On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 06:13:27PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 00:58:47 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
People wanted to be able to invest in a company, without the risk that if the company failed, they would be liable for not merely the money they invested, but for their entire worth as well.
right, so called 'limited BY THE STATE libability'. A government privilege. Liberalism is based on personal rights - life, liberty property. "Limited liability" is not part of those rights.
It's certainly not a "fundamental human right" to be able to invest in an entity representing a "collection of other humans" and have your liability limited to the amount you invested. But, it is a right to seek to manifest such a construct for the limitation of liability within a collection of individuals. How we achieve/manifest such a construct becomes the interesting question when we do away with the traditional state government.
> side note : traditionally the vast majority of people who posed as libertarians wanted 'limited goverment' and so 'limited taxation' or 'limited theft'...which is of course still theft.
I, too, was a 'minarchist libertarian' until January 1995, because I independently recognized the existence of that which David Friedman called "The Hard Problem": How would a libertarian or anarchist region (analogous to 'country') exist if it couldn't tax its own citizens to fund a defense?
there's no such hard problem.
Also, you're completly wrong in believing that liberalism/libertarianism rests on 'expediency'. The state must be overthrown because it's just a criminal organization, full stop, end of the story. It doesn't fucking matter WHO WOULD PICK THE COTTON.
And libertarians in the 19th century had already proposed systems in which 'defense' was provided by private, VOLUNTARY associations.
Ironically, I was the one to solve that problem, inventing/discovering my Assassination Politics idea. Now, not only is an anarchist region stable, in principle no region with a conventional government stable, since their government would shortly be taken down by just about everybody.
And yet that hasn't happened. Maybe your system doesn't work?
An idea like that, needs to become viral if it is to become a new dominant societal system. Perhaps AP has a lack of sufficient virality, or perhaps there's a lack of the required infrastructure - non de-anonymizable (i.e. truly anonymous) digital currencies? IDK.
Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the enemy'. Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem. Get rid of the mechanism of using governments to obtain influence, that impropriety can and should disappear.
And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence :
Then a good solution is to eliminate the government(s) that corporations can/do use to obtain power.
Right. Meanwhile some people should stop pretending that corporations are not part of the government and FULLY LIABLE for their crimes and the crimes of their partners, the government.
I think you missed Bell's point - libertarians don't give up a concept simply because that concept is currently misused, or can be misused - a bit like giving up guns and knives because they get misused. The "collection of entrepreneurs investing in a common outcome within a construct which limits their liability to the amount of their investment" is one such concept. That's how I read it anyway...