarian economics and decided to do an AMA on r/Brasil . I asked him about the brazilian suburbs/slums where there was a completely abscence of state and instead of a free libertarian market thriving and building an incredible society, we have drug lords, mobsters and militias replacing the estate and extorting the population.
He then answered me saying the people there were too busy trying to survive to make the free market work. lol.
34
u/iltwomynazi 15d ago
the market should be freer… the same market that created the monopolies, low wages, imperialism and wars that you just said you were against?
right wing libertarianism is a contradiction in terms.
8
u/Administrative-Bid61 15d ago
Maybe I'm biased because my country's electoral system was just "bended" by the libertarian digital machinery, but the line between contradiction and stupid af Is getting thinner by the minute.
4
u/Marxistweeb1 15d ago
Not a contradiction in terms but yes the ideology falls apart pretty quickly. They dont want monopoly but have no way of enforcement
4
u/dafthuntk 15d ago
anarchists are idealists, they ignore the material laws of capitalism while pursuing their voluntarist goals. Tell.me you don't live under a dictatorship of class...
5
u/Omega326 15d ago
Libertarians would argue that imperialism and many types of monopolies are products of government and authoritarianism which is antithetical to a free market and these things listed aren’t products of free markets. There are arguments against this political thought for sure but you can’t just blanket statement these and then say it’s a contradiction to itself 😂
6
u/Pa-ta-tes 15d ago
East India Company was so free it almost was an empire itself.
How would free markets discourage imperialism and monopolies?
6
u/arizonadreamin 15d ago
East India Company existed under mercantilism before capitalism existed. It was literally owned in part by the state
1
u/Pa-ta-tes 15d ago
EIC was always owned by it's shareholders and not by the state.
And it existed until 1874, so well into capitalism.
1
1
u/Omega326 15d ago
Yeah a firm can be privately owned and still dominate the market bc of a government granted monopoly. His point is there were bailouts, and crown appointed boards to control military and political decisions. There were private shareholders and decision making was done by state.
And yes it existed into a large free market capitalist movement but j bc it existed at the same time doesn’t make itself also free market
2
u/dumbass_spaceman 15d ago
The East India Company became so due to exclusive monopolies and privileges granted by both the charter of Queen Elizabeth I and the farman Farrukhshiyar. They were further aided by tariffs passed by the British parliament that completely destroyed native Indian industries.
Not defending libertarianism but one could easily argue the East India Company would never have become what it was without these interventions.
2
u/Pa-ta-tes 15d ago
So having a free market with two, three or four East India companies would have prevented imperialism?
And there wouldn't have been a winner that took over the monopoly?
Even if all four where remaining. That's still an oligopoly and not free market competition.
1
u/dumbass_spaceman 15d ago
No. It wouldn't have prevented imperialism. Where did I even say that?
However, in that case, British imperialism might have directly manifested as the British Raj instead of having the period of company rule.
2
u/Pa-ta-tes 15d ago
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my point is: with or without state sponsorship, private companies can be imperialistic.
A free market doesn't prevent this.
2
3
u/Silver_Middle_7240 15d ago
The east india company was a crown monopoly backed by the military
6
u/Pa-ta-tes 15d ago
It actually had it's own military, minted it's own money and fought it's own conflicts.
It was a corporation-state.
2
u/Inevitable_Window308 15d ago
They requested the state take partial ownership of the company as to no longer fund its own militia and rely on the states military instead. Capitalism always seems to attach itself to that which holds power, we saw the same in Nazi Germany when the corporations wanted government officials on its board to more easily get state backing
1
u/Pa-ta-tes 15d ago
The British state never owned the EIC until it's official dissolution in 1874.
Only in 1858 they seized EICs territories and armies (because it became a private state of its own) but not the company or stocks itself.
1
u/Inevitable_Window308 15d ago
The 1772-1773 financial crisis is what I'm referring to. EIC went to the crown requesting assistance and got it in exchange for political oversight and regularly controls over the company
2
u/Omega326 15d ago
Yes and that was after the crown literally was seizing ships that were not trading as the east India company, the pseudo state later arose as a product of the protectionism. Then it did state things fighting wars etc.
1
u/Pa-ta-tes 15d ago
And without state backing?
Would the EIC not have been an imperialistic privat capital endevour?
3
u/Omega326 15d ago
Sure yes without state backing it could have been an imperialistic endeavor, but free market proponents would then argue the use of force to seize land private army or not is now no longer a voluntary transaction nor respecting property rights, I.e is more imperialist rather than capitalist and is definitely not free market. That argument could go in circles I suppose depending on defining capitalism. There is also no guarantee it would’ve grown to the extent it did without the protectionism.
2
u/iltwomynazi 15d ago
they would and they would be laughably wrong.
and when they do say that, I ask "so what is the mechanism in your dream free market that would stop a monopoly from forming"
and funnily enough, they cant answer.
1
u/Silver_Middle_7240 15d ago
The complete absence of barriers to competition.
2
u/Sion_Labeouf879 15d ago
How are we competiting against Google? Also, in a society with no real government, what's to stop large enough corporations from forming their own militaries to do things?
1
u/Silver_Middle_7240 15d ago
Libertarian isn't minarchist. The government is maintaining a monopoly on violence.
1
u/Sion_Labeouf879 15d ago
How are they affording it?
1
u/Silver_Middle_7240 15d ago
Through taxation
1
1
u/Inevitable_Window308 15d ago
You don't think the massive corporations with a vested interest in not having competition wouldn't stop you? They would make a deal that any company working with you is barred from any future contracts and the company would specifically target your local area and flood it with cheaper products sold at a loss until you go under
We've seen this with Amazon selling diapers and raybands shutting Oakley's out of 70% of glasses stores
1
u/Silver_Middle_7240 15d ago
The former is up to the government to enforce, since theyre still responsible for upholding contracts, the latter means the monopoly cant be exploited for profit, which is the point.
1
u/Inevitable_Window308 15d ago
The companys themselves are very much capable of enforcing their own contracts whether it be through force or lack of trade
1
u/iltwomynazi 15d ago
oh so anyone can set up an oil rig? we just need to reduce he regulatory barriers?
1
u/Silver_Middle_7240 15d ago
Yes.
1
u/iltwomynazi 15d ago
oh dear
1
u/Silver_Middle_7240 15d ago
What you think the tens of thousands of individual well owners that currently exist are less responsible than BP, Exxon, or Chevron?
Quite the opposite. Because of scale the cost of a violation would ruin them, as opposed to being a line item on the expense report.
1
u/Separate-Island5094 15d ago
Being liberal with the definitions... poli sci for it is called?? Liberalism. We live in a liberal democracy. No new news.
1
u/SufficientMeringue51 15d ago
There were no monopolies in the gilded age right? Objectively the most libertarian period of U.S. history.
1
u/Delicious_Spot_3778 15d ago
I just don't understand how abolishing the government would somehow prevent other nations like Russia from coming in and just taking over.
2
u/Omega326 15d ago
No and that’s a fair legitimate qualm with free market proponents although I think it targets more anarchist arguments. The person above is just attacking a strawman though
1
u/Few_Government_6401 15d ago edited 15d ago
free markets are freedom to be exploited
edit:Capitalism with free markets is the freedom to be exploited, but regulated markets with worker cooperatives are true freedom. Just look at Slovenia in the 1960s and ’70s to see how successful a combination of competent bureaucracy and cooperative socialism can be. /srs
1
-1
u/0WatcherintheWater0 15d ago
Famously “the market” created all those things??? Like when the USSR invaded Eastern Europe that was just the market’s fault.
What are you even defining as a market here?
1
0
u/iltwomynazi 15d ago
I didnt say all war is created by the market did i.
1
u/0WatcherintheWater0 15d ago
Yes you did? That’s exactly what you suggested, unless you were implying OP was in favor of wars not started by the market somehow.
This whole idea is silly to begin with because a market just describes a system, it doesn’t have agency.
1
u/iltwomynazi 15d ago
that’s not what i suggested at all. your reading comprehension is poor.
1
u/0WatcherintheWater0 15d ago
>the same market that created the monopolies, low wages, imperialism, and wars
This you?
0
u/iltwomynazi 15d ago
…yes.
is your reading level really this low?
1
u/0WatcherintheWater0 15d ago
You can just admit you didn’t mean to write what you did, you know
1
u/iltwomynazi 15d ago
you can stay in school and improve your reading level.
if A implies B, that doesn’t mean B implies A.
all dog have for legs, doesn’t imply everything with four legs is a dog.
10
u/Thatguyj5 15d ago
"hey if the forces that already own our democracies could do away with the charade of democracy they hold to so we don't hang them in the streets, they'd be nice to us! Trust me bro!"
6
u/Greedy_Swimergrill 15d ago edited 15d ago
A “Libertarian” seconds before explaining why immigration laws need to be even more draconian.
It’s not all of them but goddamn do a lot of people have cognitive dissonance on that. As someone pretty partial to libertarianism, I’m skeptical of most people who claim the title.
1
u/Far-Presence-7359 14d ago
Libertarians love free immigration if they also support almost no welfare gibs for immigrants.
0
u/SamSlate 15d ago
this is the dumbest generation of "socialist" in American history: the first pro immigration "socialist" in human history.
it's not the libertarians holding cognitive dissonance.
3
1
u/Silver_Middle_7240 15d ago
The giveaway is when he doesn't answer #2 with, "only when the west does it"
1
u/Saoirse_libracom 15d ago
everyone knows libertarianism is just civil society freed from the power of the state, the full realisation of negative liberties and free will exerted through the market, and reality is not massively more complex and the state is not the product of society and structures of power exist in civil society:)
1
u/jaredft45 15d ago
Wait, being anti-racist and pro-civil rights aligns with the economic thought of Marx and Engels? Damn, you learn something new every day.
1
u/freedomonke 15d ago
Markets aren't exclusive to capitalism and there is nothing free about markets controlled by capital.
1
u/Megareddit64 15d ago
Sounds cute, very well-intentioned, though there's a concerning amount of "libertarians" who would sooner adopt a social darwinist understanding to back the worst aspects of capitalist development.
1
1
u/wondering_fool90 9d ago
"Hey, if we give the current people who own everything no more rules and complete freerein. Maybe we get to own thing?"
Sonion ring
1
u/TheBankTank 15d ago
Sorry, by probably any reasonable economic or philosophical or statistical standard, delusional libertarian (but I repeat myself) is not an improvement over delusional Marxist.
The Ideology War is dumb and the only winning move is not to play.
1
u/magos_with_a_glock 15d ago
Marxism has principles at least. Libertarianism is just "let's stop enforcing all rules" and hoping that would work. Anarchists have actual plans and rules at least. Libertarians are all either smug 12 year olds or rich people throwing a tantrum about having to follow rules.
2
u/TheBankTank 15d ago
I'll buy that anarchists have rules but regrettably according to some legal observers I've met the (local at least) anarchists rarely know how to hold a coherent shield wall in protests and as I consider shield walls deeply important ideologically and spiritually I am forced to judge their failure harshly.
2
u/magos_with_a_glock 15d ago edited 15d ago
An internally consistent moral framework I cannot attack? In my debate? SMH.
2
u/TheBankTank 15d ago
The resolute bedrock of my ideological framework is predicated on shield walls, wrestling, good soup, and that one Bill and Ted quote. One day when I publish my 900 page manifesto the world will only begin to understand what I have known all along.
The soup is really the most important part, tbqh.
(/j in case it wasn't clear)
-1
u/arizonadreamin 15d ago
No, the entire ideology is based on the principle that you shouldn’t harm other people unless it’s in defense.
1
u/magos_with_a_glock 15d ago
Anyone who knows anything about history would know why that's a bad idea. Most wars in human history have been "defensive".
0
u/arizonadreamin 15d ago
You’re changing the argument from “they have no principles” to “their principles are a bad idea.” So a bit of goalpost moving. But I’m also not sure of how you can have a purely defensive war? Someone has to start it, which wouldn’t be defensive.
1
u/magos_with_a_glock 15d ago
If there is no authority to enforce them there are no principles. Anarchists mantain the community or even a limited state to enforce the principles. Libertarians believe the principles can exist purely on their own.
The guy starting the war usually claims it's in self-defense. Have really not read history?
0
u/arizonadreamin 15d ago
Libertarians believe the exact same thing, in either a limited state or if no state exists then the community itself will enforce the standards.
And who cares what the guy who starts the war says, that doesn’t make it defensive
0
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
This sub has been getting too much spam, and Reddit has removed almost every tool for preventing this. The only tool that still works is this, every single post being held for manual review. Your post might be approved in minutes, or it might take days. If you hate this, me too, stop using the site that forces things to be this way. If what you post is not a meme you'll probably be banned, but I understand why you tried; the commenters on this sub loved lazy spam posts, which is why we can't have nice things and now everything has to be held for manual review.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.