I like that definition, actually.
Kinsella vs. Carson. Round 1, Kinsella.
Eh, its iffy. He does make some good points, but he confuses the moral and economic arguments against corporations.
Such as?
The economic argument is that large corporations wouldn’t exist in a free market because of all of the things the state does to support big business. The moral argument is that corporations create a hierarchy where indivdual autonomy is compromised. He confuses them here, for example:
Edit: I think we’re about to have this argument in 2 different places [:P]
Kinsella is brilliant.
That is absurd. Firms are inescapably hierarchical and there is nothing immoral about somebody telling you what to do. If you don’t like it, find another firm. Or start your own, and then every day of your work life your customers will be telling you what to do.
Yes, it can immoral for someone other than yourself to make decisions that have negative effects towards you. Just because it is non-aggressive doesn’t mean that it can’t be immoral.
Both of which would be far, far easier to do without the state propping up big business at everyone else’s expense.
You mean like someone making the decision to out compete you?
That’s utter nonsense.
You and Carson and Long can’t even define what a big business is, how can you make the statement that they are state supported, without defining who they are?
You’re a great fella, but the intellectual dishonesty of your arguments doesn’t sit well. I know the rhetoric and dogma sounds good, but it doesn’t make sense. And you have to be able to discern that, even if you have never started a business, or paid corporate taxes, or held a job in a cubicle. A lot of this leftist nonsense, is just that. NONSENSE. It isn’t reflected in the real world, only in church basements and coffee shops by people wearing Che shirts imagining the world owes them (and everyone else, because they are egalitarian) something.
What if I decide to fire somebody who doesn’t meet my standards? Like I said, this is just silly.
It’s not just regulatory barriers to entry that make a large company advantageous. Large firms have economic clout and economies of scale that small firms don’t have.
I said can be, not always.
I do admit that I have failed to provide a comprehensive of what makes a business “big”, and I will try to get one for you soon. However, there are companies that I can definitely say are “big” (military-industrial complex, the Big 3, large financial companies), and companies that I can definitely say aren’t (say, a small-town grocery store).
I don’t see the intellectual dishonesty in saying that there are more immoral actions than just aggression, nor in saying that large corporations are preferentially favored by the state.
Not a very strong argument.
When you get it, send it to Rod Long and Kevin Carson because when I get some free time, I am going to tear them up for the same omission.
The intellectual dishonesty is promulgating a view that is not only incorrect, but (intentionally I believe) lacks definitions. You’re smarter than that.
There are a LOT of things I have hunches about, but I am fairly careful about repeating them chapter and verse as fact, because I can’t conclusively prove them. Without a definition of firm size, structure etc, guys like Carson are just appealing to the softest skulls in the peanut gallery.
This is really neat stuff, and I wish I had to go through it. Right now, I’m making notes in the margin, because the whole left/Marxian paradigm fails under anecdotal evidence, which ironically many of it’s proponents (Roderick “Dilbert” Long) write about, but likely have no actual experience with.
How on earth are you going to reconcile this with the free market?
To say that morality has a larger scope than non-aggression? That’s all I’m saying; I guess I worded it a little weird.
I will give you this in the abstract.
But when morality challenges non-aggression, you’re saying that non-aggression (which can be defined objectively) should yield to the more subjective “morality”?
No, non-aggression is still more important. But that doesn’t mean that non-aggressive means of resolving the issue shouldn’t be talked about. I qualified that somewhere earlier, I think. Also, morality is objective; non-aggression is just one facet of it.
I think we’re off on a tangent.
/me has some guilt in this.
My response to this, based off of the most recent developments.