Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian theory and altruism (was: some incorrectly spelled thing not worth repeating
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 05:24:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
619 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:24:36 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> I'm glad that you agree with me that it's not altruism per se that is
> required. In turn, I agree with you on what IS required. Long term
> thinking. That seems to be in rather short (1) supply these days.
>
> Companies today in this particular mixed economy we are in, are rather
> short sighted. Why is that? Stated another way, why doesn't it pay to
> take rather a longer view? Certainly you and I, wise men that we are,
> know that the longer view is better and take it ourselves.
Sometimes/usually. Not always. IOW: I can try.
> Would things be different in a different system?
Maybe, but would it be for the better? Or would the increased
uncertainty in there being no government mean even more short-term
thinking?
> What if it was more predictable what sort of regulations and
> taxes would be in place many years in the future?
That would be a good thing. OTOH, in the world you're envisioning, the
role of regulation would be taken over by the market (which is at
least as fickle as the government, at least _they_ have inertia..),
and taxes would still have to be raised for defense and law.
> What if it officers were not shielded from personal
> liability for their decisions?
I don't personally get why you think this is a good idea, on balance.
Yes, no more frivolous suits by DAs etc. (so the whole sordid perjury
thing would never have happened). But on the other hand, I see cops
afraid to make arrests, especially of rich people, because they would
be liable for, say, lost worktime. (Unless I'm misinterpreting).
> What if we no longer had boom and bust business cycles?
A libertopia[3] would certainly not solve that problem.
The US is closer than any other nation in the world today to
libertopia - yet it has more peaks and valleys in its economy than the
USSR did. In the 16th and 17th century, in various European cities,
closely libertopian citystates existed - canonically the family With
The Advisor, the Borgias for example. They virtually ruled the city
(and later the country -- Borgia Bankers were one of the first
multinational companies after the Romans -- there's even one in the
Low Countries) not based on any hereditary aspects (at first..), but
on the basis of the wealth they accumulated. Yet historical evidence
shows an economy in great flux around the time of the renaissance.
An economy is an unstable equilibrium, when it is an equilibrium. But
nothing can keep an economy an equilibrium.. there will always be
business folding, tastes changing, technology changig, etc.
Here's a frivolous idea: No more direct taxes, the government just
prints all the money it needs. Taxation by Inflation.
> What if stockholders had real power to influence
> decisions instead of being powerless to evict boards of directors that
> didn't do what they wanted (2)?
If stockholders[4] had that power, sure. Whether hostile takeovers
should be made more easy.. I dunno.
Hostile takeovers are quite often used in the buy-carve up-sell
components-make small profit sector.
Doing those may not necessarily be a good thing. You essentially tear
down a company which may have been having a bad year, or even a year
which wasn't as good as expected, fire $BIGNUM employees, etc.etc.
All of which means lots of change. Large, Rapid, and Constant Economic
Change Is Bad. As evidenced by your "what if there were no more
boom/busts?" question.
> What if the labor market was so tight
> that any cluelessness would be harshly punished by a pretty rapid exodus
> of good staff, followed in turn by a stockholder revolt in which the
> officers were out on their ears?
What makes you think a libertopia would necessarily have a tight job
market? It could as easily be loose as it is now.
>
> I've already drawn my conclusions there, as you well can imagine.
No imagining needed, mon ami.
Jasper
> 1 - sorry.
I Don't Get It.
[3] I will _not_ let the word "l*rrytopia" flow from my lips.
Idolisation, even mock idolisation, can be taken a few steps too far.
[4] For my purposes, I will define "stockholders" to be "people who
have tkane an interest in $COMPANY and _kept_ it for, say, at least
three months.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
209 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
