Re: crypto anarchy vs AP

At 11:26 AM 9/23/96 -0700, Clint Barnett wrote:

>>to create the appearance of as free a life style as they can for
>>individuals
>
>ever read "1984"? the appearance of a free lifestyle is most definitely 
>not a free lifestyle. I am hardly a friend of the state, and far from 
>being an advocate of the church, but multinational corporations running 
>the world for their own fun and profit makes my sphincter clench. 

I think you're under a mis-impression here.  At least in the libertarian 
circles where I do most of my political discussion, it is generally 
suspected that corporations grow large and powerful primarily BECAUSE OF 
assistance by and due to the policies of government.  (heavy regulation 
favors large companies by keeping down small competitors, etc)  Of course, 
that cause/effect relationship is intentionally hidden, and most of the 
public sees the show put on which appears to have the opposite effect:  
Anti-trust lawsuits, etc.  

Over time, the public is gulled into the false belief that if you get rid of 
the government, you get rid of the "only think that stands between us and 
the multi-national corporations."  They believe this because the only 
government actions they see and recognize are anti-corporation.  If they 
were aware of the truth, they'd realize that these large corporations are 
actually afraid of a free market, and that the companies consider big 
government to be their friends..

Just look at an excellent example:  Intel versus IBM.  Intel used to be this 
tiny upstart chip company from the Bay area and IBM was smokestack America.  
Now, Intel is the biggest (by dollar volume, anyway) chip company in the 
world and IBM is, well, considerably cut back from its heyday.  At least in 
hindsight, IBM would have been "smart" to squash Intel, or buy it up, or 
have the government over-regulate it.  


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

if I'm not mistaken, large companies are able to purchase (in a way) 
government support. Special interest groups and large lobbying groups are 
also able to sway the government with either money , votes or things more 
insidious. You are absolutely right, big companies do get bigger because 
of (partly) government support of some form, but that's because they can 
afford to pay for it. 

clint barnett
lord of the cosmos
emily carr institute

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 11:26 AM 9/23/96 -0700, Clint Barnett wrote:
> 
> >>to create the appearance of as free a life style as they can for
> >>individuals
> >
> >ever read "1984"? the appearance of a free lifestyle is most definitely 
> >not a free lifestyle. I am hardly a friend of the state, and far from 
> >being an advocate of the church, but multinational corporations running 
> >the world for their own fun and profit makes my sphincter clench. 
> 
> I think you're under a mis-impression here.  At least in the libertarian 
> circles where I do most of my political discussion, it is generally 
> suspected that corporations grow large and powerful primarily BECAUSE OF 
> assistance by and due to the policies of government.  (heavy regulation 
> favors large companies by keeping down small competitors, etc)  Of course, 
> that cause/effect relationship is intentionally hidden, and most of the 
> public sees the show put on which appears to have the opposite effect:  
> Anti-trust lawsuits, etc.  
> 
> Over time, the public is gulled into the false belief that if you get rid of 
> the government, you get rid of the "only think that stands between us and 
> the multi-national corporations."  They believe this because the only 
> government actions they see and recognize are anti-corporation.  If they 
> were aware of the truth, they'd realize that these large corporations are 
> actually afraid of a free market, and that the companies consider big 
> government to be their friends..
> 
> Just look at an excellent example:  Intel versus IBM.  Intel used to be this 
> tiny upstart chip company from the Bay area and IBM was smokestack America.  
> Now, Intel is the biggest (by dollar volume, anyway) chip company in the 
> world and IBM is, well, considerably cut back from its heyday.  At least in 
> hindsight, IBM would have been "smart" to squash Intel, or buy it up, or 
> have the government over-regulate it.  
> 
> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
>