ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, March 04, 2019

The conceptual weakness of conservativism

James Kirkpatrick explains why conservatives will never be able to even begin to successfully address the problem of corporate deplatforming:
Conservatism Inc. now at least recognizes deplatforming is an issue. Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union recently announced that a slot at CPAC will feature Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who “will talk about the growing concerns around big tech companies and what Congress needs to do about it.” Hawley has questioned whether large tech companies should continue to benefit from the Section 230 protection in the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from being sued for user content.

Yet the ironic result of taking away this protection could be the destruction of small internet startups, ensuring that Facebook, Twitter and other large companies are the only ones who can maintain a large user base. Big Tech, of course, is entirely governed by the Left.

The larger problem: Conservatism Inc.’s dogma is preventing it from doing anything productive. There are two critical issues.
  • Conservatism Inc. won’t defend its own;
  • It won’t attack corporate power, even when that power is used in service of the Left.
Conservatism Inc.’s tradition of “purges” and selling out its own is well known and is arguably the defining characteristic of the movement. Thus it was less than a month ago the entire Republican Party threw Congressman Steve King under the bus because he was misquoted by the New York Times.

With online censorship, the temptation is to remain silent as the “unrespectable” elements are gradually deplatformed. Indeed, those who are not deplatformed actually benefit from the lack of any competition to their Right. Certainly, the “Never Trump true conservative” types would have rejoiced if Donald Trump’s Facebook account had been purged in 2015, as the company was reportedly considering. Indeed, journalists enforcers are still crusading to get President Trump banned from Twitter even now.

Even more serious: conservatives, because of their attachment to “free market principles,” are ideologically incapable of confronting the Leftist corporate power structure now called “Woke Capital”. Thus, at a time when populism is on the rise globally, American conservatives are in the idiotic position of trying to defend companies like Amazon from socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even while Amazon continues a crackdown on conservative speech.
At this point, anyone who focuses their rhetorical attacks on the faceless, unidentified "Left" should be considered suspect at the very least. It is more likely that they are simply unwilling and unable to face the reality of identity politics for one reason or another. The common conflation of corporations with capitalism, which is an intrinsically false notion due to the obvious and undeniable fact that corporations are artificial constructions of the government, is a conceptual trap into which most conservatives have fallen.

How is it "conservative" in any way, what does it conserve, to defend the rights of artificial constructs while absolving them from any responsibility for their actions?

The irony is that the very phenomenon of corporate deplatforming demonstrates that capitalist imperatives are not priorities for the modern post-capitalist corporation, because they do not rely upon the interactions of supply and demand for its profits, but rather, politically-driven access to the government-financial pool of resources.

Labels: , ,

72 Comments:

Blogger Chad Thundercockovich March 04, 2019 10:01 AM  

Switching paradigms from right v left to nationalist v globalist is taking me some time.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 04, 2019 10:02 AM  

"because they do not rely upon the interactions of supply and demand for its profits, but rather, politically-driven access to the government-financial pool of resources."

Gov-daddy still in need of castration.

Blogger S1AL March 04, 2019 10:07 AM  

The left/right paradigm is more and more resolving into control vs. restraint. Socialists don't want to destroy Amazon, they want to own it. The correct response for the right is a return to Teddy's principles.

Blogger Dangeresque March 04, 2019 10:09 AM  

It conserves all the sodomy that they are secretly into.

Blogger Mark Stoval March 04, 2019 10:09 AM  

"The common conflation of corporations with capitalism, which is an intrinsically false notion due to the obvious and undeniable fact that corporations are artificial constructions of the government, is a conceptual trap into which most conservatives have fallen." -VD


This may be the best one sentence written here by anyone in at least a month. Right on brother Vox.

Blogger Crush Limbraw March 04, 2019 10:11 AM  

"because they do not rely upon the interactions of supply and demand for its profits, but rather, politically-driven access to the government-financial pool of resources." - gaming the system is built into human nature from birth! It is literally unable to operate beneficially to anyone else's interest without rhe Spirit of God - PERIOD!

Blogger The Cooler March 04, 2019 10:19 AM  

but... muh proposition corporation.

*head explodes*

Blogger The Cooler March 04, 2019 10:30 AM  

American conservatives are in the idiotic position of trying to defend companies like Amazon

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyBL6gKxbcw

Blogger James Dixon March 04, 2019 10:31 AM  

> Yet the ironic result of taking away this protection could be the destruction of small internet startups...

How exactly does enforcing existing law against a given company destroy another company which is not breaking said law?

The law is very simple. If you allow unrestricted content, you're not responsible for that content. If you screen the content, you are.

Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are screening legal content. Thus, they're responsible for what they don't screen.

Blogger Didas Kalos March 04, 2019 10:35 AM  

Worth re-repeating: "The common conflation of corporations with capitalism, which is an intrinsically false notion due to the obvious and undeniable fact that corporations are artificial constructions of the government, is a conceptual trap into which most conservatives have fallen." -VD

Blogger Damelon Brinn March 04, 2019 10:37 AM  

Switching paradigms from right v left to nationalist v globalist is taking me some time.

Part of the problem is that it's not as simple as switching to one new paradigm. Sometimes it's globalist vs. nationalist. Sometimes it's urban vs. rural. Sometimes it's anti-white vs. white. Sometimes it's (((elites))) vs. everyone else. And those all overlap. It varies depending on the situation, which is why sometimes it might make sense to back an enemy in a particular battle -- or at least not get in his way -- when he's attacking a bigger enemy. The Conservatism Inc. mindset doesn't allow that at all, which is just another reason it's dying.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 04, 2019 10:40 AM  

Basically, we are seeing exactly why Great Britain outlawed what were then called "joint stock corporations" a few hundred years ago, and only recently (about 100 years ago) allowed them again.

IIRC, the reason for outlawing the joint stock corporation as a business structure was that the structure was being used by various parties for purposes of providing cover for fraud and embezzlement, by others for purposes of general malfeasance, and by still others for both of the above purposes at the same time.

Blogger Unknown March 04, 2019 10:45 AM  

The reason why conservatives rush to throw their own under the bus is because they have a bad conscience. The reason they have a bad conscience is because they know many of their principles are morally indefensible. Market principles, individualism, ruthless competition are objectively not morally defensible.

All humans know this, including conservatives, on some level of their being. Hence the bad conscience.

If you take up an objectively weak position of course you will lose - it has nothing unto do with lacking "backbone" or having bad tactics. If you adopt a position that even you are secretly ashamed of, as conservatives by their actions show they do, you will be hamstrung.

It is imperative that one feel oneself morally justified, and one can only do so by adopting objectively moral positions.

Which is not to say the Left is immoral - in many ways it is grotesquely immoral, but in the fight between conservatives and the Left it is obviously the Left that is closer to objectively moral principles.

Now the task for the alt right is to base itself on objectively moral principles, so it can be confident and proud. And this would mean taking from he Left its objectively moral positions, like its communitarian and socialistic bent, and applying it more honestly than the Left is currently.

What's worrying is that of all the reasons Vox Day chose to reject National Socialism, his main reason was the Socialism aspect.

This does not bode well for the alt right.

The alt right needs to in a sense "pull the rug out" from under the feet of the Left by adopting its objectively moral positions and implementing them more honestly and consistently than the current grotesquely corrupted Left is doing, while also implementing the good elements of the alt right position.

Blogger SidVic March 04, 2019 10:48 AM  

Yeah, i'm almost fully on board with white tribalism. Fuck these guys.

Blogger James Dixon March 04, 2019 10:49 AM  

> Which is not to say the Left is immoral - in many ways it is grotesquely immoral, but in the fight between conservatives and the Left it is obviously the Left that is closer to objectively moral principles.

> And this would mean taking from he Left its objectively moral positions, like its communitarian and socialistic bent,

Lies won't get you very far here.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz March 04, 2019 10:54 AM  

I was reading an article on Town Hall yesterday which put the rhetoric of 'identity politics' to the side and talked about them in their true meaning as anti-white. After all, none of these identity groups are attacking each other for the most part.
The question is whether or not that is good rhetoric in our context. If what are described as identity politics is re-framed as anti-white, it will certainly result in anti-white rage from the blue-check crowd.
Just yesterday I used anti-white on pjmedia and was immediately attacked as 'probably anti-black' and some clucking about MLK despite the convo having nothing to do with black people.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 04, 2019 10:56 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 04, 2019 10:57 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger ADS March 04, 2019 10:57 AM  

@13

"...[T]he Left that is closer to objectively moral principles...taking from [t]he Left its objectively moral positions, like its communitarian and socialistic bent"

Whoa buddy. If you can read the history of leftism/socialism/communism and come away with the impression that it has any morality at all, let alone more than a conservative philosophy, you have some serious problems with your moral compass.

Blogger MightyKevster March 04, 2019 10:58 AM  

"...they [modern post-capitalist corporations] do not rely upon the interactions of supply and demand for their profits, but rather, politically-driven access to the government-financial pool of resources." -VD

The implications of the above statement are chilling. Weaponization of corporations against 'wrong think' won't end until the "government-financial pool of resources" is removed. Consumer's reliance upon this corporate/government cabal reveals how far the rot has spread throughout civil society, and how much will need burned down to cleanse it. A genuine rejection of the cabal is going to make the Civil War look like a scrimmage.

Blogger Zaklog the Great March 04, 2019 11:01 AM  

@13 the Left it is obviously the Left that is closer to objectively moral principles.

What the fuck are you on about? Infanticide? Mass murder? Theft by means of the tax man to give handouts to favored groups? Genocide?

I agreed with you on something yesterday, but, dude, you are so far off base here that you're not even in the same city as the baseball park.

Blogger Jack Amok March 04, 2019 11:02 AM  

James:

The law is very simple. If you allow unrestricted content, you're not responsible for that content. If you screen the content, you are.

Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are screening legal content. Thus, they're responsible for what they don't screen.


This is a perfect example of why the GOP as led by Conservatives is rightly called The Stupid Party. You're exactly right, all they need to do is enforce the safe-harbor requirements and the bad actors like Facebook and Twitter can be punished while small startups who follow the safe-harbor rules are fine.

But that's too complicated for these dolts. They want some universal rule that doesn't require any judgment. Maybe they're afraid Liberals will mis-use any discretion, but that's just failing to learn from history - Liberals fabricate discretion where it doesn't exist and then mis-use it.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 04, 2019 11:03 AM  

@13

"Which is not to say the Left is immoral - in many ways it is grotesquely immoral, but in the fight between conservatives and the Left it is obviously the Left that is closer to objectively moral principles."

Close, but no cigar.

Having been heavily indoctrinated against proper evaluation of what is moral and what is not, the typical leftist more strongly BELIEVES that his ideals are more moral than all others.

The zealotry comes from strength in one's beliefs, NOT objective correctness of those beliefs.

As an example, if a man who is absolutely correct on an issue, but is unwilling to defend it, he will lose to the zealous opponents who are absolutely wrong, but likewise absolutely fanatical about remolding society into one in which their way is the ONLY way permittted to do anything.

It has nothing to do with absolute correctness, it is based upon self-perception of their own beliefs. You'll notice also that most leftists lack ANY hint of the ability to engage in self-evaluation, most especially concerning their own beliefs. If you're not willing to even evaluate your own beliefs, then you most certainly will be absolutely convinced that whatever you believe is synonymous with absolute truth. It's practically 100% comorbid with stupidity (stupidity being defined as having been informed of the truth, and rejecting it in favor of a false belief).


To the specific point at hand: The left believes that anyone who even DISAGREES with them should be either:
1) permanently unemployed and homelss, until they die of hunger and exposure
2) imprisoned
or 3) executed (arrest and trial being entirely optional).

This has been shown to be true in EVERY single country where leftish has been allowed to come into full bloom, and is readily observable in the various twitter comments of known leftists ("everybody who opposes a global taxation scheme to combat global warming[*] should be imprisoned/executed"

* not stated: global temps are driven by solar output, not C02 levels.

Blogger The Pitchfork Rebel March 04, 2019 11:07 AM  

When WalMart is pandering to homosexuals, the idea that corporate America is anything but a bastion of leftistism is intentional self-delusion.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz March 04, 2019 11:08 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Innamorato March 04, 2019 11:09 AM  

How would a VP-approved state look? How would it come about from current America?

Blogger Tars Tarkusz March 04, 2019 11:11 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:But that's too complicated for these dolts. They want some universal rule that doesn't require any judgment. Maybe they're afraid Liberals will mis-use any discretion, but that's just failing to learn from history - Liberals fabricate discretion where it doesn't exist and then mis-use it.

Don't forget the GOP gets its talking points from (((people))) hostile to us. This is just another example of how letting foreigners into your society with full equality and equal opportunity is so dangerous.
If these woke-corps were allowing a bunch of antisemitism, that dogma would dry up in an instant.

Blogger Jack Amok March 04, 2019 11:18 AM  

The common conflation of corporations with capitalism, which is an intrinsically false notion due to the obvious and undeniable fact that corporations are artificial constructions of the government, is a conceptual trap into which most conservatives have fallen.

A familiarity with Pournelle's Iron Law of the Bureaucracy should be enough for someone to understand corporations are at best short-term propositions as civilizationally useful entities. Long-term, they become converged. Without "politically-driven access to the government-financial pool of resources", they'll flame out on their own, but with that access, they are zombie tools of empire.

Eliminate corporations - replace them with some form of LLPs that allows people to do business without fear of being ruined by lawsuits (but Partners are still liable for criminal behavior).

Blogger The Cooler March 04, 2019 11:21 AM  

While not yet peer reviewed, Unknown, I have run the numbers and you have 6 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 33 minutes and 27 seconds moar lurking to do.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia March 04, 2019 11:33 AM  

Mark Stoval wrote:"The common conflation of corporations with capitalism, which is an intrinsically false notion due to the obvious and undeniable fact that corporations are artificial constructions of the government, is a conceptual trap into which most conservatives have fallen." -VD

This may be the best one sentence written here by anyone in at least a month. Right on brother Vox.


It's pretty good, but not complete. Corporations have to operate under rules of law, and laws are the province of government. At the same time, corporations don't HAVE to be political. The LLCs that I have formed have no political agenda: they make a product, or provide a service. My customers could be SJWs or rabid nationalists -- and you know what, I don't care.

Is Vox NOT going to sell his SJW books or Jordanetics to folks on the opposite side? I doubt he's going to have a such a litmus test. Does Lyft or Uber care what your politics are? Of course not. The only thing they care about is whether you have a working credit or debit card and know how to use a phone app.

The main purpose of a corporation is to (1) limit personal liability and (2) provide a conduit to raise money and share ownership. Everything else is secondary to those principles.

Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, represent some key downsides to a coporate approach. As both first movers and efficient operators, they win the game. (As Mark Andreesen has pointed out, Ask Jeeves and AltaVista failed because, unlike Google, they didn't WORK, or work as well).

However, the problem with all these internet behemoths is that (a) they are monopsonies and, consequently, (b) they can MONOPOLIZE a large part of political discourse. Google, Twitter, Facebook, are informational monopsonies and Amazon is mostly, but not exclusively, a hard goods monopsony, but an information monoposony in that it can choose which books to offer.

Monopolies raise price above competitive levels by eliminating competition. Monopsonies do the obverse: they lower prices below competitive levels, by either restricting/narrowing the quantity inputs or, in the case of the Google, et. al. dominating and controlling the distribution network -- that is, the plaform.

And when the platform is ripe for political censorship, you get Twitter.

So, Vox is right to say, in effect, "Don't even think you can turn these guys around-- build your own platforms." Well, more power to him, I wish him well in this and all his other endeavors, but good luck with that.

The current legal framework, as well as the laissez faire/free market attidude of Ayn Randian libertarian thinking, has a very hard time dealing with monopsonies. Bezos, Sergei Brin, Jack Dorsey either instinctively understood this or saw the opportunity and, being very smart guys, went for it.

That they are all SJWs may be an accident, or not, but it is turning out very badly.

Blogger Lovekraft March 04, 2019 11:34 AM  

And the corporation's strings are pulled by a small group of vastly wealthy,, which in turn has led to the creation of a large contingent of protective (and often parasitic) layers of protection.

We know these two are living as comfortable a life you can imagine, in terms of material needs.

What I think the purpose of the corporate-infiltrated SJW Inc grievance industry is just another layer of takers with the purpose of keeping the money train flowing (we all know what this narrative is).

But if I understand what VD is saying correctly, there are vast numbers of those among our own tribes that have sold us out for access to limited and perishable wealth and security.

Blogger Damelon Brinn March 04, 2019 11:41 AM  

> Yet the ironic result of taking away this protection could be the destruction of small internet startups...

How exactly does enforcing existing law against a given company destroy another company which is not breaking said law?


Yes, that was a pretty blatant assertion without evidence. It's true that when you introduce new regulations on business, the big corps with their teams of expensive lawyers will often find ways to turn those regulations in their favor and suppress up-and-coming competitors. Often, that was the reason the regulations were pushed in the first place. But that doesn't mean it has to happen that way. It depends on who enforces them.

And we don't need new regulations anyway; just enforce what we have. A farmer I know was talking last weekend about how anti-trust is a joke. Big corporations came through the rural areas over the past few decades and bought up all the feed mills, grain elevators, livestock markets, and so on, closing down the ones they didn't need. So unless you're a huge farm operation that can afford the overhead of trucking everything hundreds of miles, you're effectively dealing with monopolies for your inputs and outputs. Cross one of them, and you could be deplatformed. It's not just Big Tech that needs trust-busted.

Blogger OGRE March 04, 2019 11:42 AM  

I don't think we can hold Capitalism blameless. The whole "its their company they can do what they want with it" platitude is most definitely a laissez-faire capitalist response. And clearly while the modern corporate form is not necessarily capitalist, it is intrinsically linked to and was birthed from it.

"It cannot be too often repeated that what destroyed the Family in the modern world was Capitalism. No doubt it might have been Communism, if Communism had ever had a chance, outside that semi-Mongolian wilderness where it actually flourishes. But so far as we are concerned, what has broken up households and encouraged divorces, and treated the old domestic virtues with more and more open contempt, is the epoch and power of Capitalism.

It is Capitalism that has forced a moral feud and a commercial competition between the sexes; that has destroyed the influence of the parent in favor of the influence of the employer; that has driven men from their homes to look for jobs; that has forced them to live near their factories or their firms instead of near their families; and, above all, that has encouraged for commercial reasons, a parade of publicity and garish novelty, which is in its nature the death of all that was called dignity and modesty by our mothers and fathers."

- G.K. Chesterton (1935)

Blogger VD March 04, 2019 11:49 AM  

Now the task for the alt right is to base itself on objectively moral principles, so it can be confident and proud. And this would mean taking from he Left its objectively moral positions, like its communitarian and socialistic bent, and applying it more honestly than the Left is currently.

Communitarianism and socialism are not objectively moral. You are not merely wrong, you are stupid.

What's worrying is that of all the reasons Vox Day chose to reject National Socialism, his main reason was the Socialism aspect.

That wouldn't worry you if you weren't stupid.

Blogger tz March 04, 2019 11:51 AM  

The section 230 is a red herring or intentional error.
First, you could limit it to companies with over a billion in revenue.
Second, the problem is they censor and edit so much now, not based on merely what is illegal to post, but politically, so they are publishers, not platforms. 230 was intended to protect platforms.
The moment you go beyond removing illegal content, or it probably can be extended to keep things PG or G rated if the ToS says so, but that has to be even handed, not this ambiguous "offends me", or even OT like a recipie exchange, you are no longer a platform, you are a publisher.

Even worse are the payment processors and things like Patreon or even AirBnB or Uber that throw "bad" people off.

This parallels the cucking on immigration "We want people who can contribute to come in". I don't. Even if they contribute economically, they will erode and destroy the culture - Many rich and productive people prefer socialism or a caste system. Few care about any of the ideas of the Constitution or Liberty.

The problem with Globalism is not globalism per se, but it is a toxic amalgam of Eastern mandarains and Western technology with secular idolatry.

The last thing I want is ANY globalist ideology to in the USA (and it will break up because the infection has gone so far we need to amputate).

What is missed is the poverty in immigrants is spiritual, not temporal. But if you try testing for that, bad things will happen.

Worse, the virtue signalling on the right is something like the complaints about how Wilson could come to power and the evils of the Fed and Amendments. How many "new Americans" via Ellis Island voted for Wilson? But they won't say it.

Conservatism Inc. is more evil than AoC because their ideas are subtly evil, and their lack of principles more corrosive. "good" immigration. "free" markets. Welfare for the "needy". Policing the world.

Worse than Chaimberlains. The only peace in our time will be "Rest in Peace".

Slay the Wormtoungues before they get to Theoden.

Blogger Shimshon March 04, 2019 11:53 AM  

So much stupid, so little time to dispatch it all.

Blogger JG March 04, 2019 11:54 AM  

All evil is caused by the desire for the unearned. This is why socialism and like ideologies are objectively evil.

Anonymous Anonymous March 04, 2019 11:56 AM  

Isn't the problem less corporatism and more monopoly and oligopoly? Why can't monopolies breaching economic power be dealt with by conservatives within the conceptual bounds of anti-trust and anti-competition law? In the common-law and under statute there are categories of infraction which allow for 'piercing the veil' and making directors personally liable for the actions of companies - why not simply widen the scope of that law? Why not work on preventing regulatory capture instead of doing away with limited liability entirely?

When corporations impinge on constitutional rights, why can't the constitution simply be upheld?

Limited liability is necessary for small firms to manage risk. Without limited liability, the balance of risks in most industries simply precludes economic activity. I'm all for different and better ways to manage risk. But isn't abolishing limited liability going to require new forms of risk minimisation. Otherwise only big firms and the government will be able to offset risk.

The point about capitalist imperatives being distorted and focused on government access rather then supply and demand is true. But isn't some of the convergence of corporations due to consumer demand for the politics? I'm thinking of Nike making a big profit after making Colin Kaepernik the face of their latest brand campaign.

Additionally isn't the problem concentrated by industry? Social media and tech seem quite egregious. But primary export industries seem less effected.

I completely agree that corporations are conflated with capitalism. I just want to understand how to maintain the necessity of limited liability to prevent nationalised industries, and how to distinguish between industries where the seriousness of the problem differs.

Blogger tz March 04, 2019 11:57 AM  

The purpose today of the alt or unauthorized right is to stop the left in any way that is even marginally prudent. With Trump we aren't descending to civil war next week (if it was Hillary - you don't want to know what happened on that timeline). But complacency is the enemy. Trump is not a victory as much as a Dunkirk where we are alive to fight another day.

Hitler was defeated because of his own hubris - fighting on two fronts and invading Russia.

The left will be too, but right now they can be defeated or at least segregated without a lot of death and destruction (it will come to them as it has Venezuela and Zimbabwe, but I'd prefer it to happen after the partition as we rebuild).

Blogger ThoughtCriminal March 04, 2019 11:59 AM  

I saw a Red Elephants video about (((CPAC))). They may have set a record with the number of right wingers kicked out of this years confrence. One conservative weakling was crying about Nick Fuentes being at CPAC and calling him a white nationalist. Faith Goldy was kicked out.

I genuinely felt bad for the conservatives. They are going to be eaten alive.

Blogger Solon March 04, 2019 12:03 PM  

Not so secretly these days.

Blogger tz March 04, 2019 12:06 PM  

@38 Untrue. If there is a problem making limited liabiity necessary, it is a broken legal system where Liability Insurance is impossible to obtain because it becomes a Lottery instead of a means for Justice.

Libertarians avoid this - "if a group wants to construct a corporation, why shouldn't they be able to". You can redistribute liability using Dr. Frankenstate Corpsorations, or Partnerships or other mechanisms, but it is immoral and irrational to make it disappear:

Your dog bit me and the hospital cost was $500.

Sorry, it isn't "my" dog, it is owned by DogCorpLLC whose only asset is the dog. Feel free to sue DogCorpLLC for the dog.

That is socialized risk. Welfare for the rich.

The other nonsense libertarians spew (which is why many moved to the alt-right from Ron Paul) is about monopolies and anti-trust not being a problem because the market is free. The problem is that it isn't free. Government regulations create barriers to entry, not the market. If it is merely economy of scale, then they may be more profitable, but how much competition is merely theoretical and practical if they use the monopoly position? Even the interenet is heavily regulated and a mixed economy. Try to set up your own payment processor - start with a bank...

Blogger VD March 04, 2019 12:06 PM  

Isn't the problem less corporatism and more monopoly and oligopoly?

No.

Why can't monopolies breaching economic power be dealt with by conservatives within the conceptual bounds of anti-trust and anti-competition law?

First, because that's not the core problem. Second, because conservatives always fail.

Blogger Rhys March 04, 2019 12:13 PM  

Reminds me of the good old conservative cliche "Greed is good". Sad that we have satanists to our "right" as well as our left.

Blogger OGRE March 04, 2019 12:14 PM  

@42 tz

The libertarian/anarcho-capitalist love of corporations has always left me befuddled. Here is a fictitious entity that gets special government privileges, in exchange for paying extra taxes, and its held up as a paragon of voluntaryism. Rothbard even tried to argue that in a stateless society corporations could still exist through voluntary agreement, but is forced to admit--in a footnote lol--that limited liability from torts is a special government privilege.

Blogger Lovekraft March 04, 2019 12:19 PM  

@ 40: re CPAC, the general takeaway I got from it was 'meh.' Nothing really stood out in terms of announcing sweeping tactical directives.

Anonymous Anonymous March 04, 2019 12:23 PM  

VD wrote:Second, because conservatives always fail

Of course. Because we unilaterally can't be racist and we can't ever exceed precedent.

VD wrote:First, because that's not the core problem

Is it okay to ask for your diagnosis of the core problem. Happy to buy any book you've written on the subject in lieu of your time.

Other writers have suggested the core issue is legal fiction bestowing the entitlements of natural persons absent the accountability and grounding in community?

Blogger Jack Amok March 04, 2019 12:24 PM  

That wouldn't worry you if you weren't stupid.

That belongs on a masthead.

Anonymous Anonymous March 04, 2019 12:42 PM  

tz wrote:If there is a problem making limited liabiity necessary, it is a broken legal system where Liability Insurance is impossible to obtain because it becomes a Lottery instead of a means for Justice.

Isn't it more prosaic then that? Take the construction industry. I'm X subcontractor, subject to liquidated damages for failure to deliver a fit-out of an apartment block on time. In order for me to complete the fit-out, I am dependent on my labour and materials being fit-for-purpose, and on my supply chain. I am also dependent for my commencement on taking carriage of architectural and engineering plans from designer of the EPC project. I also am subject to directions from my Principal who can accelerate my milestones and remove segments of work at his discretion.

There are all manner of variables relevant to my performance of my contract that are outside my control.

Insurance controls some of the risk. But it cannot control all of it, because the insurance company is not going to insure for example, consequential loss if I manage to cut off the power to a city. It is also going to vet all of my subcontractors which could cause me major problems.

A partnership doesn't reduce risk. It actually in most cases increases risk because I become joint and severally liable for the actions of my partners.

Unless consequential loss is removed from the common-law as part of heads of damages, which is never going to happen, absent corporate liability, that construction project is never going to be completed.

Risk minimisation is the primary function of the corporation. For small firms it is the most necessary aspect of a company structure. I am all for alternatives that prevent de-platforming and the destruction of communities due to international capital and abstract entities. But there needs to be a feasible alternative to managing risk within the existing legal super-structure.

Of course, post diversity wars, that won't be a problem. But for now it's interesting to examine.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia March 04, 2019 1:10 PM  

VD wrote:Isn't the problem less corporatism and more monopoly and oligopoly?

No.

Why can't monopolies breaching economic power be dealt with by conservatives within the conceptual bounds of anti-trust and anti-competition law?

First, because that's not the core problem. Second, because conservatives always fail.


To add to VD's important points, the old rules not only don't apply, they CAN'T apply. The Conservative-Kirkian mindset can't conceptualize the problem in the correct way.

If you've taken the Red Pill when it comes to the socio-sexual hierarchy, you soon realize that women, when being women, simply can't understand their own contradictions.

When it comes to deplatforming, Conservatives are like women in that regard. They just don't -- can't -- get it. And it's wasted motion to even begin to try to get them to understand.

Blogger Unknown March 04, 2019 1:18 PM  

@Dirk Manly

I don't believe in this free floating notion of "conviction". I believe humans have an unalterable God given moral compass that we cannot choose to believe or not believe in, and the more we betray it the more we have a bad conscience, and vice versa.

The Left at least lays lip service to moral ideas - helping others lifting the downtrodden, community, etc.

Of course the Left fails in observing these principles, and even turns them into tools of oppression and injustice. But there is a moral dimension there.

But conservatives are frankly immoral, or at best amoral - even if the "market" is the best way to generate a good life for all, it will leave the average moral man uneasy, as it is completely amoral and permits harm and destruction to countless people.

To take one example.

The fact is, conservatives focus on the "effectiveness" dimension but neglect the moral dimension, and this leaves them with a bad conscience, understandably.

Historically, every revolution was won with a moral dimension, not am effectiveness dimension (which can seem cold and inhuman). Even Christianity was a massive move Left from paganism, which was more right wing. The same can be said of Islam.

If the current system will be overturned, it will be by stealing the moral dimension right out from under the Left, not by focusing on a harsh, competitive, wag of life, as the alt right is too wont to do.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len March 04, 2019 1:19 PM  

in exchange for paying extra taxes

Or none at all.

Risk minimisation is the primary function of the corporation.

It's not minimized, it's transferred, to everyone else.

Blogger Doktor Jeep March 04, 2019 1:25 PM  

Conservatism has been all about "old rules" which are so broken at this point it's like trying to rebuild a house from the charcoal and ashes of the fire that consumed it.

Whatever the case, I think "Muh corporations", one of the core ideals of libertarians, is a dead letter. Private corporations, or even public ones with shares and all that, have proven to be no better and maintaining freedom than any government full of ambitious people.

In the tone I use when I'm about to f**k something up on purpose I ask:
Whatever are we going to do?

Blogger James Dixon March 04, 2019 1:35 PM  

> The Left at least lays lip service to moral ideas - helping others lifting the downtrodden, community, etc.

The left lies a lot. Quit pretending otherwise.

> But there is a moral dimension there.

The only moral dimension to the left is power for the sake of power. That's all it ever has been.

> The fact is, conservatives focus on the "effectiveness" dimension but neglect the moral dimension, and this leaves them with a bad conscience, understandably.

BS.

> ... it will be by stealing the moral dimension right out from under the Left

Again, there is no moral dimension to steal from the left. The only thing they care about is power, and that merely for the sake of having it. It's all they've ever cared about. Everything else they tell you is a lie.

Blogger Primus Pilus March 04, 2019 1:46 PM  

"Conservatism" is a wholly owned subsidiary of international marxism. It is the heat sink to their political machine.

"Conservative" as a synonym to "right-wing" has to go. It's one of the biggest lies of American politics, and has crippled the emergence of an actual American Right for 60 years.

Anonymous Anonymous March 04, 2019 1:49 PM  

KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia wrote:When it comes to deplatforming, Conservatives are like women in that regard. They just don't -- can't -- get it. And it's wasted motion to even begin to try to get them to understand.

It's galling. There is a body of law that exists the purpose of which is to punish and preclude abuses of market power. They won't use it. They never do anything.

If Conservatives won't use the concepts and tools that exist on the basis of some spurious conceptual consistency or unilateral observance of convention the enemy have long discarded, the only eventuality is dissolution of all the above and naked conflict.

In the meantime what can be done is the building of alternative platforms, red-pilling, de-linking from the converged platforms to the maximum extent that is feasible and not being demoralised.

We all know these platforms are deep-state assets. If the answer is simply to prohibit social media as a form of enterprise due to the intrinsic harms caused by it's business model that is an acceptable answer.

When seeking solutions to conceptual problems I just try and minimise the category impact. Rather then get rid of companies entirely, I'd require say a mandatory corporate social responsibility clause in all company constitutions - with obligations to the American nation (not other nations).

I agree conservatives deserve to be scorned and derided, because their tardiness in understanding continues to increase the eventual damage to be incurred.

Blogger Garuna March 04, 2019 2:26 PM  

The alt right needs to in a sense "pull the rug out" from under the feet of the Left by adopting its objectively moral positions and implementing them more honestly and consistently than the current grotesquely corrupted Left is doing, while also implementing the good elements of the alt right position.

The left isn't winning because of "moral positions" or socialism. It's winning because of imported foreigners who vote as a bloc.

Look at the voter demographics for the 2008 presidential election:
https://bit.ly/2VAIJP8
Obama's 53% total vote share was celebrated as a huge win. But 54% of Protestants voted for McCain. The White Anglo-Saxons of that group probably voted against "first black president" at a greater percentage.

Even if conservatives adopt all the "moral positions" and socialism of the Democrat party, they wouldn't convert any foreigners or quislings to nationalism because the problem is identity-related.

Reminds me of the good old conservative cliche "Greed is good". Sad that we have satanists to our "right" as well as our left.

Greed is good until your foreign slaves outnumber you and don't wanna be slaves anymore.

Blogger OGRE March 04, 2019 2:38 PM  

@57 Garuna

Greed is good ...

Greed is NOT good, full stop. Greed is a sin. If an economic ideology is predicated on sinful behavior to be effective, then it is an immoral ideology.

Feel free to substitute usury for greed in the preceding sentence.

Blogger Garuna March 04, 2019 2:44 PM  

Greed is NOT good, full stop.

Sarcasm really does not transfer well over text. I should follow Owen's anti-sarcasm path.

Blogger eclecticme March 04, 2019 2:53 PM  

@30. KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia March 04, 2019 11:33 AM
...
The current legal framework, as well as the laissez faire/free market attitude of Ayn Randian libertarian thinking, has a very hard time dealing with monopsonies. Bezos, Sergei Brin, Jack Dorsey either instinctively understood this or saw the opportunity and, being very smart guys, went for it.


Others have written on the network effects of software and networks. Winner take all. Them as has gets. The "Zero to One" book by Peter Thiel, and his talks on youtube discuss his thoughts on how he does not want ANY competition. He wants a monopoly, unless the feds ask then he changes the definition. Very thoughtful guy.

Ayn Rand wrote about how big business loved and needed big govt to survive.

US anti-trust law seems to be concerned only with cheap stuff. There are no other societal values. Some blame Robert Bork's teachings for this. Other countries have additional values.

One problem with laissez faire is that when allowed to become huge, companies have enough power and money to buy off the govt to save them from failing. Wall Street is the best recent example. The huge banks and firms would have gone under and replaced with smaller survivors who bought up their assets but the govt stepped in.


Blogger Duke Norfolk March 04, 2019 3:05 PM  

Damelon Brinn wrote:It's not just Big Tech that needs trust-busted.

Hear, hear. While I'm not expert on all the details, I am certain that the agricultural industry (i.e. Big Ag) is corrupt and killing us slowly; as well as ruining/destroying one of our greatest resources: our topsoil.

Blogger Duke Norfolk March 04, 2019 3:20 PM  

James Dixon wrote:The only thing they care about is power, and that merely for the sake of having it. It's all they've ever cared about. Everything else they tell you is a lie.

I think there are some well-intentioned people on the left; i.e. the useful idiots. Unfortunately there are many in family.

But that portion has been shrinking, as even many of them have slipped into "will to power" mode.

Those who are left are getting very good at dealing with cog dis, and ignoring the increasingly disturbing and apparent face of the left.

Things are a bit of a muddled mess as we go through this political shift and party realignment also.

Blogger eclecticme March 04, 2019 3:20 PM  

I never read many conservative books, other than free market type books, long ago. I initially thought they were the same thing. The book "A Conflict of Visions" was not about that subject but opened my eyes. In my top ten books.

Ayn Rand said she was not conservative and I finally understood what she meant.

As Vox says, conservatives don't conserve anything.

Blogger eclecticme March 04, 2019 3:37 PM  

One problem I see is that US anti-trust law and any constraint on huge corporations is seen as a morality play. You have to show that they are evil, not just huge. Then they wrap themselves in Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman and say they are being punished. They also pay off congress, which doesn't hurt. I think such law has been preempted by the fed govt so states cannot do anything either.

I think 80% of US meatpacking is controlled by 4 corporations. IMO they should be limited to a small market share each. Maybe 5%/whatever just because big is dangerous. Maybe stuff costs more. Same for big banks. 'Conservatives' will not do this and liberals will not either.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz March 04, 2019 4:08 PM  

eclecticme wrote:Ayn Rand wrote about how big business loved and needed big govt to survive.
(((Rand))) was pushing degeneracy. She was one of these pansexuals in polyamorous relationships.
Most libertarians are pushing some form of degeneracy, usually drugs, though recently its become about homosexuality, open borders and transgenderism.

Garuna wrote:The left isn't winning because of "moral positions" or socialism. It's winning because of imported foreigners who vote as a bloc.

I would split that as some of them are voting for their perceived group benefit, but large numbers are voting for the gibs. Even the ones voting for their group are usually doing so for some sort of gibs.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia March 04, 2019 4:31 PM  

eclecticme wrote: @30. KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia March 04, 2019 11:33 AM

...

The current legal framework, as well as the laissez faire/free market attitude of Ayn Randian libertarian thinking, has a very hard time dealing with monopsonies. Bezos, Sergei Brin, Jack Dorsey either instinctively understood this or saw the opportunity and, being very smart guys, went for it.


Others have written on the network effects of software and networks. Winner take all. Them as has gets. The "Zero to One" book by Peter Thiel, and his talks on youtube discuss his thoughts on how he does not want ANY competition. He wants a monopoly, unless the feds ask then he changes the definition. Very thoughtful guy.

Ayn Rand wrote about how big business loved and needed big govt to survive.

US anti-trust law seems to be concerned only with cheap stuff. There are no other societal values. Some blame Robert Bork's teachings for this. Other countries have additional values.

One problem with laissez faire is that when allowed to become huge, companies have enough power and money to buy off the govt to save them from failing. Wall Street is the best recent example. The huge banks and firms would have gone under and replaced with smaller survivors who bought up their assets but the govt stepped in.


Yep, add Peter Thiel to the list. But again, Paypal's not a monopoly...it's a monopsony. Business that take out costs, or make distibution frictionless, and grow to dominant size are the obverse side of monopoly businesses that use size to shut out competitors.

Peter Thiel could care less if you started a competitive payment processing operation -- go right ahead. He won't have to do anything to stop you from succeeding -- the reality of the payment processing world will almost ensure you fail or, if you manage to get it going, you will be so small as to be effectively irrelevant.

Anti-trust law has no answer to this problem. And conservative heads explode because they see both free market success (love, love, love it!!) and free market monopsonies engaging in political censorship (hate, hate, HATE it). So their head spin around like the chid in The Exorcist.

As far a size is concerned, it's not too troubling if there is competition, safety is maintained,prices are competetive, AND politics does not intrude on commerce. Meat packing, ride sharing -- who cares if there are 4, or 3, or 6 such entities. But deplatforming on the basis of politics is wrong.

But it probably can't be policed. At least I haven't see a solution yet.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 04, 2019 4:42 PM  

Second, because conservatives always fail.

To the contrary, conservatives have been wonderfully successful at promoting and preserving leftism, usually by praising it with faint damns. Were they supposed to be doing something else?

Blogger john darson March 04, 2019 6:18 PM  

Ayn Rand was evil. The Ayn Randian, atheistic, pro-abortionist mentality was the blueprint for laveyian satanism.

Blogger James Dixon March 04, 2019 7:02 PM  

> I think there are some well-intentioned people on the left; i.e. the useful idiots. Unfortunately there are many in family.

If after the past 30 years they're still backing the Democrats, then useful idiots is the kindest thing you can say about them. But yes, there are. There are well intentioned folks who back Conservatism, Inc. too, and the same holds true for them, with slightly more excuse.



Blogger Monotonous Languor March 04, 2019 9:29 PM  

Corporations are instinctively rent-seekers. In our woke current year, that primarily revolves around massive amounts of regulations on corporate practices. A corporation does whatever it takes to sidestep unfavorable regulations and impose those favorable to their specific business area.

Now guess who loves to pile on regulations, and where do you think they're all congregated? Leftists ensconced in government bureaucracies, that's who. It's no wonder corporations are natural bedfellows with the left.

The only non-surprise is the conservative reaction to it. It's now abundantly clear that conservatives are no better than leftists, since they both operate in the realm of lofty fantasy principles to the exclusion of reality-based feedback.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia March 04, 2019 10:48 PM  

Monotonous Languor wrote:Corporations are instinctively rent-seekers. In our woke current year, that primarily revolves around massive amounts of regulations on corporate practices. A corporation does whatever it takes to sidestep unfavorable regulations and impose those favorable to their specific business area.

Now guess who loves to pile on regulations, and where do you think they're all congregated? Leftists ensconced in government bureaucracies, that's who. It's no wonder corporations are natural bedfellows with the left.

The only non-surprise is the conservative reaction to it. It's now abundantly clear that conservatives are no better than leftists, since they both operate in the realm of lofty fantasy principles to the exclusion of reality-based feedback.


Of course, why wouldn't corporations want to sidestep unfavorable regulations? It's part of the "redress of grievances" inherent in a constitutional republic.

Look this problem is as old as mankind. Do you want a totalitarian system who wants to impose value systems -- say...what's the concept I'm looking for??...oh, yeah, "social credit"...

. . .or allow corporations to pursue "self interest" (which, alas, might include exclusively SJW woke ideas) while excluding ideas/concepts/thoughts that are NOT in their "self-interest?"

Again, for the upteenth time, Vox is right.

Fuck those platforms, do your own (though don't EVER expect it to scale).

Even Dave Rubin has come that realization, with his effor to create (with the crazy Jordan Peterson) an alternative to Patreon. But THAT platform may also take on monopsony characteristics, as it deplatforms Faith Golder or whoever Rubin or Peterson believe is not sufficiently acceptable.

This is the world we live in. Deal with it.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 05, 2019 3:10 AM  

@51

"I don't believe in this free floating notion of "conviction". I believe humans have an unalterable God given moral compass that we cannot choose to believe or not believe in, and the more we betray it the more we have a bad conscience, and vice versa."

You've never met a child molester, have you. One who sees absolutely NOTHING wrong with his actions that landed him in the slammer for several years, and still can't figure out why he was punished and carries the stigma of being a felon for the rest of his life.

He is TOTALLY convinced (probably by being molested himself as a child) that his actions were entirely moral.

As Vox noted above, you're stupid.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts