Am I a Classical Liberal?

[Kulindahr]

Example?

Under eBay v. Newman, the law is as Franken said: “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits.” Just ask Jim and Craig; no one disputes it’s their company, but they’re legally prohibited from taking steps to preserve the profit-alongside-community-service mission that’s served them well. Maximize profits, or else.

source Well worth reading the whole thing.

 

[thewiz]

Republicans always fight for the rights of individuals to start and run businesses, hiring the best people for the jobs regardless of race creed etc, and without unreasonable dictation by the government.
They have fought for tge rights of babies to be born rather than being killed by democrats.

You drinking tonight?

 

[thewiz]

There are plenty of other and cheaper brands. Young people like Nike beacause of their extreme design and coloration. We used to make shoes in the US but the unions and democrats won the battles against the the manufacturors. If the shoes were manufactured here the retail cost would be prohibitive.

We went to Vietnam last spring. I bought a $139 pair of Nike's for the equivalent of $19. I suppose if American workers want to make $0.50 per day, then we can have all the shoe manufacturers we'd like in this country. And I know Ben and the Republicans would support dropping the minimum wage to poverty so that companies can make even more. How's that working for Walmart?

 

[TX-Beau]

You drinking tonight?

Don't know about you but I'm killing some babies, then driving some illegals across the border. We're going to displace some American workers for the holiday.

 

[xbuzzerx]

We went to Vietnam last spring. I bought a $139 pair of Nike's for the equivalent of $19. I suppose if American workers want to make $0.50 per day, then we can have all the shoe manufacturers we'd like in this country. And I know Ben and the Republicans would support dropping the minimum wage to poverty so that companies can make even more. How's that working for Walmart?

This is the thing that immediately performs an abortion on -any- attempt to take the position that American workers 'ought' to accept competitive third world compensation and standard of living and pay. Food doesn't cost twice as much in the same fast food restaurants in countries that have substantially higher minimum wage. And corporations don't sell Nikes in the U.S. for $40 because they made them for $20 in China.

All the position Ben espouses essentially says is that corporations should get to have their cake and eat it too. And all he apparently has to support that position is to become shrill accusing us all of hating America and hating American business for not finding this prospect compelling.

 

[Kulindahr]

I was looking at classical liberal views on corporations. From what I read, the view was that a corporation was a temporary entity formed to accomplish a specific and well-defined purpose, and after that purpose was accomplished the corporation would be dissolved. Early classical liberals (before it was defined) apparently extolled the virtues of "a nation of shopkeepers", believing that having a huge portion of the population engaged as part of the entrepreneurial class made for a stable and robust economy.

Jefferson definitely felt that way; he regarded the East India Company as nearly as dangerous an entity to liberty as an unrestrained monarchy.

By the early nineteenth century, though, when classical liberalism was defined, it was thoroughly laissez-faire. So while I am in agreement with Jefferson and others who maintained that government is needed as a check against tyranny arising from the private sector, I wouldn't fit at all with the classical liberals as now defined. Qualifying it by the phrase "with a pragmatic streak" doesn't seem sufficient to me.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is the thing that immediately performs an abortion on -any- attempt to take the position that American workers 'ought' to accept competitive third world compensation and standard of living and pay. Food doesn't cost twice as much in the same fast food restaurants in countries that have substantially higher minimum wage. And corporations don't sell Nikes in the U.S. for $40 because they made them for $20 in China.

All the position Ben espouses essentially says is that corporations should get to have their cake and eat it too. And all he apparently has to support that position is to become shrill accusing us all of hating America and hating American business for not finding this prospect compelling.

What's interesting here is that we're close to being able to have shoes made by robots -- Adidas is actually looking at making their shoes in Germany again, but they'd be hiring only a fraction of the number of workers they now employ in Asia because the intent is to use robots. A pair of Nikes made by robots would cost, in terms of materials and wages, about the same as a pair made by workers, but the robots wouldn't require benefits of any kind, so the actual cost per pair would drop. And as robots got better, the price would drop even further, from the current ~$30/pair to a bit over half that.

So the argument is going to be moot in the not-so-far future; indeed, as robots are used more and more to produce the robots making shoes, and other robots are designed to perform maintenance on the show-making robots, the cost of making a pair of Nikes will drop even further, while the robots who make them (and everything else) will have turned so many people out of jobs that even at the lower price there will be few to buy them.

As one interested in maximizing the liberty of all individuals, at that point capitalism is going to have to die and give way to a system where all basics are essentially free and talent is literally of more value than money.

 

[Kabluey]

...Taxes are absolutely a deprivation ot freedom. Without economic freedom, we would all be living in one room hovels.

There is no economic freedom unless you have money in the first place.

By campaigning to maintain/reduce minimum wages, remove safeguards protecting savings, remove safeguards to prevent fraud, blocking anti monopoly laws (to prevent companies overcharging for essentials and destroying competition), reducing job security through anti-union and minimum labour laws, the Republicans ensure economic freedoms are the preserve of the already wealthy.

Taxes are required for a country to function. No society has ever existed without some form of collectivism.

Economic freedom is and always has been the freedom to earn a living, to save for the future and to be free from exploitative debt and servitude.

Like it or not, you live in a developed society. Don't like it? Then move to the third world (and see how you fare there).

 

[Benvolio]

Alright, so we are just establishing clarity here. You do not dispute, and are not bothering to pretend, the GOP stands for, fights for, or has made any meritorious effort in the last 20 years for any personal liberties. It has exerted itself for corporate freedoms.

Which have utterly nothing to do with a good or functioning or healthy democracy, least of all when it is your sole and only perogative to the exclusion of personal rights or personal liberties.

You newly- thought-up "personal liberties" are usually at the expense of someone else. If you gives the "right" to free health care, other people have to work to pay for it, while the welfare class gets another free ride.
Currently, the minorities in colleges are rioting to be free from anything which they have chosen to regard as hurting their feelings. Soon "microagression" will be another dogma of political correctness, with freedom of speech the victim.
You fail to grasp that prosperity depends on preserving our economic system. Free enterprise works best , but the operative word is freedom, not enterprise. Liberals, being marxists, are hell bent on bringing down the bourgeoisie, and you regard any attempt to preserve our economy as being solely for the benefit of the "rich", but once you bring down to top half , who will pay for the welfare that you want to give away?

 

[Benvolio]

There is no economic freedom unless you have money in the first place.

By campaigning to maintain/reduce minimum wages, remove safeguards protecting savings, remove safeguards to prevent fraud, blocking anti monopoly laws (to prevent companies overcharging for essentials and destroying competition), reducing job security through anti-union and minimum labour laws, the Republicans ensure economic freedoms are the preserve of the already wealthy.

Taxes are required for a country to function. No society has ever existed without some form of collectivism.

Economic freedom is and always has been the freedom to earn a living, to save for the future and to be free from exploitative debt and servitude.

Like it or not, you live in a developed society. Don't like it? Then move to the third world (and see how you fare there).

Move to the third world? Why? The dems are doing everything they can to bring it here. Democrat policies are so hostile to businesses and those dread corporations, and to existing Americans, we will soon be a third world banana dictatorship. What other purpose for the third world immigration except to vote against our economy and democracy?
I dispute you all your claims, but let me focus on your claim that we are "blocking anti monopoly laws (to prevent overcharging essentials and destroying competition)". How in the world does overcharging essentials destroy competition? Overcharging has exactly the opposite effect of losing sales to the competition. Indeed the Sherman Anti Trust Act has been interpreted to prohibit sales below cost, precisely because such sales injure the competition. Overcharging helps the competition, undercharging can impede competition.
You are badly in need of a short course in economics.

 

[Kabluey]

Move to the third world? Why? The dems are doing everything they can to bring it here. Democrat policies are so hostile to businesses and those dread corporations, and to existing Americans, we will soon be a third world banana dictatorship. What other purpose for the third world immigration except to vote against our economy and democracy?
I dispute you all your claims, but let me focus on your claim that we are "blocking anti monopoly laws (to prevent overcharging essentials and destroying competition)". How in the world does overcharging essentials destroy competition? Overcharging has exactly the opposite effect of losing sales to the competition. Indeed the Sherman Anti Trust Act has been interpreted to prohibit sales below cost, precisely because such sales injure the competition. Overcharging helps the competition, undercharging can impede competition.
You are badly in need of a short course in economics.

More like you need a short course in remedial reading.

Anti competitive monopolies charge too much for their wares while blocking other companies from competing against them.
This is especially problematic where monopolies are supplying life's essentials.

Do I have to say it more simply? Or would you like to embark on another misguided diatribe?

Oh, and in case you don't realise the economic problems caused by monopolistic behaviour, you might want to try that same 101 course you were suggesting.

 

[jbrown329]

Anyone remember Mountain Bell? Remember what happened to Ma Bell? That doesn't happen today.

 

[opinterph]

To be fair, courts have ruled that companies have to provide a maximum return to investors.

Example?

Under eBay v. Newman, the law is as Franken said: “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits.” Just ask Jim and Craig; no one disputes it’s their company, but they’re legally prohibited from taking steps to preserve the profit-alongside-community-service mission that’s served them well. Maximize profits, or else.

source Well worth reading the whole thing.

I read the comments by Mr. Kennerly (your link) and the entire opinion by Chancelor Chandler. If your suggestion to “read the whole thing” relates to the opinion itself, I agree. It is well reasoned and well written.

All the same, I disagree with the conclusion you derived from the case (i.e. the courts have ruled that companies have to provide a maximum return to investors). Of course that means I also disagree with Senator Franken’s statement that “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits.”

It is more appropriate to regard the purpose of corporate stewardship to improve or maximize the value of the corporation’s common stock. IOW, corporate leadership (in a for-profit company) should always seek ways to increase the value of the company for the benefit of its owners. Exceptions to that approach are possible and may be reasonable. For example, there may be situations in which maximizing profits also maximizes the value of the company. However, generally speaking, a view toward maximizing profits creates a deficit in a company’s value over time. Ignoring other important intrinsic aspects of a company’s value, such as maintaining and improving its capital assets, satisfying the needs of the community to which it offers services, or the “culture” of the corporation (as proposed in this case by the majority holders of Craigslist) may provide a more sustainable value to the company’s success than maximizing profits. And that contrasts with the desire of eBay to more fully monetize Craigslist so that its users generate more revenue and hence more profit. The “free” nature of Craigslist is a major part of its appeal to the online community and a major reason for its prominence in the marketplace.

Variations of the word “profit” appear only 13 times in Chandler’s opinion and I see no intimation that he demands or expects corporate businesses to always maximize profits. He iterates that “the business judgment rule protects against the risk that a court might impose itself unreasonably on the business and affairs of a corporation.”

I tend to agree with the statement by Gordon Smith (from your link) that this case was “plain-vanilla minority shareholder oppression.” The court did not determine that Craigslist’s failure to maximize profits or increase its market share were unreasonable (or malfeasance). The majority holders of Craigslist used their positions on the board to act in their own self-interest by employing unreasonable tactics as a means to diminish the value of eBay’s holdings without reducing the value of their own.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You newly- thought-up "personal liberties" are usually at the expense of someone else. If you gives the "right" to free health care

And that's yet another dodge.

I very specifically listed your party being the ENEMIES over all these years of the inclusion of gay men and women as equally protected members of the workforce, being able to serve in the military, having social (marriage etc.) legal protections, reproductive rights of women.

I can't even name an expansion to personal liberties that your party hasn't directly opposed in my lifetime.

You can attempt to skew away from this point and go off on Obamacare or Evil Brown Mexican Mud People rants all you like. I'm not letting you off this point. You said your party stands for Personal Liberties and you can't even fucking name one that they've worked on or supported in the last 20 years.

So you're either decidedly dishonest, or paid to be dishonest.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Move to the third world? Why? The dems are doing everything they can to bring it here. Democrat policies are so hostile to businesses and those dread corporations, and to existing Americans, we will soon be a third world banana dictatorship. What other purpose for the third world immigration except to vote against our economy and democracy?
I dispute you all your claims, but let me focus on your claim that we are "blocking anti monopoly laws (to prevent overcharging essentials and destroying competition)". How in the world does overcharging essentials destroy competition? Overcharging has exactly the opposite effect of losing sales to the competition. Indeed the Sherman Anti Trust Act has been interpreted to prohibit sales below cost, precisely because such sales injure the competition. Overcharging helps the competition, undercharging can impede competition.
You are badly in need of a short course in economics.

Anti-trust laws have lagged far behind the legal manuevering behind which the same entity may manifest itself under different incorporations and appear on paper as "competitors." And then proceed to fix prices.

And anyone who's lived in the U.S. in the past 50 years knows this.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no economic freedom unless you have money in the first place.

Unless your version of "freedom" is social Darwinism.

By campaigning to maintain/reduce minimum wages, remove safeguards protecting savings, remove safeguards to prevent fraud, blocking anti monopoly laws (to prevent companies overcharging for essentials and destroying competition), reducing job security through anti-union and minimum labour laws, the Republicans ensure economic freedoms are the preserve of the already wealthy.

And all those policies de facto aim at social Darwinism.

Taxes are required for a country to function. No society has ever existed without some form of collectivism.

Economic freedom is and always has been the freedom to earn a living, to save for the future and to be free from exploitative debt and servitude.

Like it or not, you live in a developed society. Don't like it? Then move to the third world (and see how you fare there).

Not only that, but in today's world it isn't enough to have people stumble into jobs and count of them being productive, it's necessary to have every person become as productive as they're willing to become. That requires education and training for everyone, not just for those who can afford it.

Free market policy does not mean jungle anarchy economics, because a market isn't actually free unless everyone has an even chance at competing to the best of their ability and desire. The fact that people who grow up in poverty have worse outcomes in a variety of different significant ways means we don't have a free economy, we have a jungle and indeed serf economy. Serfdom was not only inhumane, it was only minimally productive, and running a country with a modern version of it is dangerous foolishness.

That's how classical liberalism gave way to modern liberalism: the recognition that actual freedom requires a good beginning for everyone led to programs to try to ensure a good beginning. Unfortunately along the way it picked up the attitude that the government is here to take care of us, and channel our behaviors "for our own good" rather than just give everyone a good chance at life and otherwise make our own judgments. That entails an attitude that all citizens but an elite few are incapable of good decisions and so those decisions must be made for them -- thus the term "nanny state" with all its inherent tyranny.

 

[Kulindahr]

You newly- thought-up "personal liberties" are usually at the expense of someone else. If you gives the "right" to free health care, other people have to work to pay for it, while the welfare class gets another free ride.
Currently, the minorities in colleges are rioting to be free from anything which they have chosen to regard as hurting their feelings. Soon "microagression" will be another dogma of political correctness, with freedom of speech the victim.
You fail to grasp that prosperity depends on preserving our economic system. Free enterprise works best , but the operative word is freedom, not enterprise. Liberals, being marxists, are hell bent on bringing down the bourgeoisie, and you regard any attempt to preserve our economy as being solely for the benefit of the "rich", but once you bring down to top half , who will pay for the welfare that you want to give away?

The biggest free ride is given to the wealthy, under capitalism: it's a system that rewards unearned income.

Though really there's no such thing as unearned income, there's only income you earned yourself or that someone else earned for you. Under capitalism, society provides the wealthy the privilege of getting income without earning it; society as a whole earns it for them. This is why a higher tax rate on the wealthy is both rational and healthy for liberty: rational, because it takes back a portion of the unearned income and uses it to provide what is needed to enhance everyone's productivity and thus prosperity; healthy for liberty because it mitigates the loss of liberty for the many that comes with great wealth inequality.

Early classical liberalism was more libertarian that later, because it recognized that government is not the only enemy of liberty; any giant institution can be, and thus there must be checks and balances against all such institutions.

 

[Kulindahr]

And that's yet another dodge.

I very specifically listed your party being the ENEMIES over all these years of the inclusion of gay men and women as equally protected members of the workforce, being able to serve in the military, having social (marriage etc.) legal protections, reproductive rights of women.

I can't even name an expansion to personal liberties that your party hasn't directly opposed in my lifetime.

You can attempt to skew away from this point and go off on Obamacare or Evil Brown Mexican Mud People rants all you like. I'm not letting you off this point. You said your party stands for Personal Liberties and you can't even fucking name one that they've worked on or supported in the last 20 years.

So you're either decidedly dishonest, or paid to be dishonest.

Actually supporting the ability of individuals to start their own businesses would count as supporting individual liberty. Unfortunately, while the GOP does to a certain extent do that, a bigger thrust is protecting the privileges of giant corporations, which tends to mean allowing the giants to stifle competition. This comes to light when in bills the GOP says will help "small businesses", they define a "small business" as one with only a few owners, and so are aiming at helping companies with thousands of employees rather than ones with a handful of employees, and the result is that those with a handful of employees are harmed because the larger companies get benefits they don't. It's an interference in the free market that favors the wealthy.

So while ben is correct that the GOP has worked for individual liberties when they have supported the ability of individuals to start businesses, the overall policy of the GOP is detrimental to starting new businesses when they are small, and thus on balance is antithetical to individual liberty.


(If they wanted to really support the right to start businesses, they would propose legislation to provide no-interest loans up to $200k for starting businesses, eliminate federal corporate taxes on businesses with fewer than 100 employees and for companies which do business only within one state, and ban the use of eminent domain to acquire land for any corporation.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Anti-trust laws have lagged far behind the legal manuevering behind which the same entity may manifest itself under different incorporations and appear on paper as "competitors." And then proceed to fix prices.

And anyone who's lived in the U.S. in the past 50 years knows this.

Yes. Anti-trust laws need to be updated for the sake of free markets. Personally, I'd want a law that says that any company with more than a 20% market share needs to be broken up, along with any judged "too big to fail".

 

[Benvolio]

As usual, your posts are laden with laws you think the government should impose upon us. With libertarians like you, who needs authoritarians?