The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
One social structure that is not permissible under anarcho-capitalism is one that attempts to claim greater sovereignty than the individuals that form it. The state is a prime example, but another is the modern corporation -- defined as a legal entity that exists under a different legal code than individuals as a means to shelter the individuals who own and run the corporation from possible legal consequences of acts by the corporation. It is worth noting that Rothbard allows a narrower definition of a corporation: "Corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation ...." However, this is a very narrow definition that only shelters owners from debt by creditors that specifically agree to the arrangement; it also does not shelter other liability, such as from malfeasance or other wrongdoing.
Prominent minarchists include Benjamin Constant, Herbert Spencer, Leonard Read, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, James M. Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, John Hospers, Robert Nozick, George Reisman.
For me, it becomes a debate between left libertarianism and right libertarianism. Neither is free of the risk of degenerating into authoritarian versions in practice.
Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
Specifically - Thatcher and Reagan and their peculiar ideas about deregulation.
Once the media were deregulated, it was easy for Murdoch to start spreading his poison and acting as king maker, and for other corporate interests to follow suit. In the UK the miners' strike and the move to Wapping were two big battles in the subsequent class war.
There's also been a lot of influence in the US from frankly wacko billionaires such as Scaife and his Scaife Foundations which have effectively treated US government as a personal for-profit organisation.
There are two levels here. At the Scaife level it's deliberate manipulation of opinion and policy for personal gain. At the lower level there are numerous emotionally stunted chancers and wannabes who love the greed-is-good amorality of freebooting capitalism, and feel that paying taxes is a personal insult.
Under those two levels there's a majority of people who want a quiet life without lethal but stupid panto-wars and crusades, and with a reasonable standard of living offering basics such as education and health care.
The deeper social problem is that the most violently aggressive billionaires and promoters of corporate excellence really do have serious psychological problems. Scaife, Coors and Bush are all former or current alcoholics, and cocaine is the drug of choice among the executive class - so much so that it's considered part of the scenery.
Sane policies are impossible while these people continue to have any significant social influence.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 35 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 274 comments
by Oui - Sep 2618 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 242 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1335 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 127 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 22 comments
by gmoke - Sep 2
by Oui - Sep 1199 comments