(Original post by Mysteries)
Please... Could you be any more smug and pretentious? An Oxford education is hardly a sign of intelligence, especially these days... Some of the dumbest people in the world went to the best universities and they fail everyday to solve the most basic and obvious problems in human society. Just look at our politicians!
You believe Politicians are in positions of sufficient power to solve the worlds problems? My god, can't you understand the basic principle that you cannot please everybody, and peoples ideal worlds will ALWAYS differ? Politicians have to work with what they have and what the majority will reasonably accept, they cannot act radically or prioritise one thing over the other because it damages their future ability to do so. If a politician tries to solve poverty in foreign countries, people will bandwagon onto the fact he is not solving things in his own country, there are consequences with opposite reactions for every action, positive or negative. To suggest that even the most educated person could have such an impact is ridiculous.
In regards to me sounding 'snooty or smug', well sorry, lets not call let the pot call the kettle black though right? You were the one throwing around words such as 'uneducated rube'.
Your opinions on Chomsky are irrelevant. Most people consider him more than 'important' so you're on your own with that one... But I digress... Let's discuss the facts.
Appeal to majority, this is a non-argument. Chomsky is not 'important' because he is popular, his views are no more or less valid. It is also worth pointing out he is far more 'important' to the people who align with his political views, strange correlation for somebody who is meant to espouse objectivity in order to convince skeptics.
Both left-wing and right-wing libertarians advocate very small or no government. Agreed? Agreed.
What you right-wingers seem to ignore is the fact that if we were to abolish the government or significantly reduce its influence and deregulate the markets who do you think would take over? That's right! The corporations.
I don't advocate Anarcho-Capitalism though, that is one branch of Right-Libertarianism. Don't lump everybody into the same block. I advocate pluralist government and open forum Politics.
They already have FAR too much influence in the public domain. They would end up running the world and exploiting people even MORE than they already do so. Remember that they have no allegiance to ANY nations and operate with the sole intent of making a profit in any way possible. There is nothing democratic about how a corporation is run. That's what Chomsky was referring to when he made the "tyranny" analogy. At least where the state is concerned the people tend to have SOME say in how it operates. Not so when it comes to corporations.
I have several things to say to this.
Firstly, I would never wish to see Corporations 'take over' so to speak, like I said, an open forum.
Secondly, a Corporation ultimately exists because of other people. A corporation uses money as its lifeblood, and it would run dry without financial committal. A corporation that is of no use to the rest of society or atleast a substantial section of society, would wither and die without support. Fundamentals of Supply and Demand economics.
Thirdly, Right wing libertarianism, as I have said before, is NOT necessarily Anarcho-Capitalism, as there is a good deal of disagreement within the ideologies between how far the state should be scaled back.
This would lead to even GREATER poverty and inequality than what we witness today.
So tell me, from one libertarian to another, how do you address this eventuality?
Well from my perspective, state interference has artificially tampered with the market mechanism. It has allowed powerful conglomerates to afford themselves wealth which does not belong to them. So I would kick out Political favoritism to corporations and collective business interests, they have no place in Politics. Politics should work on an individual level, it should work in a forum of ideas and discussions, which best produce rational outcomes, not a complex system of financial and political pressures that it operates on now.
In a proper legal framework, the CEO of a FTSE 500 company should not be able to buy more direct influence or representation over the state than any other human being.
Poverty and inequality are issues, and I do believe they will forever persist, but there are things we can do to reduce them. Charity initiatives are important, if society is based on empathetic individualism, one is more likely to be able to provide voluntary superstructure to those who need it. In addition, the Private sector when structured around a subjective, majority-inspired moral 'system' (Think corporate structures like John Lewis, which are run on that basis entirely voluntarily), is the most efficient and best way to provide fulfillment and prosperity, whilst still maintaining the principles of Negative Liberty and self-reliance.
The supposed 'Fat cats' that people berate at humans aswell as everybody else, if they wish to take a greater slice of their private capital, then that is their prerogative, the goal is not coercion. I think humans are inherently self-interested, the goal is to show everybody that a system based on production (The Free market) combined with a Socially liberal system that promotes acceptance, tolerance and charity is the best way to structure society, so that both they and everybody else benefits simultaneously.
I hope that sheds some light.