Any time someone mentions human nature, it’s a telltale sign that they understand neither what they are saying nor what the interlocutor is saying.

So, we’ll get the same system we have now?

Companies can be pretty good at shielding themselves on their own too, at least the large, multinational ones, who can overwhelm individuals with the resources at their disposal, or limit ‘punishment’ for misdeeds to a single subsidiary while shielding higher-ups.

There are vested interests with power, money, and influence that exist. They will game the system. They will protect themselves, and what you will get out of a move towards Austrian economics will not be the free market anarcho-capitalist system you want. It will be a system called the ‘free market’ where everyone who has power, money, and influence will continue to be shielded from responsibly, consequence, and harm, while everyone without those things will be fed to wolves when they can’t make their credit card payments.

And I’m not convinced that giving them even more freedom is going to encourage them to change.

It’s not about giving them more freedom, it’s about giving them more responsibility and consequences for their actions, which the government currently does a pretty good job of shielding them from at the expense of the rest of us.

Corporations have too much freedom because they are creatures of the state, which itself is The One Big Corporation that leftoids are so afraid of. I don’t blame idiot leftists too much for not seeing this, as plenty of libertarians don’t quite get it (or its implications) either: there are only private interests.

It’s starting now: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/politics/ron-paul-iowa/index.html

From the article: “If Paul wins, then whoever comes in second — assuming its Gingrich or Romney — will ‘win’ having beaten the other. So, whoever comes in third under this scenario is the loser.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

Well, there’s the problem. In theory a lot of things sound good. It’s in the application where things tend to break down, and I’m unconvinced that the application of said principles wouldn’t result in a robber-baron economy where everyone except the well-connected was expected to be an island.

In practice, the mainstream left is probably the biggest ally that the corporate elite has. Whether this is intentional or not probably varies from mainstream leftist to mainstream leftist.

They make short term quarterly decisions to reap short term profit and bonuses, straddle the legal boundary of fraud, and expect that the government will dutifully clean up the shit they leave behind and never hold them accountable.

And I’m not convinced that giving them even more freedom is going to encourage them to change.

Does it have to be one or the other?

Couldn’t we have a saner economics theory where we did our best to eliminate corporatism, enact some free market reforms, still protect people from the negative externalities of capitalism (via safety net programs, law enforcement, and judicial options), and be fiscally responsible enough with our tax policies so that we balance our budget most years (or pay off existing debt) and have enough leverage to borrow money in bad years to try and lessen the impact?

ice9

And as for your second point, that certainly as hell wasn’t MY experience when I first became interested in libertarianism. For me, the civil liberties side is what brought me in. It wasn’t until I was pretty much onboard before I started reading about the economic theories. And a lot more people would be coming over from the left if people didn’t start the conversation off with shoving Hayek down everyone’s throat.

Umm … yes Ben, it is. And Austrian economics is Libertarianism 101. Well maybe 201, right after decriminalization of marijuana. ;-)

It’s kind of like the idea that security cameras that are hollow decoys can be just as effective a deterrent as a real camera if the decoys look exactly like functioning cameras. It’s the idea that that one thinks one is being watched, not the actual watching itself that is most effective. Same principle behind those ceramic owls that people put in their gardens to scare away crows and whatnot.

As for you JimBob, man, if you think there’s an actual chance of Ron Paul getting elected president, by whatever strategy you can dream up, then you are one helluva sucker. I, for one, and I know I’m not alone, would rather speak up for what I know is true and be an asshole in your eyes than think that if I just shut up about Austrian economics or the demonstrable failures of Keynesian or Monetarist economics that will somehow get Ron Paul elected — which as an anarchist, is meaningless to me anyway.

So, you are saying only Romney has a chance? Paul has more money and volunteers than Gingrich. I think Perry did have more money, but I don’t think he does anymore.