mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (02/01/85)
> > This is one of the fallacies of Libertarianism: myopically focussing > upon the State alone as the source of all political power. This is not the first request for a libertarian to explain the apparant blindness towards economic concentration of power as an integral part of the state. If we're going to do away with big government I'd rather not have IBM fill the vacuum, though we could do worse.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/04/85)
> This is not the first request for a libertarian to explain > the apparant blindness towards economic concentration of > power as an integral part of the state. > > If we're going to do away with big government I'd rather > not have IBM fill the vacuum, though we could do worse. This isn't the first person I've noticed who seems to think that if we can get big government off of our backs, IBM (or ANY huge corporation) will just be able to 'step in' and fill the power vacuum. Sort of like Baron Greenback: "... and in the resulting chaos, *I* will step in and take over the world!" I've often wondered just how he was going to go about that. No problem! Nature abhors a vacuum, right? Wrong, obviously, since 99.9999...% of the volume of the universe is full of vacuum. So I ask: Which of the functions of government which would be discarded by libertarians would a huge multinational corporation be able to take over? (With profit, and without losing dozens of class action lawsuits?) Or is this 'IBM filling the vacuum' stuff just empty rhetoric? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "And I don't want to die. I'd rather ride on my motorcy- cle." Arlo Guthrie
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (02/07/85)
> > If we're going to do away with big government I'd rather > > not have IBM fill the vacuum, though we could do worse. > > This isn't the first person I've noticed who seems to think that if > we can get big government off of our backs, IBM (or ANY huge corporation) > will just be able to 'step in' and fill the power vacuum. Sort of > like Baron Greenback: "... and in the resulting chaos, *I* will step in > and take over the world!" I've often wondered just how he was going > to go about that. No problem! Nature abhors a vacuum, right? Wrong, > obviously, since 99.9999...% of the volume of the universe is full of > vacuum. Bad argument... > So I ask: Which of the functions of government which would be > discarded by libertarians would a huge multinational corporation be > able to take over? (With profit, and without losing dozens of class > action lawsuits?) Or is this 'IBM filling the vacuum' stuff just > empty rhetoric? Probably very large companies with a lot of unskilled labor (IBM isn't a good example here) would want to set up corporate cities for their workers, where they had a lot more power than the government does now over citizens. There are a lot of reasons why this would be a good idea -- they could keep track of what their employees were up to, they could pay them much less as they are also paying for their room and board, and so forth. The libertarian will of course say, "But nobody compels them to work for that company". But when you are talking about a number of very large corporations like IBM, which would probably grow larger if government regulation were eliminated, in many places either you work for them or you don't work at all. I'm not saying that this is the same as "lack of freedom", but just a very strong incentive. If IBM were the only menace, that wouldn't be so bad. What worries me is that what tends to fill the vacuum are groups like the Mafia (not to mention foreign governments). Of course, this is more of an argument against anarchies as opposed to Libertarias. Wayne
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/08/85)
> > So I ask: Which of the functions of government which would be > > discarded by libertarians would a huge multinational corporation be > > able to take over? (With profit, and without losing dozens of class > > action lawsuits?) Or is this 'IBM filling the vacuum' stuff just > > empty rhetoric? > > Probably very large companies with a lot of unskilled labor (IBM isn't > a good example here) would want to set up corporate cities for their > workers, where they had a lot more power than the government does now > over citizens. There are a lot of reasons why this would be a good idea -- > they could keep track of what their employees were up to, they could pay > them much less as they are also paying for their room and board, and so > forth. I'm not sure what you mean by 'where they had a lot more power than the government does now over citizens'. As far as I can see, the only additional power that would give them is that of a landlord, which isn't quite the same as 'more power than the government does now'. Care to explain how they're going to get all of this power? How could they keep track of what their employees were up to, any better than if their employees were renting from someone else? As far as paying less, sure they could. *I* wouldn't mind being paid a little less if I was also getting a good deal in housing for it. And how do I know it would be a good deal? Why else would I enter into it? This question was addressed: > The libertarian will of course say, "But nobody compels them to work for > that company". But when you are talking about a number of very large > corporations like IBM, which would probably grow larger if government > regulation were eliminated, in many places either you work for them or > you don't work at all. I'm not saying that this is the same as "lack of > freedom", but just a very strong incentive. First of all, it's not at all clear that removal of governmental restric- tions wouldn't help IBM's competitors just as much; I don't know where you get the idea that IBM is going to grow so large that you either work for them or don't work at all. Secondly, you seem to assume that unions would just dry up and blow away in a libertarian society. Wrong! Of course, membership would be optional, and if it's contract with a striking union had expired, a company could fire striking union members. *IF* the demands the striking union were making were expensive enough to justify retraining a whole new batch of workers who would also be able to unionize and strike if they became too dissatisfied. In a libertarian society, you'd never *have* to work for anyone, unlike our own society, where judges commonly 'order' teachers, police, firemen to work. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j < Dangermouse stumbles through door, falls in front of giant robot.> Robot: You are wise to prostrate yourself before my 50 megabyte floppies. Have you brought a RAM pack assembly for me? DM: No, but I've got a pretty sheepish assistant. Robot: Unacceptable. An illogical peripheral with a 17 byte brain. Where are his subroutines? Penfold: Uh ... They're in my third drawer down, right next to my wooly vests.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/10/85)
A philosophy professor I have grew up in a town in Newfoundland that worked this way. There was one industry, (a large plant) and everybody worked there. The company provided your house, your car (in some cases), and would pay for medical treatment. It would also pay for education for your children, even to sending them (or some of them) to university. Every youth was guaranteed a summer job at the plant, as well, if they wanted one. He worked there every summer, saved up his money, and left. Eventually (I think after Newfoundland joined Confederation) the government stepped in and said that it was *wrong* for any company to have such control over the life of its workers. The whole setup was shut down. At the time, when my professor was a happy university student with a strong interest in Marxist political philosophy, he hallowed this as a great improvment. Now, however, when he looks back, he can see that things were much better before. Now this particular town has high unemployment (like the rest of Newfoundland) and the ties which kept the town working together have been broken -- despite a population *decrease*. Quality control and production are down in the plant, as well. These days he thinks that the whole thing (including having Newfoundland join Confederation) was a mistake. There is the ``old man in his late 50s looks back on his past'' problem, he admits, but it seems to be shared with the other people who grew up there. How much of the decline can be attributed to a general decline in values (something which he believes in, even if I am not so sure about it) is also hard to measure. We can't think of a way to research this scientifically. But it makes you wonder... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/14/85)
I'm sorry to quote this at such length, but I don't see how to cut it and still have it make sense: >A philosophy professor I have grew up in a town in Newfoundland that >worked this way. There was one industry, (a large plant) and everybody >worked there. The company provided your house, your car (in some cases), >and would pay for medical treatment. It would also pay for education for >your children, even to sending them (or some of them) to university. > >Every youth was guaranteed a summer job at the plant, as well, if they >wanted one. He worked there every summer, saved up his money, and left. > >Eventually (I think after Newfoundland joined Confederation) the government >stepped in and said that it was *wrong* for any company to have such control >over the life of its workers. The whole setup was shut down. At the time, >when my professor was a happy university student with a strong interest >in Marxist political philosophy, he hallowed this as a great improvment. > >Now, however, when he looks back, he can see that things were much better >before. Now this particular town has high unemployment (like the rest >of Newfoundland) and the ties which kept the town working together have >been broken -- despite a population *decrease*. Quality control and >production are down in the plant, as well. These days he thinks that the >whole thing (including having Newfoundland join Confederation) was a >mistake. There is the ``old man in his late 50s looks back on his past'' >problem, he admits, but it seems to be shared with the other people who >grew up there. How much of the decline can be attributed to a general >decline in values (something which he believes in, even if I am not >so sure about it) is also hard to measure. > >We can't think of a way to research this scientifically. But it makes >you wonder... > >Laura Creighton There have been hundreds of such company towns. Essentially, the company forms the government, and while the company is making good money, everything is fine. The problems arise when it doesn't, and decides that the plant in that town should be closed (or that it can't afford such benefits). Then you are in the same situation as with any other reliance on welfare provided from a single source that decides it isn't going to continue. One of the good things about the libertarian arguments is the emphasis given to choice and variety. In the one-industry company town, neither is present. Government intervention may provide the opportunity for choice, and could possibly have good effects. When the economy generally is depressed, it is unlikely to do so. In Japan, it seems that morality demands that companies care for their employees through good times and bad. Here, morality is different. My guess is that the company town provides better good times and worse bad times than the alternative. Just like other centrally planned economies, or dictatorships, that system is very good when it is good and very bad when it is bad. But people don't have much freedom there to change the system, which I guess most of us would think to be inherently bad -- an ideological position, not a pragmatic one. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt