Libertarian Party says businessmen are bad for capitalism

Posted at LP.org

CEOs and Government Assistance Stand in the Way of Economic Turnaround

“CEOs and government ‘altruism’ are standing in the way of effective economic turnaround,” says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis.

“Businessmen are bad for capitalism when they use the government as life support for failing ventures,” explains Davis. “Instead of letting other companies absorb these failing businesses, CEOs and government bailouts have distorted the natural forces of capitalism and prevented the necessary—and effective—economic turnaround that only comes through an unfettered free market. These bailouts do nothing but prolong the inevitable collapse of companies suffering from extreme mismanagement and poor investments.”

“The Libertarian Party is adamantly opposed to any sort of bailout of American corporations who, through their own mismanagement, find themselves at the brink of failure,” says Davis. “This includes Detroit auto manufacturers who have failed to keep up with trends in the automotive industry, locked themselves into destructive union contracts and have demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in automotive innovations that make their products enticing to consumers.”

“Should the government bail-out Detroit, it will essentially create a white-collar soup kitchen for American corporations looking for a handout,” Davis observes.

“There is no incentive for managerial reform when government provides a safety net for crooked CEOs,” says Davis. “And taxpayers end up paying their million-dollar bonuses.”

Davis says the solution is not more bailouts and more regulation, but “giving the natural forces of capitalism the time it takes to correct the mistakes of the past by letting failing companies be absorbed and reformed by bigger and stronger entities.”

“This, of course, is not without its share of hardships,” Davis explains, “but it will be the most effective plan for long-term economic stability. There are countless examples in American history where big corporations have faltered and failed, and were replaced by new businesses that became bigger and better. Had government stepped in at the time, it would have only prolonged the misery.”

“We must not mistake this type of pro-government regulation as true capitalism,” says Davis. “President Bush and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have created a new economic vision of loss-free capitalism, which simply does not exist in reality. The so-called fiscal conservatives have adopted a new philosophy of economic altruism that is based on corporate welfare and market regulation.”

For more information on this issue, or to arrange a media interview, please call Libertarian Party Director of Communications Andrew Davis at (202) 731-0002.

The Libertarian Party is America’s third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

10 thoughts on “Libertarian Party says businessmen are bad for capitalism

  1. songster7

    If ONLY the LP (and its fellow water-carriers for “conservative” values) would stop trying to defend the current Big Business paradigm, using the term “capitalism” (which has in reality been used to cover up and excuse mercantilist, government-subsidized, corporate-welfare policies for … ever since … oh, maybe the early 19th century?) …

    An affirmation of “free markets and free minds” does not need to act as a “beard” for this crap; it needs to focus on the few (and rare) examples where free exchange of good and services (mostly small entrepreneurs, bartering neighbors and the black market?) takes place.

    I did not leave the LP … it left me, years ago

  2. paulie cannoli Post author

    If ONLY the LP (and its fellow water-carriers for “conservative” values) would stop trying to defend the current Big Business paradigm, using the term “capitalism” (which has in reality been used to cover up and excuse mercantilist, government-subsidized, corporate-welfare policies for … ever since … oh, maybe the early 19th century?) …

    An affirmation of “free markets and free minds” does not need to act as a “beard” for this crap; it needs to focus on the few (and rare) examples where free exchange of good and services (mostly small entrepreneurs, bartering neighbors and the black market?) takes place.

    Exactly.

  3. Libertarian Joseph

    Reagan lover.

    Maybe your brain left our body? The LP is the best thirdparty out there, jacakass.

  4. Libertarian Joseph

    Anyway, noone should defend the mercantilistic system we have right now. The only thing worth defending are the small businesses. Other than that…. corporations are fascistic.

  5. Coming Back to the LP

    The LP release is certainly consistant with “free minds and free markets” and with a pure Libertarian philosophy.

  6. mscrib

    Anyway, noone should defend the mercantilistic system we have right now. The only thing worth defending are the small businesses. Other than that…. corporations are fascistic.

    You deny that larger corporations can be beneficial? Well, that is inconsistent with economic theory and data. Not to say that corporatism is great or anything, but when people insinuate that “corporations” all behave or are structured in the same way, I wince.

    That said, the press release is (mostly) right on.

  7. paulie cannoli Post author

    The LP release is certainly consistant with “free minds and free markets” and with a pure Libertarian philosophy.

    Not entirely.

    giving the natural forces of capitalism the time it takes to correct the mistakes of the past by letting failing companies be absorbed and reformed by bigger and stronger entities.

    The problem is that there is nothing natural about these bigger entities; they can only get and stay that way through non-concensual limited liability and corporate personhood from the government (state, regime). That system needs to be ended, not mended.

    If every business owner was personally responsible for the actions of their business, as they should be, I don’t think many – if any – businesses could get, much less stay, big.

  8. paulie cannoli Post author

    You deny that larger corporations can be beneficial? Well, that is inconsistent with economic theory and data.

    There are various different economic theories, and data can be interpreted in different ways. It’s particularly difficult to compare data with a would-be scenario.

  9. mscrib

    The problem is that there is nothing natural about these bigger entities; they can only get and stay that way through non-concensual limited liability and corporate personhood from the government (state, regime). That system needs to be ended, not mended.

    Umm, economies/diseconomies of scale, anyone?

    There are various different economic theories, and data can be interpreted in different ways. It’s particularly difficult to compare data with a would-be scenario.

    I guess my point is that the existence of certain large corporations, in and of itself, is not problematic. Some industries, say, aviation, cannot turn a profit as small businesses due to the large start-up and operational costs (Boeing is not a huge corporation just because of government favoritism/corporate malfeasance). Most of the problems arise within an increasing corporatist framework, which is essentially what the press release was attacking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *