A couple questions for Libertarians.

1. There is nothing to prevent outsourcing of jobs in a free market. Outsourcing is a great tool the ensures globalization of economies. It says that every person in any country has the same opportunity in your economy.

2. Much less corporate power. More small business power. But the real power shift goes to the individual. Success is determined by market forces rather than rules that favor a particular industry or business. Successful ideas would still rise to the top, but they would have more competition. There would be no government enforced monopolies.

3. Defense would be handled probably much in the same way it is now, but more decentralized. Defense companies and contracts would be directly accountable to the people they serve. It can get messy conceptually here. You may have seen the soldiers, rogues, farmers problem. What it does not take into account is the role of competition among soldiers. This puts any financially motivated defense company in an arms race against any other defense company.

Sound familiar? Because that is essentially what we have from governments. The difference being a total lack of accountability.

1. There's nothing wrong with "outsourcing" as a result of actual market forces. It's good when our shit is cheaper. We have more money to spend, and that's cool. The trouble with outsourcing is that it generally does not come about as a result of market forces, but rather government intervention, regulation, or subsidy.

2. Definitely. There's just no damn way for a company to get to the size and monopoly power of say, Microsoft or in olden days, AT&T, without the government propping them up and protecting them from competitors.

3. I think defense is one of the legitimate functions of government. I think the difference between a more libertarian system and what we see now would be one of scope and size. Putting the emphasis back on defense.

EDIT: Fuck you, formatting.

These questions can all be essentially answered from the first principles of libertarian philosophy; there's no point in tackling every issue one by one.

• The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). It is invalid behavior to extort resources from an individual.

• The individual is supreme. Either a group is a phenomenon that is emergent from the voluntary associations and contracts between each pair of individuals, or a group is coercive in nature (which violates the NAP).

Essentially, libertarianism is the recognition that society evolves best under a power structure that is as decentralized and localized as possible; when this is taken to the limit, one ends up with what many might call "anarcho-capitalism" (which has been called "libertarian anarchy").

Most importantly, you cannot centrally plan a free society; it's something that must be brought about through evolution, not revolution. Consequently, it is impossible to provide definitive answers to any question about what a society based on libertarian principles would look like—a libertarian is perfectly satisfied to say "I don't know", which is the truthful answer that central planners are afraid to admit themselves.

Through evolution by variation and selection (what some like to call the "Free Market"), society adapts to the needs at hand more readily and ingeniously than any would-be Intelligent Designer could hope for; it is the nature of centralized power and its inevitable central planning to quash variation and stifle selective forces.

If you think this sounds like a harsh, dog-eat-dog "social Darwinism", you forget that the principles of our more civilized modern society are the values of a species that emerged out of even the most horrifically indifferent—or indeed malevolent—periods of biological evolution. More to the point, those values are inherent in most people, and thus any "social Darwinism" will be characterized by them.

Any organization—any organization at all—that confiscates resources by threat of violence is a "governmental" organization. When one such organization becomes a monopoly, we call that organization "Government".

Government is simply a bad company that doesn't go out of business because it is able to confiscate your resources by threat of violence; it doesn't give you the goods and services for which you personally think you are paying, but you have to pay them anyway—it's totally absurd and unconscionable; it violates the NAP.

It is not a modern value to extort resources from people by threat of violence. So, in fact, centralized Big Governments are actually the last barbaric vestige of our pre-modern civilization. We don't want or even need governmental organizations.

However, this is not to say that we cannot be organized.

Indeed, Anarcho-socialism is an emergent state of anarcho-capitalism (though, when it emerges, it won't be as preposterously stupid and naive as that which is described by people who label themselves anarcho-socialists); anybody interested in anarcho-socialism should promote anarcho-capitalism.

Outsourcing is actually good for the economy. It creates jobs. You outsource yourself everyday. You outsource planting a crop and hunting for meat to provide food and outsource that to your grocer. You outsource your sewing and weaving to T.J. Max, etc.

For once, something I feel qualified in answering as a manager who is both a libertarian and has been working with outsourcing.

• Nothing would prevent it, except cultural differences, language barriers and differences in education and production quality. Hint: Paper merits are not everything.

And to elaborate: Outsourcing is good (in my field of work) if an only if I can define the task extremely well, and handle quality control in the same fashion. It is like hiring a lower skilled person to do the same job at home, only slightly cheaper. It takes a lot of skill to pull it off with good results.

On the plus side, people were getting work in semi-developed countries thanks to us. Solidarity for real! Also, the company is getting more competative (if they do it well). This is good for the company and for the economy as a whole.

• Way, way, way less corporate power. The only real way corporations can force you do do anything against your will is by lobbying the coercive power to legislate what they want. With less power to the government, that means less possible legislation and more freedom for us.

• The best defense is the increased division of labour. Witout it, have fun making your own shoes, computer, stove or whatnot. More of it benefits everyone. Just take a wild guess on what the IPhone would cost if it was made only in the US. It would probably be a luxury item, available only to "the 1%". As it is now, many more can afford it. How is that bad?

Edit: Spelling. Also RES is messing with the numbering somehow.

1. Outsourcing jobs has led to tremendous amounts of growth in emerging markets and drastically reduced prices for consumers in the West. But in a libertarian society, not would there be mobility of capital, there would also be mobility of labor (i.e. open borders). One of the most promsing reforms I've seen are charter cities. Paul Romer goes into more detail is his TED talk.

2. Since there would be no tariffs, no subsidies, no patents, no copyrights (more and more libertarian are against intellectual "property", no occupational licensing, no eminent domain und so weiter, in a truly freed market, corporations wouldn't be able to rent-seek. So businesses that are truly entrepreneurial and productive would flourish. I'd also predict there would be more experimentation with business structures (e.g. more co-operatives, like Mondragon).

3. There are a variety of different options to privatize defense: people could hire private defense agencies, use guerrilla warfare to resist aggressive states, or just go DIY and get a ton of guns and ammo. In addition, wars are very costly so there would be a strong incentive for parties to seek other options than invasion to mediate disputes. The Myth of National Defense goes into much more detail, in both the theory and history of alternatives to the state providing defense.

In a truly free market there would be no government limiting of liability. That would eliminate the corporation as we know it and change the core of the way business operates. I think the net effect would have two major consequences. Business owners would be much more cautious in the way they act in the world and much more cautious with who they partner with. Companies would be smaller and the focus on pleasing customers would weigh more than next quarters profits.

1. The reason companies outsource is cost of labor. The factors that raise the cost of labor are unions, litigation, benefits, regulations, and taxes (including cost of compliance. All libertarian states would be right to work so unions may exist but they would not have the power to negatively impact business to the extent they do now. If we remove limited liability then tort reform would be required. A loser pays court system is more consistent with a libertarian idea than the current defend every attack at your own expense model. In a libertarian state I would hope the benefit three card monte would be eliminated and each individual would be given their full salary to buy their benefits from a true market. Regulations should be less and could be with no limited liability. Legitimate harm could effect the owner's personal fortune so the behavior of business would change from let's do the harm and pay the fine to no way we are taking that action and risk my fucking money. Taxes would hopefully go down exponentially in a libertarian world. Essentially all of these costs are tied to government. Get government out of business and the US is suddenly a much more desirable pool of workers.

2. I explained this already at the top. The bad actions of corporations are greatly enhanced by the shelter granted to them by government. The chief shelter being limited liability.

3. We should defend attacks from foreign invaders. It would cost one fifth or less of what we spend now. No US soldier should be housed on foreign soil. We create several military bases along the southern border and bring all of our soldiers home. If congress ever declares a war again then we deploy them. The only time us military boots should touch foreign soil is to destroy an enemy in a war declared by congress. If war is declared then the President and the Secretary of State should be required to step down as failures as soon as war is declared. This would ensure that every single diplomatic effort that could be made to resolve the conflict was made.

[deleted]

1. Out sources is wonderful. Not only does it raise the standard of living for those in the countries that are outsourced to, but it means goods and services are cheaper for Americans. That means the cost of living is much lower for Americans than it would had those goods or services been produced in the US. The US does have a trade deficit and needs to start manufacturing more, but the US government has to create a pro-business environment for that. Right now we have the highest business taxes in the world at 35% and some of the craziest regulations to comply with.

2. In a free economy, corporations wouldn't exist. Powers granted to corporations come from the legal status government gives them. Ever heard of a LLC? Limited Liability Corporation? No wonder these companies go willy-nilly abusing the environment and consumers, government limits their liability! In a free market, the individuals in these companies would be held accountable for their crimes. http://mises.org/daily/2317/

3. Declare war unconstitutionally first hand; defense should be use for defense, not offense. Secondly, the US could scale back on military spending by 40% and still have a larger military than the next 7 or so largest countries combined.

The Division of Labor and Social Order | Jörg Guido Hülsmann

1. Government makes the conditions to outsource jobs, whether they are minimum wage laws or bureaucratic laws that really hurt small businesses. A good example could be when we had a sugar tax in Cuba that hurt a lot of people that used sugar as an intermediary good and they moved to Canada. If it was free market, completely, a lot more jobs would actually come to the US then leaving it. Companies like to leave to where it is more free, but because there would be more smaller business power, more survival of the fittest in business (rather than who has the most political clout), people would have more options and better conditions of living. My view on outsourcing is that it is completely fine and can help alleviate substantial amounts of poverty in third world countries today. It is in every right of a business to want to be more competitive to take advantage of a global economy. The laws just make it harder to compete.

2. Much more small business power, but I think there would also be more income inequality (someone help me out here) but generally, people's standards of living would be going up.

3. In terms of defense, it is a government role to provide defense in libertarianism, so they have to choose the best means of being fair and equitable, least affecting the money they have.

1. As you can see by the current model, outsourcing happens whether you have a free market or pretty-not-free market like we have now. There are advantages to outsourcing, as the competition between labor forces keeps those labor forces competitive. You can ship jobs to a place like China, but the quality of the work can suffer greatly, in my experience. Unhappy workers tend to make a substandard product. Plus there are shipping issues that you don't have to deal with here. Attempts to protect jobs here are ultimately futile, as you are propping up a system that clearly needs to be revised. Some workers here might lose some benefits. But that's often the result of an individual industry's ups and downs. There was a time where car makers were kings, now they're not. Now computer programs get the sweet jobs and benefits. Sometimes an industry changes, that's any market. Trying to steer them in one direction or another always causes problems.

2. Most regulations stifle small businesses. A truly free market would mean almost everyone would have their own business. Just like the Internet, where everyone has their own blog or website. They wouldn't necessarily all make a living at it, but they could definitely supplement their incomes. Corporate power would be less because people tend to want to purchase locally when possible, from people they know.

3. Defense should be about protecting this country and that's it. That's what defense is. US out of everywhere. Bring the troops home and protect the borders. You don't need to shut them, just protect them.

1. outsourcing may be bad for unskilled american workers (except for service jobs) but is good for all of us as a whole. it helps developing countries reach a higher standard of living allowing us to sell our goods to them and at the same time reducing costs and making things cheaper for us to purchase here. Its a win-win and its a shame that not enough people acknowledge this, I strongly recommend reading "the world is flat" by Thomas Friedman

2. Pretty much, the little guy would have an easier time starting up his bidness and the big fish would no longer have all the government privileges they enjoy today. corporations as separate legal entities instead of being property of individuals also causes some major problems that would not exist in a libertarian society

3. build friendships through trade instead of making enemies with bombs, national defense is good though but a well armed populace is the best way to achieve that

1. This is a difficult one. Basically I think not a single tariff should be levied onto the companies, exporters/importers. As to ensure a free market. The thing government should do to protect jobs, is to lower taxes. Lower taxation on work and incomes, and inefficient governments will fail whereas efficient governments will prosper.

2. The power would be in the hands of the innovator and the people who go against the grain with calculated risks while playing with the same rulebook as everyone else, since government is only guaranteeing to uphold the law, and the same law for everyone.

3. A country should be able to defend itself and the more highpowered weapons should be in the hands of a professional force. The foot soldiers should be the men and women who pay taxes and vote. If you want to vote, you will have to do your duty to your country, like it was in ancient times in Athens.

There's nothing wrong with outsourcing in a free market. Do you want to work some miserable factory job.

There would be less corporate power. Not as many chain stores.

Defense would be just that, Defense. Not offense.

[deleted]

[deleted]

1. my butt

2. my butt

3. my butt

1. Anarcho-capitalists don't care about insourcing/outsourcing since countries are repressive thieves. No countries - no borders - so it doesn't matter where the jobs go.

2. The richest/most powerful/most successful bands will be the ones in charge.

3. You gather your friends/band/tribe together, salvage/construct some weapons and set up a defensive structure.