22-01-2002 22:02									#1
	Well, Libertarians, here's your chance to defend Enron Increase Your PM Length

I am waiting to see somebody defend Enron, and further more, the nature of our economic system that it seems Enron did nothing technically illegal. This is what happens when you give a corporation more rights than you or I. Defend the fact that Enron was paid 250 million dollars last year in taxes, which came out of your and my pockets. Defend your "laissez-faire" principles in the face of one of the worst cases of corporate greed wreaked havoc on thousands of lives. I really want you to come to terms with what you all have been preaching and defend yourselves.

	22-01-2002 22:06									#2
	Re: Well, Libertarians, here's your chance to defend Enron Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Hoek I am waiting to see somebody defend Enron,

Why should they defend a company that has violated the basic precepts of the marketplace? Or was this thread meant to be an entertaining diversion for the "libertarian horde"?

	22-01-2002 22:09									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Enron is the product of crony capitalism, rather than liberalism. Esp on the tax subsidy. And fraud would be illegal in the most liberal or even libertarian system.

The question is one of prevention. A free market model would mean enron could do what it wants without oversight. On the other hand, investors would have to be much more distrustful without the cozy illusion provided by the SEC et al. Personally I favour some basic and independent oversight, but if people like the enron crew want to commit fraud, it's tough to prevent that from happening - of yourse, _punishing_ corporate crime might also help a bit...

	22-01-2002 22:11									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Laissez-faire libertarians seem to think that the government has no role in the economy, other than printing currency, guarunteeing contracts, and protecting private property. They would not in a million years consider that possibly the government should do something to prevent more abuse by corporations along these lines.

	22-01-2002 22:12									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Justice will be served. Michael Milkin couldnt get away with this. Ken Lay wont either.


Ps....it bothers me. Its the worst of capitalism. But we must look past the worst and try for better aims.

	22-01-2002 22:13									#6
	Re: Re: Well, Libertarians, here's your chance to defend Enron Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why should they defend a company that has violated the basic precepts of the marketplace? Or was this thread meant to be an entertaining diversion for the "libertarian horde"?

Nope, I guess it's just another troll by big-government Americom.

	22-01-2002 22:16									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Hoek, you do realize that fraud and insider trading would likely be illegal even under a libertarian system of government, don't you?

	22-01-2002 22:40									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I fail to see why libertarians should be defending Enron, unless you're operating from one of those rather odd definitions of libertarian that seem to be meant on this forum rather often.

--"and further more, the nature of our economic system that it seems Enron did nothing technically illegal."

Libertarians complain quite a lot about the kinds of things that are and aren't legal in our system that shouldn't be this way. Fraud is one of them. Enron may have technicalitied its way through this, but their actions would hardly be approved of under a libertarian legal system.

--"This is what happens when you give a corporation more rights than you or I."

Which is corporatism, not lassiez-faire. Under a true free market, a corporation would, in and of itself, have no rights. Groups don't have any more rights than the individuals making it up do.

--"Defend the fact that Enron was paid 250 million dollars last year in taxes, which came out of your and my pockets."

Libertarians have never supported corporate welfare, and one of the main groups decrying it. We just don't get news coverage when we do.

--" I really want you to come to terms with what you all have been preaching and defend yourselves."

I really wish you'd pay a little attention to us here so you'd know what we have been preaching before deriding us for it, because it sure doesn't look like you have.

Wraith
"She walked quickly through the darkness with the frank stride of someone who was at least certain that the forest, on this damp and windy night, contained strange and terrible things and she was it."
-- Wyrd Sisters

	22-01-2002 22:46									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I don't understand this whole Enron thing. I hear a lot of people are either broke or jobless...?

Someone lay it all out for us mindless masses.

	23-01-2002 01:22									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Libertarians are not very fond of LOSERS. They will let ERON fend for itself.

	23-01-2002 01:46									#11
	Got spare money?

I would never defend Enron, nor would anyone in their right mind. They are a band of crooks! However, to their 'credit' they took great advantage of governmental interference, and exploited the loopholes that the US government had created by way of their massive bureaucracy.

In a true free market Enron never would have happened. They would have either collapsed or been eaten alive. It was due to the distgusting antics of bloated government that they were allowed to do what they did.

Hoek should learn the definition of Libertarianism or Laissez Faire for that matter. In none of our writings does it anywhere say that "government has no role" - on the contrary. Government has a huge role, to ensure that they playing field is leveled - something that they sure as heck don't do now - re: Enron!

	23-01-2002 03:45									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Libertarian government suppresses the initiation of force and fraud. The OP is swatting at a red herring with a strawman broom.

	23-01-2002 03:48									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I am familiar with Libertarianism, and I toyed with being a libertarian myself for a while until I realized that its really just a bunch of guys who don't want to pay for taxes.

The general principles of libertarianism arise from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which theorizes that left to its own devices, a free market economy will bring the most amount of wealth to the most amount of people. However, he wrote this in 1776, before the Information and Industrial revolutions. Both these developments have had significant effects on the economy, and modern economics is far more complex than Adam Smith's theories can absolutely applicable for.

In the modern world, the government does have a significant role to play, which indeed is to level the playing field. Our government does not do that nearly enough. Libertarians don't even support antitrust legislation to level the playing field. An in terms of taxation, they support high tariffs as the only way government should fund its operations.

In terms of Enron, the government could have done a whole lot more to prevent this from happening. American government is constitutionally mandated to look out for the general welfare of the populace, and in this instance, they did not. Why is it that principles of democracy should not be extended to the economy?

	23-01-2002 03:55									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: The general principles of libertarianism arise from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which theorizes that left to its own devices, a free market economy will bring the most amount of wealth to the most amount of people. However, he wrote this in 1776, before the Information and Industrial revolutions. Both these developments have had significant effects on the economy, and modern economics is far more complex than Adam Smith's theories can absolutely applicable for.

You ever read the Wealth of Nations? There is a substantial role of government to play in the economy according to Adam Smith.

quote: In the modern world, the government does have a significant role to play, which indeed is to level the playing field. Our government does not do that nearly enough. Libertarians don't even support antitrust legislation to level the playing field. An in terms of taxation, they support high tariffs as the only way government should fund its operations.

So all Libertarians are the same? So all Democrats believe in higher taxes? So all Republicans are anti-abortion? Generalizations aren't warrented.

	23-01-2002 04:09									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hoek, I'm with the Libertarians on this one. Enron was built on fraud and government connections and our system of legalized government bribery. Under a libertarian system, the later two would be unlikely to happen, since there would be no government to aid them, and they would still be responsible for the fraud. What happened at Enron was not an example of laissez-faire capitalism but rather modern corporate capitalism.

Don't go after the Libbies, go after Republicrats and the Demipublicans. They fostered this mess.

	23-01-2002 04:55									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I know that Adam Smith supports certain roles for government, namely enterprises that are unsuitable for marketplace mechanics (things like road-building, education). However, the idea that "let the cards fall where they may" can not be applied to modern economies. What concerns me about Enron isn't as much the fraud as what they did to their employees. It's equivilent to the captain bailing out of a sinking ship and taking all the life rafts with him. In our system, a company may bar employees from selling company stock while they cash their own options out. In our system, corporations don't end up contributing anything to society and act like leeches. The whole idea of the corporation is inherently flawed I think. I believe in capitalism, but I support a "people's capitalism," where a "corporation" would be owned entirely by the employees so that the management wouldn't ass-rape them at the end of it. The principle of letting everyone pursue their own economic goals without some kind of controls (such as worker ownership of corporations or government oversight of earnings reports) ends up making a few very big winners and many losers. It is a negative-sum game. I don't think the answer is socialism by any means, but if you applied the principles of democracy to economics, I believe you could come out with a "democratic capitalism" that would make economics a positive-sum game.

	23-01-2002 05:59									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: I believe in capitalism, but I support a "people's capitalism," where a "corporation" would be owned entirely by the employees so that the management wouldn't ass-rape them at the end of it.

So you happen to be a socialist then. This is exactly Ramo's ideas in a nutshell.

	23-01-2002 06:00									#18
	Put an end to popups!

Hi «Paki» (US President George Bush's official copyright) How are you?

	23-01-2002 06:03									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: I believe in capitalism, but I support a "people's capitalism," where a "corporation" would be owned entirely by the employees so that the management wouldn't ass-rape them at the end of it.

It is difficult to work... I prefer a strong social democratic government in order to have a strong state interference in serving the peoples' needs and act as a counter-force to ultra capitalist pigdogs. Maybe with a touch of trade unionism.

	23-01-2002 06:11									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: that would make economics a positive-sum game.

Uh... it already is a positive-sum game. Compare 1900 with 2000 to see what I mean.

	23-01-2002 06:19									#21
	Remove this text

No, it isn't socialist. Socialism is a system that tries to do away with free enterprise. What I am proposing is that for large corporations (or any company that decides to incorporate), the people producing the wealth will see a larger cut of it. This is not socialism by any standard. It means that employees (who have more at stake in a company suceeding than the higher-ups) will have a greater degree of control over their own economic situation, and it means a mitigation of the greed that makes corporations inherently unfair. Likewise, things such as environmental protection deserve a higher priority than millionaires and billionaires lining their pockets more. People's capitalism basically applies democratic controls to private enterprise, and would not require the kind of interference that socialism has in mind. Socialists reject the basic ideas of a market-based economy, whereas people's capitalism merely tries to see the benefits of market economies more fairly distributed. Why should corporations not be accountable to their employees?

	23-01-2002 06:35									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Uh... Hoek that IS socialism. It is worker owned businesses. Something Marx campaigned for. Some socialist thinkers have argued for worker owned business and keeping the rest of the structure in place, though more anarchists.

The WHOLE idea for worker owned businesses instead of the corporation is from the socialist family.

	23-01-2002 06:38									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Uh... Hoek that IS socialism. It is worker owned businesses. Something Marx campaigned for. Some socialist thinkers have argued for worker owned business and keeping the rest of the structure in place, though more anarchists. The WHOLE idea for worker owned businesses instead of the corporation is from the socialist family.

so the us is party socialist? with all those stocks in worker's hands?

some ressemblance of medical care (medical care also a socialist achievement).

some worker rights to americans (also socialist).


you are such a dirty socialist country! (can't compare with Europe though).

	23-01-2002 06:46									#24
	Support Apolyton

paik, worker owned businesses are an inherantly leftist idea. Look at the biggest proponents of it on this site: Boshko and Ramo. You don't think they are capitalists, do you?

And most stocks aren't in the hands of the workers. Shareholders are mostly upper management or outside the company.

	23-01-2002 06:48									#25
	Suffering from ads?

interesting you haven't commented on your socialist leanings evil eyes (medical care, worker's rights).

If not for the socialist influence you americanski would still be working 20 hours 7 days a week not getting any medical attention and being treated like scum by the employers (oh wait! )

	23-01-2002 06:51									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ungrateful bastards

Don't know about Boshko but Ramo should get the Bakounin quote out of his sig... unless he is looking at him from a purely academic perspective. Becasue Bakounin was THE inspiration for armed rebelions in order to overturn the status quo and establish a socialist community.

Live up to it (unadvisable) or take it out of your sig Ramo

	23-01-2002 06:54									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Why aren't you rebelling pattycakes? Chicken?

I don't deny there is socialist influence in the US. But saying you are a capitalist and flirted with libertarianism while advocating worker owned businesses, is a bit much. Worker owned businesses are ok to libertarians as long companies aren't forced to change their corporate hierarchy by the state. 'People's Capitalism' is already sounding on the road to socialism, and insinuates banning corporate heirarchy.

	23-01-2002 06:58									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't believe in a communist or anarchistic society that's why. My trip is social democracy. (the one che is tearing his clothes apart because he accuses us of being the capitalists' Trojan Horse and diluting the communist ideals )


I'm not talking about socialist influence in the US. I'm saying that medical care, welfare systems, worker's rights are ALL socialist achievements and that they own their existance to socialist influence.

Actually the Soviet Union made the rest of Europe humane. (the humanity you're trying to tear down now you silly yanks ) Social welfare all these parameters were established because

1) european tradition - (comes from as far as monarchies)
222222) because of fear that Europe (Europe not Britain) would chose to go Soviet if humane living conditions were not met.

	23-01-2002 07:01									#29
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

No, my ideas are not socialist. Your definitions are screwy. While it may be leftist, it is by no means socialist. The main idea of socialism is that the state controls the main lines of production, which is supposed to benefit the workers. It's fundamental belief is that market economies are wrong. I do not believe that market economies are wrong at all. I do believe, however, that if a greater amount of control over the company was given to employees, the economy would be better off. It is bad economics to have such large concentrations of money in the hands of very few. My idea takes the market system (I don't support state takeovers of production) and uses its mechanics to spread the benefits more fairly. It also tempers the desire on the part of management to abuse their power. The idea is simply to apply democratic principles to corporate management.

	23-01-2002 07:02									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I am not tearing my clothes apart. First, I'm not a foaming at the mouth commie (just a mellow commie) and haven't been one for many years. Two, even when I was, clothes cost money, and delibertately destroying your clothes is foolish.

Trojan horse.