Humanities desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 4[edit]

"Government intervention" as a misnomer[edit]

I've been pondering the nature of law, property, and contracts lately and it's seeming like the use of the phrase "government intervention" is highly misleading. I've seen libertarians say things like that without "the state" there would be no laws giving corporations "special privileges". But this is the problem: one needs law to even define property and the nature of contracts. Law is always around, so it's not something that can be said to be in a state of intervening or not. Is there any material that touches upon this? — Melab±1 ☎ 04:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A democracy (the pure kind, anyway) or free market is supposed to be largely shaped by the consensus of the people. When a few at the top start doing things their own way, that's overstepping.

Here's some touching material. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law is not something that's always around unless you are in North Korea, and even then it's not really "law". There's anarchy, separatism (the Amish) and simply private transactions not made public. Law is needed when a contract is entered, and then one party feels aggrieved and wants redress--they go to civil court. Then civil law matters--and that's why a smart businessman pays taxes and votes. (Criminals find it hard to sue.) By natural law, property is something one acquires without theft or fraud or by consent: a shell on the beach, a purchased item, or a gift. Again, no need for law unless there's a claim of theft or fraud and this may involve civil or criminal law.

The notion that corporations are a creation of the state is bogus, it is held by leftist so-called libertarians. Churches and banks are corporations that existed before government got in on the business of handing out charters. The same folks who abhor slander laws, then get apoplectic if you say that's because they kill the boys the sodomize, and who opposes copyright, but who throw a fit if you publish their work with your name on it often do claim that corporations are statist artifacts that exist to get special priviliges. But not all coporations lobby the government to give them an unconstitutional advantage over people or other companies. It is as sound an argument as saying that newsstands exist to sell porn to underage children. You'll find plenty of discussion of this on Objectivist fora, at Mises.org, and refutations in Reisman's impressive Capitalism college textbook, downloadble for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 May 2014‎

I question the credibility of anyone who begins by demonstrating inability to imagine simultaneously holding the sincere opinions "X is unethical" and "laws against X are harmful". —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While corporations may be pre-state (indeed, one might argue that a state is a form of corporation), modern limited-liability corporations are indeed a state construct. It used to be that the corporate shareholders would be fully liable for corporate debt (either to their share in the company, or even up to the full debt). Limited liability corporations have many advantages (they enable risky ventures to be taken, and if they succeed, that venture may create value for many people), but they also have disadvantages (if they fail someone is holding the short end of the stick). To mitigate these disadvantages, lots of additional constructs are needed, from accounting standards to safety standards (imagine me handling off my nuclear waste to a LLC that I just created for that purpose with a capital of EUR 50, and then washing my hands of it) to things like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. And so we arrive at todays very complex and still very imperfect society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction has been asserted between laws that formalize custom and laws enacted to alter the "playing field". —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — One may quarrel over where on that spectrum a given enactment belongs. —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say I don't have the faintest clue what any of you are talking about? And by the way, the unsigned post was by Medeis. I haven't the faintest clue what it is saying, even if you take out the apparent irrelevance to the question. I take the question to be about the potential for the term "government intervention" to be fallacious, and whether there is anything worthwhile to read on this specific issue. IBE (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Melab has a history of asking question related to libertarianism, one minority position among libertarians is that all corporations are invalid as such, many libertarians will have more limited criticisms of vary practices. I suspect Melab will get the gist of the responses here, and some resources have been suggested. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Origin of Inequality, by Rousseau. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 19:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I think your knowledge of English history is a bit shaky. The Anglo-Saxon charters certainly predated the existence of banks and were roughly contemporaneous with the existence of churches. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure of your point, or where I limited the discussion to English history. The Vestal Virgins were a corporation of sorts--a non-hereditary body with a charter that engaged in commerce of a sort. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best-known libertarian work in this area (meaning the rationale of having laws, not corporations in particular) is Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but I haven't read it myself so I can't be sure it addresses quite what you are asking. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom charter monument kliptown[edit]

Who built the freedom charter monument in Kliptown South Africa? My tour guide who took me to see it could not tell me and I can't find anything abput it on Wikipedia, other than a photo. Why was it built the way it was? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.225.185 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains much information on the design of Walter Sisulu Square, including the monument. Deor (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]