How does the austrian school and/or libertarianism deal with corruption and exploitation were it to arise in a free market? Any recommended readings?
What do you mean by corruption and exploitation ? A free market is a system in which individual rights are unconditionally valid. Except for isolated crimes there can be no corruption in such system.
Also Adam you should show some intellectual honesty and explain why is it ‘legitimate’ for the gov’t to steal from Smith so that Jones can have ‘free’ college education.
Ban-dodging eh? How corrupt. You owe it to your brethren not to violate the rules of their compacts. I’ll deal with it by banning you again. Do not return until you’ve mastered the basics of libertarian thought.
Look, I decided with this profile that Im not here to criticize. With this profile I only want to understand. Right now Im reading Mises lectures “Free Market and its enemies.” And Im asking questions as they come along. Apart from this, I will post no replies other than questions I think of as I read.
How could corruption and exploitation arise in a free market?
…Why not just finish the book first?
Let me rephrase. Let us suppose someone conspires to exploit the people, what process is used at this point?
Define “exploit the people”. Otherwise this will be a meaningless exercise.
You should read Murray Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty, where he deals with the issue of corruption (specifically in relation to bribery).’
You really do need to be more specific. We are not just being pricks. “Corruption and exploitation” can mean a number of things, including fraud, bribery, unreasonable prices or wages, etc.
Let me read up on the literature and Ill get back to you. Meantime, can large nations exist in libertarianism? What is the incentive towards a “shared identity,” the foundation of pulling diverse peoples together into a coherent civilization? Is it individual cities much like ancient Greece?
And at that point, what would happen if the leadership of two seperate autonomies were to agree upon a treaty or constitution?
As far as the steal from the rich to give to the poor is this… I would like to convince everybody, rich and poor, to start thinking that government COULD be just a big charity; and that any charity that were to reach the size of government would be just as faulty. That people have to be willing to give back to the people that give them their wealth seems like common sense to me. It makes the world a better place for every one.
I dont want to defend taxes, I just defend the idea of a Robin Hood. He lived in a corrupt era where the nobleman (govt) was robbing its people blind and he stole from the rich to give back to the poor what was rightfully theres. I think labor is all most peoples only asset and because of powers’ bias towards the wealthy, labor is highly undervalued across the planet. And it has been throughout time.
Taxes are stealing if you dont want to pay for them. I just dont see them going away any time soon. And if were going to have them, I support a progressive taxation policy.
So you’re simply here to support the idea that the rich have no rights at all, but you wish to disguise it as “the government is a charity”. Don’t be so dishonest.
If you wanna talk about anarchy, than there is no nation.
Comparative advantage! For businesses, profit!
There are cities, however, people might invent juridstictions for the purpose of delivering a package, and making it easy to locate someone’s house, etc. Of course, these would not imply government.
What do you mean by two seperate autonomies?
Nope. Government is not a charity. If it was a charity, then it would recieve all of its income through donations and voluntary trade. Since this statement is not true, it is not a charity.
In that case, that would not be theft. It is effectively the poor people having someone acting on their behalf to reattain their wealth.
That does not imply theft.
That’s not the lesson of Robin Hood. He never returned money to whom it was taken, he stole from the rich and gave to whomever he thought deserved it.
Robin Hood was not a friend of property rights. He was just an ideological scoundrel stealing from arrogant bullies.
Bull!
There are no nation states, but a nation is a cultural identity and exists regardless of what anyone does about it. The nation is in no way dependent on the state. Today, states rather act in order to destroy nations. The unification of Germany in the 19th century, as well as the division of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, illustrates the point that the relationship between nation and state is only a correlation. Compare, btw, with the many nations in the state of Austria before WW1, or the many nations of the Soviet state.
The nation is what people choose to identify with culturally. The concept of the “nation state” is a fraud with the purpose of using volountary nationalism for statist purposes.
Even in anarchy, there would be nations, since individuals would be allowed to think and recognize parts of themselves in each other.
Wait, I thought he gave it back to its original, rightful owners! Am I missing something?
Hmmm, interesting way of looking at it. I never thought about it that way.