NationStates Jolt Archive

We should all go Libertarian.

The Libertarian system just makes sense: let people do what they want in a system that produces huge amounts of wealth by harvesting the greedy nature of humans while protecting them from the more harmful aspects of the human persona.

A libertarian society is very close to controlled evolution. Allow the fittest to survive, and eventually only the most efficient companies will survive. Make sure the government does the bare minimum to interfere with people's lives, and protects them from corporate enslavement and utter environmental destruction, and have you got yourself a country. If evolution produced humans from bacteria, imagine how humans could advance under the same principles.

I know this sounds a bit far-fetched and strange, but in all honesty, you must agree that the Libertarian party embodies the best aspects of both political parties and creates a society guaranteed to advance the human race.

Great post, EmoBuddy. I'm a member of the Ontario Libertarian Party (http://www.libertarian.on.ca/) myself. If anyone clicks the link, I recommend reading the Libertarianism page.

Didn't you ever learn about the 19th century in school? Child labor, 14 hour work days, no social saftey net, old people living in poverty and starving? Thats what libertarian society would be like.
The whole legalizing drugs, gay marriage and all that jazz is cool but the whole Darwinian society is pretty brutal.

I don't want to sound like a troll here, but what is up with all these ultra-vocal libertarians all of a sudden? Every political thread I seen has a handful of "Badnarik is my messiah!" links. It is like ads for a free iPod, except you get a political party instead.

Most libertarians I've seen can't even agree what the party stands for, or even what the country should look like. Some want to abolish taxes, some wan't to abolish public schools, some want to abolish child labor laws, or public fire stations, or public highways, or the FAA. I can't even see a coherent message let alone a workable politcal system. People just say "Yay libertarian means you can do what you want!" They don't mention any kind of plan or platform I can see.

I don't want to sound like a troll here, but what is up with all these ultra-vocal libertarians all of a sudden? Every political thread I seen has a handful of "Badnarik is my messiah!" links. It is like ads for a free iPod, except you get a political party instead.

Most libertarians I've seen can't even agree what the party stands for, or even what the country should look like. Some want to abolish taxes, some wan't to abolish public schools, some want to abolish child labor laws, or public fire stations, or public highways, or the FAA. I can't even see a coherent message let alone a workable politcal system. People just say "Yay libertarian means you can do what you want!" They don't mention any kind of plan or platform I can see.

Now you're catching on. ;)

I don't want to sound like a troll here, but what is up with all these ultra-vocal libertarians all of a sudden? Every political thread I seen has a handful of "Badnarik is my messiah!" links. It is like ads for a free iPod, except you get a political party instead.

Most libertarians I've seen can't even agree what the party stands for, or even what the country should look like. Some want to abolish taxes, some wan't to abolish public schools, some want to abolish child labor laws, or public fire stations, or public highways, or the FAA. I can't even see a coherent message let alone a workable politcal system. People just say "Yay libertarian means you can do what you want!" They don't mention any kind of plan or platform I can see.

Bardy want's to privatise the Police force as well.

Almost sounds like a feudal system......

More and more, it seems to me that a lot of Libertarians are just uber-capitalists who don't want the government to get in the way of them making money, and only care about civil rights because they think it will quell the masses that they're screwing over.

Have you met a Democrat, Republican, or a Catholic lately? People believe different things. Some people who believe different things classify themselves as Libertarians. Get over it.

Get over it.
I take it that was directed towards me?

More and more, it seems to me that a lot of Libertarians are just uber-capitalists who don't want the government to get in the way of them making money, and only care about civil rights because they think it will quell the masses that they're screwing over.
Maybe they care about civil rights because they've felt the oppression that people like you post on messageboards and care enough about other people not to repeat your mistakes.

Maybe they care about civil rights because they've felt the oppression that people like you post on messageboards and care enough about other people not to repeat your mistakes.
The oppression that people like me post on messageboards? I wasn't aware that I was oppressing anyone...

Did you read what you accused Libertarians of? If somebody said that about some broad category of people that you belong to, how would you feel?

Did you read what you accused Libertarians of? If somebody said that about some broad category of people that you belong to, how would you feel?

Liberterians are a category of people *confused*

I thought it was a philosophy.

You're not talking a master race thing here are you?

Did you read what you accused Libertarians of? If somebody said that about some broad category of people that you belong to, how would you feel?
I said a lot of Libertarians. Not all of them. I happen to be a social Libertarian, but it seems to me that some Libertarians are only concerned with getting the gov't out of the way of them making money.

And I don't think stating my opinion could be considered 'oppression.' A Libertarian should be all for free speech, shouldn't they?

Libertarians are, indeed, for free speech. They're also in favor of personal responsibility. I'm just suggesting that you be very careful how you phrase things. If you want to talk about a group of people who happen to be Libertarians, then you should make it clear that it really doesn't have much to do with Libertarianism and that other groups suffer from exactly the same problems.

If you want to talk about a group of people who happen to be Libertarians, then you should make it clear that it really doesn't have much to do with Libertarianism and that other groups suffer from exactly the same problems.
Agreed. So allow me to rephrase that. It seem to me that many people who claim to be Libertarians don't actually believe in the nicer things about the philosphy, but simply support it because they stand to benefit economically from it.

Thank you.

Isn't talking stuff out nice?

*makes sweet, sweet love to Pythagosaurus*

:fluffle:

Oh my.

And, for the record, I love Minnesota. It might be better without my parents, but that's another topic.

You live in Minnesota? Damn, that's another person I have to start stalking!

Yup. Sorry. I didn't mean to fill up your schedule like that.

What's wrong with getting the government out of the way of you making money? When the hell did making money become synonomous with screwing people over? Last time I checked you have to provide a good or service people actually want and are willing to voluntarily pay for. Unless you have the favor of the government, then you can screw people like the phone company does. Only government distortions of the market create situations that allow corporations to become huge monopolies that treat their customers poorly. Think about it, without government protection, a company that treated costomers badly and overcharged them wouldn't last very long, the airlines are a great example. Aftre dereg, competition let people choose from bare bones cheap-ass flights all the way up to the Concorde. Prices went down and people could travel more. Lousy, overpriced carriers who'd been coddled by the gov' failed one after the other. Pan-Am, Eastern, TWA, soon United will go and so will AA if they don't change. The achilles heel is the air traffic control system (should be private). You might say service is worse, but the market has shown that people don't care as much about service as price, so you get what you pay for, but you can get to Vegas from LA for less than the price of a tank of gas. Freedom actually works! As for the 19th century, it had some rough spots, but there were social phenomenon that worked to balance the worst of it, like unions and fraternal societies and churches. They did good and helped people, and they brought about positive changes in worker treatment all without a single tax dollar.

All in all it was one of the greatest expansions of human wealth, health, knowledge and well being ever, and we know that the socialists were responsible for killing 100's of millions of people in the 20th century trying to fight the tide of Capitalism and Liberty that began in the 1800's. I'd rather die trying to succeed than in the forced labor camp while being "re-educated." In fact, it was truly idiotic to bring up the 19th century as a refutation of Libertarianism, since the 20th century was made a horror of unimaginable proportion by socialists! Give me the Gilded Age over Stalinism any day. Government should be as small as it can be!

Originally Posted by Hammolopolis
I don't want to sound like a troll here, but what is up with all these ultra-vocal libertarians all of a sudden? Every political thread I seen has a handful of "Badnarik is my messiah!" links. It is like ads for a free iPod, except you get a political party instead.

Most libertarians I've seen can't even agree what the party stands for, or even what the country should look like. Some want to abolish taxes, some wan't to abolish public schools, some want to abolish child labor laws, or public fire stations, or public highways, or the FAA. I can't even see a coherent message let alone a workable politcal system. People just say "Yay libertarian means you can do what you want!" They don't mention any kind of plan or platform I can see.

Posted by Soviet Narco State
Didn't you ever learn about the 19th century in school? Child labor, 14 hour work days, no social saftey net, old people living in poverty and starving? Thats what libertarian society would be like.
The whole legalizing drugs, gay marriage and all that jazz is cool but the whole Darwinian society is pretty brutal.

In response to these two previous statements, a libertarian is an advocate of the doctrine of free will. This statement is vary broad and can often be misinterpreted as people believing that if they want to do something then they automatically get the moral and legal go ahead to do it but that is not correct. The correct interpretation of libertarian in the strictest meaning of the word is the exercise of free will in so far as it does not interfere with others exercise of free will.

As for groups of Libertarians; there are about as many different groups as there are flavors of ice cream in the dairy section of a Super Wal-Mart. Each one has different views and philosophies. I am in favor of an Objectivist Libertarian government.
Objectivism holds that man can have no higher moral purpose than the achievement of his own happiness in so far as it does not interfere with others achievement of happiness (notice the pattern). The key to this philosophy is the statement "his own happiness" not your neighbors', not your co-workers', nor some one living off of welfare :mad: .

Proponents of socialism (democrats are guilty of this too) proclaim to the highest mountains that the peoples economic rights are not being satisfied. These proponents say that every person have:

The right to a house,

The right to a job (they say nothing about weather the person is qualified for The job),

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation :headbang:

The right of business to compete in a market free from unfair competition at home and abroad (I am aware of the contradiction in this statement),

The right to a good education,

The right to protection from economic fears(old age, disability, ect.).


This sounds good and anyone that would disagree with it would be a bad person, right?

Not at all. The aforementioned statements might sound good but they fail to determine where the funds to provide for all of this will come from. In the end this country and many other countries to a greater degree force those in there society that lead productive lives to pay for the existence of others.
It could be taken as far as saying the govt. makes the productive people in the nation sacrifice their happiness so as to buy the happiness of others.
I don't expect people to fully understand or agree with what I have been saying but if you like what you have heard go to http://www.objectivistcenter.org/index.asp but if you disagree with what I have been saying that is right to do so and I would not object to having a civilized debate over philosophy.

The nature analogy does not work.

First off, you assume that a single corporation cannot grow so large that it forces out other companies. In nature a single animal can only take up so much of the resources and cannot grow larger than biology dictates. In business a company can continue to grow until it puts limitations on itself.

Second, when in nature a population exceeds the limit of the habitat in question, the population gets scourged by disease and famine until it falls back into check and can grow again. In the economy this same thing would happen, as there are a limited amount of resources and a limited amount of business that can use them. Even if you think a depression of this nature would be good to ween out the weak parts of the economy and provide for growth again, see problem one. The stronger companies will only survive to consume the smaller companies or slide into consume their resources.

The fact is that we need heavy government regulation to control the size and health of our economy, and the resources that it takes in.

But social libertarianism is ok with me.

capitalist Libertarians want to abolish social laws but they want to keep property laws. This is backward because social laws are there to keep property laws from screwing us all. They think the freedom to have the cops shoot anyone who set foot on their property is more important than the freedom to walk on the said property.
Laissez-faire capitalism is an oxymoron.

capitalist Libertarians want to abolish social laws but they want to keep property laws. This is backward because social laws are there to keep property laws from screwing us all. They think the freedom to have the cops shoot anyone who set foot on their property is more important than the freedom to walk on the said property.
Laissez-faire capitalism is an oxymoron.

I don't even understand your argument here.

Social laws have little to do with property laws. Social laws are there to keep other people from screwing you over, not property laws.

People always use Darwin in an incomplete way. Survival of the fittest is a soundbite from a longer text that talks about survival of the fittest for a purpose. It doesn't mean biggest, strongest, meanest. Otherwise there would be no mice or sheep.

People always use Darwin in an incomplete way. Survival of the fittest is a soundbite from a longer text that talks about survival of the fittest for a purpose. It doesn't mean biggest, strongest, meanest. Otherwise there would be no mice or sheep.

I don't really think there is a purpose, either.

It is a question of competion and niches in nature. The most efficient use of resources amonst those niches.

And mice are very resilient creatures, one of the strongest species ever.

I don't even understand your argument here.

Social laws have little to do with property laws. Social laws are there to keep other people from screwing you over, not property laws.
Example : the minimum wage law is here to stop owners from enslaving people with their property.
That's because if I own the river, you will have to work hard for me if you want to drink, and I can give you just enough to live while you will work like mad. With this law, I have to give you enough water to live decently and you can work only 8 hours per days.
If you abolish that minimum wage, you have to abolish the property of the river at the same time or it will end up in slavery.

I don't really think there is a purpose, either.

It is a question of competion and niches in nature. The most efficient use of resources amonst those niches.

And mice are very resilient creatures, one of the strongest species ever.
Purpose being a niche in this meaning. My point is that it is not unbridled competition it is something else more subtle and interconnected.

Didn't you ever learn about the 19th century in school? Child labor, 14 hour work days, no social saftey net, old people living in poverty and starving? Thats what libertarian society would be like.
The whole legalizing drugs, gay marriage and all that jazz is cool but the whole Darwinian society is pretty brutal.The past was harsher because the technology wasn't as good, not because of a deficiency in laws.
Today, kids can't get jobs even if they want them, except in Hollywood. Parents get in trouble for having their kids work, unless they don't pay them or they work on a farm. Many people in lower paying industries work 2 jobs because they can only get 40 hours a week at one due to overtime laws. The "social safety net" subsidizes poverty and breeds a dependence on government. Old people are the both the richest and least productive age group in America today. People no longer rely on their families for financial support they way they once did. As a result, the familiy, the building block of society, is weaker than ever before in history.

Go Libertarian?? I'll never suppost Anarcho-Capitalism, thank you very much.

Example : the minimum wage law is here to stop owners from enslaving people with their property.
That's because if I own the river, you will have to work hard for me if you want to drink, and I can give you just enough to live while you will work like mad. With this law, I have to give you enough water to live decently and you can work only 8 hours per days.
If you abolish that minimum wage, you have to abolish the property of the river at the same time or it will end up in slavery.

That is obviously not the entire purpose of social laws, but I understand your argument now.

Your initial point with the cops shooting you for trespassing wasn't a very good example of what you were trying to say.

The past was harsher because the technology wasn't as good, not because of a deficiency in laws.
Today, kids can't get jobs even if they want them, except in Hollywood. Parents get in trouble for having their kids work, unless they don't pay them or they work on a farm. Many people in lower paying industries work 2 jobs because they can only get 40 hours a week at one due to overtime laws. The "social safety net" subsidizes poverty and breeds a dependence on government. Old people are the both the richest and least productive age group in America today. People no longer rely on their families for financial support they way they once did. As a result, the familiy, the building block of society, is weaker than ever before in history.
There was more than 50% unemployment back then. Kids worked because they were cheaper because they were more gullible.

And Libertarians will never suppost Totali-Fascism, thank you very much.

Example : the minimum wage law is here to stop owners from enslaving people with their property.
That's because if I own the river, you will have to work hard for me if you want to drink, and I can give you just enough to live while you will work like mad. With this law, I have to give you enough water to live decently and you can work only 8 hours per days.
If you abolish that minimum wage, you have to abolish the property of the river at the same time or it will end up in slavery.
I'm not sure that was ever a stated purpose for minimum wage laws (maybe by the Socialist party), but I can understand your point. Sort of. I would consider myself a free-market capitalist minarchist. Generally speaking, I'm pretty big on property rights, but it would take some serious convincing to get me to support private ownership of a river. There is some level of government and public property I'm reasonably comfortable with. Hell, I even voted for a pay raise for my state legislators since I wouldn't want to that job for a mere $24k/yr. I figure mabye we could attract a better candidate or 3.

Go Libertarian?? I'll never suppost Anarcho-Capitalism, thank you very much.
Did you know those two things are not the same? "Libertarian' is a word that describes anarchists of most flavors, as well as minarchists, and classical liberals. It's a rather broad term.

There was more than 50% unemployment back then. Kids worked because they were cheaper because they were more gullible.
Back when? And where was there >50% unemployment? Care to provide a link?
BTW, 19 year olds are both cheaper and more gullible than 40 year olds. Should 19 year olds be allowed to work?

Back when? And where was there >50% unemployment? Care to provide a link?
BTW, 19 year olds are both cheaper and more gullible than 40 year olds. Should 19 year olds be allowed to work?
When people were subsistence farmers and no women could work as anything else.

And Libertarians will never suppost Totali-Fascism, thank you very much.

Well, have fun with that. I'll stick with Socialism.

Did you know those two things are not the same? "Libertarian' is a word that describes anarchists of most flavors, as well as minarchists, and classical liberals. It's a rather broad term.

Unfortunatly any type of anarchy is little more than a fool's dream. And classical liberals died out, for the most part, quite a long time ago.

Libertarianism is completely infesable. It's lack of regulation on business will lead to a corporate government, because business will be allowed to grow to huge hights with no one to put a stop to their oppression. They lack of minimum wage laws and child labour just make everything alot worse.

The simple fact is that Libertarianism will never work.

Well, have fun with that. I'll stick with Socialism.
Thank you for clarifying.

Go socialist??? I'll never suppost Totali-Fascism, thank you very much.

Liberterians are a category of people *confused*

I thought it was a philosophy.

You're not talking a master race thing here are you?

Meh. I admit, most Libertarians know as much about the platform as Dems and Repubs, which isn't saying much.
But (as a Libertarian), I'm forced to point out the obvious:

Democrats: You believe a Socialist world will make everyone happy. I'm afraid noone will be happy. You forget that we still do have an unregulated marketplace- It's called outsourcing. Unemployment skyrockets. Isn't it great! As one guy said, Socialism means you have two cows. You milk the cows, then give them all your milk. They give you just enough milk to live, and drink the rest.

Republicans: You believe a capitalist theocracy sounds like a good idea. Enough said on that one.

Libertarians: You have two cows. You sell one, and trade the other for a bull.

And Libertarians, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, before you speak, educate yourselves on the platform. Do not act like you've found a nifty new party.
Do not fashion yourself as a crazy anarchist.

Two-party people: Don't be a retard and assume everyone in the party is a radical. I can easily do the same to you.

Black Forest, it's both a philosophy AND a political party.

The simple fact is that Libertarianism will never work.

Neither will strick socialism.

"Because it was nothing like we'd ever dreamt,
Our lust for life went away with the rent we hated.
Because it made no money, nobody saved no one's life this time."

I want to be a nutjob. Can I be a nutjob? AM I a nutjob? That'd be great....

Meh. I admit, most Libertarians know as much about the platform as Dems and Repubs, which isn't saying much.
But (as a Libertarian), I'm forced to point out the obvious:

Democrats: You believe a Socialist world will make everyone happy. I'm afraid noone will be happy. You forget that we still do have an unregulated marketplace- It's called outsourcing. Unemployment skyrockets. Isn't it great! As one guy said, Socialism means you have two cows. You milk the cows, then give them all your milk. They give you just enough milk to live, and drink the rest.

Republicans: You believe a capitalist theocracy sounds like a good idea. Enough said on that one.

Libertarians: You have two cows. You sell one, and trade the other for a bull.

And Libertarians, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, before you speak, educate yourselves on the platform. Do not act like you've found a nifty new party.
Do not fashion yourself as a crazy anarchist.

Two-party people: Don't be a retard and assume everyone in the party is a radical. I can easily do the same to you.

Black Forest, it's both a philosophy AND a political party.

Most democrats are not socialists, most republicans don't believe in a theocracy.

Awww, Eichen, you edited it. Now I really am a nutjob.

And classical liberals died out, for the most part, quite a long time ago.

Libertarianism is completely infesable. It's lack of regulation on business will lead to a corporate government, because business will be allowed to grow to huge hights with no one to put a stop to their oppression. They lack of minimum wage laws and child labour just make everything alot worse.

The simple fact is that Libertarianism will never work.

Libertarians are classical liberals.
Here's a question: In a Socialist government, who puts the government in it's place when it "grows to huge hights"?

Itself? You?

Most democrats are not socialists, most republicans don't believe in a theocracy.
That was my point. Making gross generalizations is, well, gross.
Most Libertarians are not anarchists of any kind. Please! Anarchists who've grown up just adopt the title to push their own agendas. It's rediculous and I get sick of it.
Most of us are pretty moderate, compromising people looking to improve our citizens lives with smaller government influence.
It's not perfect or utopian by any means(as the Socialist claim their system is).
People given a lot of freedom will fuck it up, they do now. Responsibility is always necessary to facillitate Liberty.
And it's not as if corporations are effected by government right now anyways. Don't like the laws and regulations? Go to another country-- that's what they do now. We should repeal these laws and open our borders. The poor here would become tomorrows competing small businesses.
Unless they're lazy. Then they can starve.
Charity won't exactly be illegal. Hell, anyone can sell crack if they're desperate enough for fast cash. I keed, I keed.

But sewriously, people assume they know far too much about something they haven't read a single book on all the way through. That's arrogant and disturbing.
Like reading Animal Farm was for me.

The title to this thread is a little cheesy, doncha think?

Libertarians are, indeed, for free speech. They're also in favor of personal responsibility. I'm just suggesting that you be very careful how you phrase things. If you want to talk about a group of people who happen to be Libertarians, then you should make it clear that it really doesn't have much to do with Libertarianism and that other groups suffer from exactly the same problems.

I apologize for not reading the whole thread..but I would like to quote this.

They can be for free speech and all that. But there MUST be a line drawn for that. We can't just go around spewing everything and anything we want. And Personal responsability? How so? Please do tell. Because the only thing I have more than Radical far-left Liberals and radical for-right reactionaries...are Libertarians.

And to reply to the first quote. Let's not and say we did? I'll be damned if you are going to try and force your beliefs upon me.

Thank you for clarifying.

Go socialist??? I'll never suppost Totali-Fascism, thank you very much.

Unfortunatly you've missed the part where Socialism advocates maximum civil rights, civil liberties and democracy.

Libertarians are classical liberals.
Here's a question: In a Socialist government, who puts the government in it's place when it "grows to huge hights"?

Itself? You?

The People. The People are the government. It can only grow as large as them. A "socialist government" (Democracy) is easily controlled.

And, notice I said that they have died out, for the most part. I was, infact, taking Libertarians into account.

The nature analogy does not work.

First off, you assume that a single corporation cannot grow so large that it forces out other companies. In nature a single animal can only take up so much of the resources and cannot grow larger than biology dictates. In business a company can continue to grow until it puts limitations on itself.


That's a rather broad statement...are you claiming that there will be one single corporation that runs everything? That's impossible...and even it happened, there would be internal competition just like large companies have today. It doens't make sense to have one large corporation.


The stronger companies will only survive to consume the smaller companies or slide into consume their resources.


So what? The more efficient companies win out, what's wrong with that?


The fact is that we need heavy government regulation to control the size and health of our economy, and the resources that it takes in.


Heavy govt regulation? What do you mean by that?

I think the government should only ensure transparency, nothing else. That is, companies must be honest and accurate in their financial reporting.

I apologize for not reading the whole thread..but I would like to quote this.

They can be for free speech and all that. But there MUST be a line drawn for that. We can't just go around spewing everything and anything we want. And Personal responsability? How so? Please do tell. Because the only thing I have more than Radical far-left Liberals and radical for-right reactionaries...are Libertarians.

And to reply to the first quote. Let's not and say we did? I'll be damned if you are going to try and force your beliefs upon me.
I would prefer if you spent more time writing and thinking about your response. This will keep it from sounding inflammatory, and you'll also correct some humorous typos. You say "can't", but you don't say "because." I don't quite understand your question about personal responsibility. It's an obvious derivative of the philosophy. If you don't have personal responsibility, then you'll die.

Unfortunatly you've missed the part where Socialism advocates maximum civil rights, civil liberties and democracy.
Unfortunately, you've missed the part where Libertarianism advocates maximum civil rights, civil liberties and democracy.

Unfortunatly you've missed the part where Socialism advocates maximum civil rights, civil liberties and democracy.



The People. The People are the government. It can only grow as large as them. A "socialist government" (Democracy) is easily controlled.

And, notice I said that they have died out, for the most part. I was, infact, taking Libertarians into account.


Yes, overthrow them with your own nukes. Protect yourselves with your own complex missile defense systems.
Just hope it happens right before the election.

And Libertarians don't want to change the fact that we're already a democracy.

I am going to try to clear up some misconceptions about the resultant oppression of society by large businesses in a Libertarian society. Please read the entire post before responding. I apologize if I come off condescending but I am going to assume that everyone here knows next to nothing about economics. Please inform me if I say something that is factually incorrect. Again I apologize to those of you that do know something about economics.

This mostly has to do with simple economics: Supply/demand, cost/profit, and marginal cost/marginal worth. These three dichotomies all must be taken into account by any business that wants to make a profit and making the profit is the bottom line of any business. People have been correctly that stating that under such govt. large companies would eventually come to control the private sector but incorrect in the statement that police and fire dept would be abolished. The govt. would run public works (police and fire dept.) as a nonprofit-business (makes enough to cover operation costs) with citizens paying a flat yearly fee for the availability of these services.

People are incorrect in the statement that the large companies of the private sector would pay their workers just enough to allow them to get by. What most people fail to see or realize is that that workers of the companies are also the consumers of the company's product or service. Meaning that in order to remain profitable, businesses (don't overlook the fact that I’m referring to more than one business) would have to pay their workers enough in order for them to do their secondary job as consumers and consume industrial products (not necessarily of there own manufacture). The business has to charge enough to cover the cost of producing the product/service, the raw materials/man hours and the wages workers receive, more commonly referred to as overhead.

If business didn't do this then only the wealthy would be able to afford their products or services and that is where marginal cost and marginal worth comes into play. When you are dealing with a small consumer base you have to take into account that a small consumer base can only consume so much or can reap only so much value out of more than one of a product/service. This is referred to as the marginal worth of a product.

The marginal worth of some products that are regularly consumed is high, for instance toilet paper. Its constantly used and being single use (I hope so) it must be constantly repurchased thus leading to the fact that more than one roll/pack is a good thing because it will eventually be consumed. For an opposite example I will use something incredibly expensive. A Cadillac 'Sixteen' cost roughly $100,000/car. Assuming that you are paying for quality as well as looks this car shouldn’t wear out soon thus degrading the worth another 'Sixteen' or different car for that matter would be to you. As a result cars in general have a lower marginal worth. In general as the cost of the product goes up the marginal cost (the cost of producing another of the same product) goes up, the marginal worth and demand of the product goes down and the supply goes lower still.

I will try to put this into the reference of a Libertarian economy. Businesses want a large consumer base for their products so it is their interest to pay people enough to be able to purchase their products. The Great Depression was the result of market saturated with high cost low demand products. The industrialists of the time were pumping out goods, in great quantities, that only the well off could afford. As a result they easily sold the enough to cover the demand but once the demand was gone they were sitting around with all of this product and no one to buy it. The companies where unable to cover the cost of their overhead and thus they had to cut wages/workers to attempt to stave off financial disaster were as if they had done the opposite and raised wages the Great Depression wouldn’t have been so great.

The last thing I will try to cover is reduction of quality of a product in a monopoly. In a completely capitalist society if a company reduces the quality of a product for which it has a monopoly(call this company A) other companies that have a monopoly in a close or related economic sector will begin to produce a similar product at slightly higher quality but sell at a lower cost(company B). To avoid from losing its monopoly company A will either have to reduce costs and sell at a loss or increase quality and lose some profit.

Company A may try to sell at a loss for a while to drive Company B out of its market but while Company A is losing money across the board Company B is still making a strong profit within its monopoly thus Company B can play the price slashing wars longer than company A can.

As a result of this company A, if its looking to the future, will realize that the only way for it to remain a monopoly is if it increases the quality of the product. This will keep the market at equilibrium of cost/quality.

I apologize for such a large post but I feel that it is irresponsible to post something that does not give supporting proof/logic to the idea that it is trying to convey.

That's a rather broad statement...are you claiming that there will be one single corporation that runs everything? That's impossible...and even it happened, there would be internal competition just like large companies have today. It doens't make sense to have one large corporation.

I am saying that there will be one corporation that controls every industry, and that corporations will begin to merge and expand into other industries. Maybe there won't be just one corporation, but it would eventually work its way down to several corporations that will more or less operate hand in hand.

So what? The more efficient companies win out, what's wrong with that?

Economic depression, massive unemployment, you know, nothing major.

Heavy govt regulation? What do you mean by that?

I think the government should only ensure transparency, nothing else. That is, companies must be honest and accurate in their financial reporting.

I agree with government enforcing full disclosure amongst corporations. But the fact is that for businesses the less competition the more profit. That means that they will constantly strive to eliminate competition, and eventually some will win and many will lose. Competition is the key to a healthy capitalistic economy, but businesses will continually attempt to undermine that. That is why we need the government to regulate our economy and keep it healthy.

[snip]
I agree with government enforcing full disclosure amongst corporations. But the fact is that for businesses the less competition the more profit. That means that they will constantly strive to eliminate competition, and eventually some will win and many will lose. Competition is the key to a healthy capitalistic economy, but businesses will continually attempt to undermine that. That is why we need the government to regulate our economy and keep it healthy.
This is a very good point. For a company a monopoly position is apparently perfect, for society it is not so good as it means they are not pushed to become more eficient and to innovate at the same time as they provide a good service. If businesses are not to be responisible for their social impact then some one else (the Government) needs to step in in order to ensure that the market remains competitive in the interests of not only wider society but of the businesses themselves.

More and more, it seems to me that a lot of Libertarians are just uber-capitalists who don't want the government to get in the way of them making money, and only care about civil rights because they think it will quell the masses that they're screwing over.

Wait... we're only pro-civil rights in order to appeal to the masses?

:confused:

It's obviously not working very well.

This is a very good point. For a company a monopoly position is apparently perfect, for society it is not so good as it means they are not pushed to become more eficient and to innovate at the same time as they provide a good service. If businesses are not to be responisible for their social impact then some one else (the Government) needs to step in in order to ensure that the market remains competitive in the interests of not only wider society but of the businesses themselves.

I feel that unadulterated capitalism will almost assuredly end in communism, talk about irony.

I feel that unadulterated capitalism will almost assuredly end in communism, talk about irony.
I would agree if we talk about practical outcomes of the types tried so far. The perfect example being the nazi and facist oligarchies and the stalinist beauracracy. It's alsways possible that people will appear who find new interpretations for either or both and we shouldn't rule out the possibility that they may actually be methods that achieve the utopian aims. We have to have hope :)

I would agree if we talk about practical outcomes of the types tried so far. The perfect example being the nazi and facist oligarchies and the stalinist beauracracy. It's alsways possible that people will appear who find new interpretations for either or both and we shouldn't rule out the possibility that they may actually be methods that achieve the utopian aims. We have to have hope :)

Utopia is an impossible hope.

People seem to want to tie their ideas to Utopia, and it drives them to believe totally in a system. That is why you see so many people who believe in complete capitalism or complete socialism. What we need is moderation, we need a blend of each, capitalism to ensure progress, socialism to make sure no one is trampled by the progress.

Utopia is an impossible hope.

People seem to want to tie their ideas to Utopia, and it drives them to believe totally in a system. That is why you see so many people who believe in complete capitalism or complete socialism. What we need is moderation, we need a blend of each, capitalism to ensure progress, socialism to make sure no one is trampled by the progress.
In practice that seems to work best up until now. I think utopian visions are important, but because they tell you more about the conditions, worries and dreams of their time than they do about the future. By learning from them that way we can address the issues that matter without reaching for the dream before we are able or even sure if it is a good one. Kind of gentle evolution in the general direction of utopia.

In practice that seems to work best up until now. I think utopian visions are important, but because they tell you more about the conditions, worries and dreams of their time than they do about the future. By learning from them that way we can address the issues that matter without reaching for the dream before we are able or even sure if it is a good one. Kind of gentle evolution in the general direction of utopia.

I can see where you are coming from, and I don't disagree with you. I just don't think that reactionary methods are going to get us anywhere near utopia. We need proactive measures based on the future, we need visionary ideas about the future, not views about what is wrong about the present.

But I think I am the one grasping at heaven now.

I can see where you are coming from, and I don't disagree with you. I just don't think that reactionary methods are going to get us anywhere near utopia. We need proactive measures based on the future, we need visionary ideas about the future, not views about what is wrong about the present.

But I think I am the one grasping at heaven now.
Know what you mean. Being an ex-communist christian I obviously have a thing for hope and happiness :) I do think visionary ideas are needed and useful. I think that revolution is an analogue thing in reality. There are sliding scale of it. it can be slower and it can be peaceful and what is needed is a mixture. Utopias are a guide but our utopias should change as we go.

Know what you mean. Being an ex-communist christian I obviously have a thing for hope and happiness :) I do think visionary ideas are needed and useful. I think that revolution is an analogue thing in reality. There are sliding scale of it. it can be slower and it can be peaceful and what is needed is a mixture. Utopias are a guide but our utopias should change as we go.

Exactly, a very sage view of the world.

But why do I feel everything we say here is of absolutely no consequence?

I'm somewhat Libertarian.

I'm somewhat Libertarian.

Congratulations, that is probably the best type to be.

People are incorrect in the statement that the large companies of the private sector would pay their workers just enough to allow them to get by. What most people fail to see or realize is that that workers of the companies are also the consumers of the company's product or service. Meaning that in order to remain profitable, businesses (don't overlook the fact that I’m referring to more than one business) would have to pay their workers enough in order for them to do their secondary job as consumers and consume industrial products (not necessarily of there own manufacture). The business has to charge enough to cover the cost of producing the product/service, the raw materials/man hours and the wages workers receive, more commonly referred to as overhead.


They are concerned about pay? Ok I have to give you the leary eye on that one. Why would they be concerned they are making enough? Salary is driven by supply and demand as well. If a person has skills that are hard to find, you pay more.

Well you are correct they are concerned. They are concerned enough to find the cheapest labor possible.

If companies were concerned about "their secondary jobs" they would match COL all the time.

I don't want to sound like a troll here, but what is up with all these ultra-vocal libertarians all of a sudden?
We're starting to make ourselves more noticed.

Ok, here's a crash course in it: Libertarianism attempts to maximize both political/social AND economic freedom, while attemtping to minimize govt impact in our daily lives.

The problem with Democrats and Republican platforms is that they each stifle one or the other portion of those rights, in the name of "common good" (IE less economic freedom w/Dems, less social freedom w/the current pseudo-Republicans).

Granted there are some nutjob Libertarians out there who border on being anarchists. And there are non-Libertarian people who claim Libertarianism is utopian in nature - they are DEAD WRONG; honestly think it's the most realistic society we could achieve (think about it).

They are concerned about pay? Ok I have to give you the leary eye on that one. Why would they be concerned they are making enough? Salary is driven by supply and demand as well. If a person has skills that are hard to find, you pay more.

Well you are correct they are concerned. They are concerned enough to find the cheapest labor possible.

If companies were concerned about "their secondary jobs" they would match COL all the time.

And doing so can easily compromise skill, production, quality of products. One strategy that has been successfull with new casinos, was to offer more money to the most skilled employees at existing casinos, giving the new casino the most talented, capable staff, and also increasing the wages of employees.

And doing so can easily compromise skill, production, quality of products. One strategy that has been successfull with new casinos, was to offer more money to the most skilled employees at existing casinos, giving the new casino the most talented, capable staff, and also increasing the wages of employees.

Ok that is casinos.

Quality is not much of an issue from a corporations view. I have heard more then one software project use a variation of the phrase "Put it in now, we will fix it later" Or as one VP of engineering once told me. "You will never see perfect code. Even if it was possible, it would be discouraged because who would purchase maitenance contracts."

Skilled emplolyees are nice but I can't count how many manager types have complained about the salary cost of american workers.

My favorite phase to show you the long term thinking of a few CEOs "It's not my problem, it's my successors problem."

Also, if skill and quality was highly desired. Why outsource? Sure there are very capable people in India and China but from my vendor's approach; A warm body with a queue card is superior to an over priced American worker.

Dell is about the only company I have heard return the help desk to American/Australian shores after enough complaints.

I guess I am a cynic as I tend to think it's profit before quality......

My only knock on Libertarianism is its tendency to be a form of uber-capitalism. Didn't we try this in the 1890's and 1920's? Do we really want to go back to the days of rat droppings in our food, devestated forests and crippling depression? No one wants that.

But because I'm curious about this new Libertarianism, why don't you tell me where Libertarians stand on such issues as:

1. Welfare. FDR tried it out, and I'll be daggummed if it didn't work brilliantly. Poverty rates have declined over the years since, in no small part to welfare. Plus we all love our Social Security.
2. Education. We need public education. It's just that simple. Privitizing it is no way to ensure quality. It is a really good way to ensure that rich people get better education. Keep in mind that I'm attending a public university, and that I would'nt be able to attend a private one.
3. Taxes. I heard Libertarians want a flat tax or a sales tax. This is a regressive tax, folks. It doesn't work too well.
4. Anti-trust. There have been quite a few mergers lately, I guess it's the time of year for it. But don't we need the government to step in at some point? I guess you'd argue for intervention, but at a much later level. Which is curious because monopolies hurt the market, something Libertarians hold in high regard.
5. Unions. Unions are incredibly important for protecting workers' rights. I saw a little banner once that said, "Libertarianism: from the people that brought you the weekend..." So who do you support more- capital or labor?

Unfortunatly you've missed the part where Socialism advocates maximum civil rights, civil liberties and democracy.

Uh-huh, except when it comes to people's right to private property and people's economic rights. And of course, the people's choice to choose between government and... government. With libertarianism, you do get choice: you can buy your products at Walmart or local, you can choose where your money goes.

Now how does forcing people into paying for extraneous government functions qualify as a civil liberty?

1. Welfare. FDR tried it out, and I'll be daggummed if it didn't work brilliantly. Poverty rates have declined over the years since, in no small part to welfare. Plus we all love our Social Security.

Retirement funds for Social Security. Responsibility. About welfare: neither welfare nor private charity do too much to help.

2. Education. We need public education. It's just that simple. Privitizing it is no way to ensure quality. It is a really good way to ensure that rich people get better education. Keep in mind that I'm attending a public university, and that I would'nt be able to attend a private one.

Wouldnt forced competition between schools FORCE them to maintain high-quality education in order to stay in business? This doesnt neccessarily mean I favour total private education, just saying.

4. Anti-trust. There have been quite a few mergers lately, I guess it's the time of year for it. But don't we need the government to step in at some point? I guess you'd argue for intervention, but at a much later level. Which is curious because monopolies hurt the market, something Libertarians hold in high regard.

Keep in mind that subsidies to companies would also be abolished...

5. Unions. Unions are incredibly important for protecting workers' rights. I saw a little banner once that said, "Libertarianism: from the people that brought you the weekend..." So who do you support more- capital or labor?

Libertarians, though I can't speak for all, support maximum freedoms in both economic and social issues.

4. Anti-trust. There have been quite a few mergers lately, I guess it's the time of year for it. But don't we need the government to step in at some point? I guess you'd argue for intervention, but at a much later level. Which is curious because monopolies hurt the market, something Libertarians hold in high regard.


Mergers are good. Consolidation is good. Economies of scale. The more efficient companies take over. The government needs to prevent nothing, there has never been a coercive monopoly without the government's aid. Monopolies do not hurt the market.

If Joe's diner is the only restuarant in town, isn't that a monopoly? If there was room for another diner, one would be created and competition would commence. A company cannot afford to constantly buy out its competition; it just isn't possible.

I'd also like to state the pros of corporations: corporations are some of the few businesses with the actual cash to provide most people with appliances such as computers, TVs, and everything. Small business simply can't compete in that area, because they just don't have the cash.

Retirement funds for Social Security. Responsibility. About welfare: neither welfare nor private charity do too much to help. Then explain why Welfare checks were at their peak in the early 1970's when poverty was in decline. Or explain why the drop in poverty leveled off when Reagan scaled back social spending.

Wouldnt forced competition between schools FORCE them to maintain high-quality education in order to stay in business? This doesnt neccessarily mean I favour total private education, just saying. No. You're not selling widgets. You're selling education. They don't obey market forces the way other things do. Just making a market out of it isn't going to solve anything.

Keep in mind that subsidies to companies would also be abolished...
Still doesn't fix the problem. Also, take a look at who we're subsidizing sometime. It's not the guys who are doing really well. It's the ones who aren't. And maybe there's a reason for that, but I don't think it's a great idea to kill off the weaker members of the pack while doing nothing to stop the stronger ones from gouging us.

Libertarians, though I can't speak for all, support maximum freedoms in both economic and social issues.So....the Man then?

That was a joke. I know you're not an arm for the Man. I just think the term is funny. Still, labor unions are swell. We get things like a decent minimum wage then. Care to weigh in on that?

No. You're not selling widgets. You're selling education. They don't obey market forces the way other things do. Just making a market out of it isn't going to solve anything.

Care to explain why it doesn't obey the market?

That was a joke. I know you're not an arm for the Man. I just think the term is funny. Still, labor unions are swell. We get things like a decent minimum wage then. Care to weigh in on that?

Labor unions and min. wage are fine - however, going too high in minimum wage isnt too good.

Then explain why Welfare checks were at their peak in the early 1970's when poverty was in decline. Or explain why the drop in poverty leveled off when Reagan scaled back social spending.

Reagan also spent alot of money on the War on Drugs, mind you. Less tax dollars = less money you forfeit to the government. I don't know how you can believe that getting a few hundred dollars, what is it -a month?-, will bump someone up from below the poverty line that far. Unless, of course, they're just barely over the poverty line..

Mergers are good. Consolidation is good. Economies of scale. The more efficient companies take over. The government needs to prevent nothing, there has never been a coercive monopoly without the government's aid. Monopolies do not hurt the market.

If Joe's diner is the only restuarant in town, isn't that a monopoly? If there was room for another diner, one would be created and competition would commence. A company cannot afford to constantly buy out its competition; it just isn't possible.But then we're going back in time to the 1900's or so. Standard Oil. US Steel. American Tobacco Company. J.P. Morgan's Railroads. What about today? GM, AT&T, Microsoft, et al. Are you going to say what these companies did was ok?

But then we're going back in time to the 1900's or so. Standard Oil. US Steel. American Tobacco Company. J.P. Morgan's Railroads. What about today? GM, AT&T, Microsoft, et al. Are you going to say what these companies did was ok?

Yes, Rockefeller is my idol and I would like to emulate him.

But then we're going back in time to the 1900's or so. Standard Oil. US Steel. American Tobacco Company. J.P. Morgan's Railroads. What about today? GM, AT&T, Microsoft, et al. Are you going to say what these companies did was ok?

Perhaps you missed the bit where he said that these companies gained strength through government aid..

Care to explain why it doesn't obey the market?I'll explain that if you can explain how Libertarianism aims to get around the problem of poor people not having enough money to afford education. Education was private for hundreds of years and it limited social mobility. Discuss.

But on to why education doesn't react well to markets. First is that you need a way to gauge the quality of a school. You might think that test scores would do this, but sadly they don't.

Next is that you have to market your school. Marketing is totally unrelated to quality. Thousands of products or services have failed to competitors' whose were cooler or better marketed.

Also, I don't understand how this will IMPROVE quality. Just saying, "If we don't deliver a better product, we're going under" doesn't help too much. You can always lower the price, cut expenses, etc. No improvement in quality is forced.

The schools with the lowest scores are the ones that need more help. This is EXACTLY the opposite of what would happen under the market system.


Labor unions and min. wage are fine - however, going too high in minimum wage isnt too good.Minimum wage can be too high. In theory. In practice, we've never really ever set the minimum wage too high. But we have had it too low for quite a while now. It needs to be at least $7.00.

Reagan also spent alot of money on the War on Drugs, mind you. Less tax dollars = less money you forfeit to the government. I don't know how you can believe that getting a few hundred dollars, what is it -a month?-, will bump someone up from below the poverty line that far. Unless, of course, they're just barely over the poverty line..Welfare isn't enough to live on. You'd be suprised how far a few hundred dollars will go when your monthly expenses are about $1,000. But it helps. Your point that Welfare doesn't do enough is hardly an argument for decreasing welfare. If anything, it's an argument to increase it.

Perhaps you missed the bit where he said that these companies gained strength through government aid..
Sorry. I forgot that Government was the Enemy.

Isn't it a little hypocritical to condemn the government when it helps companies, but laud it when it does nothing to stop them from hurting consumers? I agree, we shouldn't be throwing money at monopolies. But we should stop them from price gouging. See how this position is reversed in Libertarianism? Why?

Sorry. I forgot that Government was the Enemy.

Isn't it a little hypocritical to condemn the government when it helps companies, but laud it when it does nothing to stop them from hurting consumers? I agree, we shouldn't be throwing money at monopolies. But we should stop them from price gouging. See how this position is reversed in Libertarianism? Why?

If the company doesnt deliver, the consumer doesnt buy. It's all about choice and if they choose wrong, then they're only hurting themselves.

If the company doesnt deliver, the consumer doesnt buy. It's all about choice and if they choose wrong, then they're only hurting themselves.
Then explain "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Explain Standard Oil. Explain all these monopolies I just mentioned that screwed over the consumer. You can't merely blame the consumer for their choice, because this provides no way to resolve the problem.

I'll explain that if you can explain how Libertarianism aims to get around the problem of poor people not having enough money to afford education. Education was private for hundreds of years and it limited social mobility. Discuss.

Fewer schools and more agragrian society. Times HAVE changed. and two, the argument for privatizing education is to allow people choice of which school to go to instead of being just shoved into a public school or paying heavy tuitions for a private one. I don't neccessarily agree with this viewpoint, but thats besides the point right now as I'll try to explain the pros of privatizing education.

Next is that you have to market your school. Marketing is totally unrelated to quality. Thousands of products or services have failed to competitors' whose were cooler or better marketed.

So then you pay for cheap schools if you're poorer. The quality wouldn't be too much better than the current state of our public school system. Believe me, I know - I go to one and there aren't too many shining lights. Second, this gives people in the middle class an opportunity to attend a private school for a cheaper price (if all schools were privatized, then they wouldn't just all be rich-kid places, you'd have different varieties of sorts to attract customers).

Also, I don't understand how this will IMPROVE quality. Just saying, "If we don't deliver a better product, we're going under" doesn't help too much. You can always lower the price, cut expenses, etc. No improvement in quality is forced.

Parents expect a certain level if they're paying an x-amount of tuition for a certain school. NOt all might, but when youre paying a tuition for your child, you'd expect theyd learn something. IN the case of public schools, you have to go them anyway so there's really no other alternative besides sending them off to a pricey private school.

The schools with the lowest scores are the ones that need more help. This is EXACTLY the opposite of what would happen under the market system.

If the school is giving low test scores, no one will pay to go there. Just like picking the best college, you pick the best school based on price, courses, academic history, and so forth. And plus we won't have to deal with this nasty church-state feud.

ANd finally, Id like to reiterate, that these are the benefits of the private school system there are disadvantages - especially for the poorer people as you stated. However, the middle class would benefit, in my opinion, from this - mostly. Thats just my opinion, feel free to refute so I may find the flaws in my argument and better my understanding on this issue.

Then explain "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Explain Standard Oil. Explain all these monopolies I just mentioned that screwed over the consumer. You can't merely blame the consumer for their choice, because this provides no way to resolve the problem.

I havent read the Jungle. Standard Oil was a monopoly, true. But how did it get that way? If people didnt like it, they wouldnt buy it. I don't see why you hate monopolies if people don't have a problem with buying their products.

And a further note on the issue of welfare, I hope you remember that I stated that NEITHER welfare or private charity work - you just chose to pick out welfare. If you asked why private charity doesnt work, I could explain that too. The advantage welfare has over private charity is its scope and accessability, I would say.

Monopolies:

Monopolies that produce quality products stay in business and deserve to. Monopolies that rip people off do not stay in business. Sometimes it takes a little while before they die, sometimes they don't die, but there is always room to compete.

Microsoft, for example, is quickly losing market share in web browsers thanks to Mozilla. Microsoft licensing schemes are expensive, which is why Wal*Mart now sells PCs with Lindows instead of Windows. AT&T and the other phone companies are quicky losing market share to VoIP. Rip people off and they will find another way.

Social Security / Welfare:

"We all love social security" eh? You'll love it even more when you don't get anything for all the money you were forced to put in it. I'm a nice guy, but I don't want to be forced to pay now for some old geezer who didn't think enough in advance to plan his retirement out and is living off social security. When I'm getting old, there will be so many people living off of social security that what I get out of it will be near nil. I'd much rather plan my own retirement with my own money in my own account and let the people who are too lazy to think about the future suffer.

The single most important aspect of Libertarianism is responsibility. If you spill hot coffee on yourself, it's your fault and not Dunkin Donuts'. If you're a beached whale from too much fast food, it's your fault and not McDonalds. If you don't plan ahead and run out of money when you hit 70, it's your fault and not the government's. If you want to, go find some charitable soul who will take pity on you. It's not my problem.

Whoever it was near the beginning of the thread who said that Libertarians want the police to shoot you if you set foot on their property, you couldn't be more wrong. Libertarians are all about property rights, but that doesn't mean shooting anyone who sets foot on your property. You would still have to prove in a court of law that you were acting in defense. If you come and lie in my yard, I'd probably ask you to leave. If you try to come into my house and put me in danger, you're getting some hot lead in your ass. The police aren't responsible for me anyway. I am.

Anyways, I don't really read the forums. If you want to discuss this more with me, send me a PM or something.

I havent read the Jungle. Standard Oil was a monopoly, true. But how did it get that way? If people didnt like it, they wouldnt buy it. I don't see why you hate monopolies if people don't have a problem with buying their products.

I posted this earlier but it works again.

the fact is that for businesses, the less competition the more profit. That means that they will constantly strive to eliminate competition, and eventually some will win and many will lose. Competition is the key to a healthy capitalistic economy, but businesses will continually attempt to undermine that. That is why we need the government to regulate our economy and keep it healthy.

I havent read the Jungle. Standard Oil was a monopoly, true. But how did it get that way? If people didnt like it, they wouldnt buy it. I don't see why you hate monopolies if people don't have a problem with buying their products.

The Jungle was a book exposing the horrible practices of some meat markets in New York. The consumers would buy the product, which was pretty horrible for them, but it was cheap. Really more of an argument for REGULATION of industry, rather than against monopoly. Still, they're sorta connected in my mind. It's an example of where a company cut corners and sold a bad product because they COULD. The unsuspecting public was just stupid enough to keep buying.

People buying products isn't always indicative of a socially responsible company. People buy products based on all sorts of reasons. Quality. Price. Convenience. Marketing. Whatever.

Let's take a look at McDonalds. I know it's a bit overdone, and I like McDonalds in a way. I worked there for a year, maybe that's why. But I never ate the food. Anyway, people go to McDonalds because it is convenient and cheap. It's also horrible for them. It's hard to get away from McDonalds. They're everywhere- malls, highways, small towns, big towns, everywhere. But people still go, even though it's really bad for them.

My point there is not that McDonalds is a monopoly or that we should shut it down. I'm just saying that it is an example where market forces (e.g. "I choose between a 99 cent greaseball or a 3 dollar carrot") can be bad for the populace.

1. Didnt people realize that they were getting sick? Who cares about that, let's still buy it anyway! Idiocy.

2. People know McDonald's is bad for you. Maybe people don't know the scope, but they know. Yet they still choose to buy it because of convienence. No show of personal responsibility. We can't baby people into making the right choices.

Im not saying that these people should get into trouble for fradulent advertising or blatantly lying about the nutritional information, but after that meat you got from shop A has made you vomit on more than one occasion, you'd think that you'd realize that you shouldn't buy that meat.

Microsoft, for example, is quickly losing market share in web browsers thanks to Mozilla. Microsoft licensing schemes are expensive, which is why Wal*Mart now sells PCs with Lindows instead of Windows. AT&T and the other phone companies are quicky losing market share to VoIP. Rip people off and they will find another way.

This is exactly what I had in mind.

2. People know McDonald's is bad for you. Maybe people don't know the scope, but they know. Yet they still choose to buy it because of convienence. No show of personal responsibility. We can't baby people into making the right choices.

This is the fundamental point where the road forks. I think you need to give the American public its medicine- even if it's screaming and kicking. If they won't make the right choices, the government has to FOR them. I know it sounds tyrannical, but that's why we have government in the first place. It's gotta get done. Otherwise, how do you propose we solve any of these problems?

I propose we DON'T SOLVE THEM! Why must Socialists always poke their noses into people's lives. Why must they "solve" people's problems for them. You take other people's money forcibly through taxes, then you use it to fund a scheme that forces people to do things that they wont do voluntarily. It sounds like tyrrany 'cause it IS. If you can't convince someone to make the choice you think they should make, it is immoral to whip out a gun, point it at them and say, "eat your carrots!" Socialists are duluded about 2 things, first that they know better than anyone else how things should be done, right down to the personal decisions people make about what to put in their bodies, and second, that a government can efficiently create the desired outcomes without stifling oppression and stagering expense. No one person or group of people can get that much information, especially concerning constantly changing factors, and there isn't a way to get all that money without killing the very source of the wealth, the people.

BTW - we have government to provide for the common defense and the court system, not the common oppresion. The people in Washington are our representatives, not our parents.

Libertarian: The thinking person's party.

I've been Libertarian for years now, but I'm still waiting for those bastards to send me my bumper stickers! It'd probably help if I started paying dues...

But then we're going back in time to the 1900's or so. Standard Oil. US Steel. American Tobacco Company. J.P. Morgan's Railroads. What about today? GM, AT&T, Microsoft, et al. Are you going to say what these companies did was ok?


What are you talking about? yes, yes, yes....

I agree more with Reform Libertarianism, than with Classical Libertarianism.

The Jungle was a book exposing the horrible practices of some meat markets in New York.

i believe you mean chicago. on another note, if upton sinclair was still alive and i had a big enough family reunion, he'd be at it.

Really more of an argument for REGULATION of industry, rather than against monopoly.

actually, at times it is rather explicitly a call for full out socialism.

I propose we DON'T SOLVE THEM! Why must Socialists always poke their noses into people's lives. Why must they "solve" people's problems for them. You take other people's money forcibly through taxes, then you use it to fund a scheme that forces people to do things that they wont do voluntarily. It sounds like tyrrany 'cause it IS. If you can't convince someone to make the choice you think they should make, it is immoral to whip out a gun, point it at them and say, "eat your carrots!" Socialists are duluded about 2 things, first that they know better than anyone else how things should be done, right down to the personal decisions people make about what to put in their bodies, and second, that a government can efficiently create the desired outcomes without stifling oppression and stagering expense. No one person or group of people can get that much information, especially concerning constantly changing factors, and there isn't a way to get all that money without killing the very source of the wealth, the people.

BTW - we have government to provide for the common defense and the court system, not the common oppresion. The people in Washington are our representatives, not our parents.
Your parents are McDonalds, Halliburton, Microsoft and Citi bank?
You think you are free but you are not. It's just that you have never been free so you don't know what it is.

I'll explain that if you can explain how Libertarianism aims to get around the problem of poor people not having enough money to afford education. Education was private for hundreds of years and it limited social mobility. Discuss.

But on to why education doesn't react well to markets. First is that you need a way to gauge the quality of a school. You might think that test scores would do this, but sadly they don't.What's so difficult about gauging the quality of a school? Most people would probably agree that MIT is superior to Devry.


Next is that you have to market your school. Marketing is totally unrelated to quality. Thousands of products or services have failed to competitors' whose were cooler or better marketed.I don't understand. What exactly is your beef with marketing?

Also, I don't understand how this will IMPROVE quality. Just saying, "If we don't deliver a better product, we're going under" doesn't help too much. You can always lower the price, cut expenses, etc. No improvement in quality is forced.
You don't know anything about buisness do you? You cannot "always lower the price..." All free markets have a tendency to provide what the participants want. How would education be any different? Hell, at the college level, there are some farily high quality universities that do rather well competing against tax subsidized schools.


The schools with the lowest scores are the ones that need more help. This is EXACTLY the opposite of what would happen under the market system.
In a free market, schools that fail to perform would fail altogether. New ownership would probably move in and start over, re-hiring the valuable employees, just like any other buisness.

Sorry. I forgot that Government was the Enemy.

Isn't it a little hypocritical to condemn the government when it helps companies, but laud it when it does nothing to stop them from hurting consumers? I agree, we shouldn't be throwing money at monopolies. But we should stop them from price gouging. See how this position is reversed in Libertarianism? Why?
What is 'price gouging'?

This is the fundamental point where the road forks. I think you need to give the American public its medicine- even if it's screaming and kicking. If they won't make the right choices, the government has to FOR them. I know it sounds tyrannical, but that's why we have government in the first place. It's gotta get done. Otherwise, how do you propose we solve any of these problems?That doesn't just sound tyrannical, it is! :mad: It really is. That's NOT what government is for. That's what your parents are for until you're mature enough to take care of yourself. I can't believe how many little tyrants frequent this forum. It's probably a good thing for you, since there aren't nearly enough guillotines to go around.
;)

When people were subsistence farmers and no women could work as anything else.
What year was that?

What is 'price gouging'?
Price gouging is when another company deliberately drops their prices below the level that others can possibly compete, usually in an attemp to squeeze out competition or attempt to monopolize a market.
This is always followed by huge markups once the competition is out of the way. In certain industries, this practice is currently illegal.
A good example of this maneuver in play is Wal Mart, who has singlehandedly destroyed more small businesses than anyone else in American history.
They offer cheap sweatshop goods made in China that nobody else can offer at the same price here in the States.

What year was that?
I don't know. I made it up.

Man, the problem with you Libertarians is that you can only see the world from your safe, nice, middle/uppermiddle class lifestyle. It really isn't as easy as "well, Im poor now, I think Ill go out and get a job today so I can earn money." We live in a society where it takes money, a considerable amount, in order to make money. Public Eduacation, Federal health care, and Welfare all seek to level the playing field to give everyone an opportunuty to get started. The whole purpose of Socialism is for people to look out for each other's well being. IT would be nice for people to WANT to do this on their own, but if people had that much altruism we would probobly live in a Communist Society. As it is, people feel that it is a dog eat dog world, so the government has to step in and maker sure that eveyone plays nice.

Most libertarians don't know what freedom is. They think no government is freedom.

Man, the problem with you Libertarians is that you can only see the world from your safe, nice, middle/uppermiddle class lifestyle. It really isn't as easy as "well, Im poor now, I think Ill go out and get a job today so I can earn money." We live in a society where it takes money, a considerable amount, in order to make money. Public Eduacation, Federal health care, and Welfare all seek to level the playing field to give everyone an opportunuty to get started. The whole purpose of Socialism is for people to look out for each other's well being. IT would be nice for people to WANT to do this on their own, but if people had that much altruism we would probobly live in a Communist Society. As it is, people feel that it is a dog eat dog world, so the government has to step in and maker sure that eveyone plays nice.

What if I don't want to give my money to some lazy beggar sitting on a street corner? What if I want to pay the homeless man sitting next to him, who's serious about getting back on his feet, to work for me? Why should the government steal my money and give it to the lazy-ass beggar? It's my money. I decide what I want to do with it. Taking it for 'taxes' and giving it out as welfare is theft, pure and simple. It's a sad fact of life that people fail and people die, but it's a fact of life. I'm not responsible for their decisions. If I were, they wouldn't be very free would they?

After 9/11, private citizens gave over two BILLION dollars to victims and to the city of New York. Straight out of their pockets, no government theft involved. Churches and other social philanthropy groups share untold wealth with the poor and needy, no government theft involved.

You mention "federal health care", but I don't know what you are talking about. Are you referring to American, where our semi-private healthcare system is one of the best yet most expensive in the world? Or are you referring to somewhere like Canada where there is healthcare for everyone, paid for by the government, so long as you don't mind waiting a year for a transplant you need in a week, or a month for some special medicine you need now. There's a reason that so many Canadians come down to the States for major surgeries and other medical procedures.

Public Education is a joke. It's so horribly underfunded and understaffed with far too few resources. Even my hometown, with a mean income of $130k/year, has schools packed to 150-180% capacity. One of the two high schools is among the best in the country, but even they are converting closets into classrooms. The solution isn't to pump more and more money into it and hope it gets better. The solution is to come up with a plan that works, and privatization, or even perhaps just localization, is that plan.

Under a Libertarian government, there are rich, there are poor, and there are middle class. The rich live well, the poor suffer, and the middle class subsist. There are, of course, all sorts of shades in between. The reason the rich are rich, and the poor are poor, usually stems from their decisions in life. Andrew Carnegie is a perfect example of why capitalism is great. He rose up, by sheer strength of will, to become one of the richest men in America from being one of the most destitute. He was smart. Like it or not, if you're not smart these days, you very well might not ever be rich. You might even be poor. Or maybe you'll make it in sports. Whatever the case, life isn't fair. Trying to legislate fairness makes everyone a loser.

You concescending A$$HOLES have no idea where I come from, where I've lived or what I do! I grew up in the oppresive environment of 3rd world countries. My father taught ESL at the universities there. Not being an oil company family we shared a farmhouse outside Tripoli, Lybia with 3 other families. The police would always harass my dad as some sort of spy and they alway stopped my mom at their ubiquitous checkpoints to ask for her papers, taking the opportunity to use their powers as an excuse to oggle her in her western clothes. It kept getting worse, with kids throwing rocks at my sister and I , they even tried to kill our dog and they threw my bike down a well shaft. The authorities never did a thing about it 'cause Quaddaffi was about to throw us out and had been denouncing Americans for years. When we were finally thrown out, we went to Suadi Arabia, where my mother and sister had to wear sleeves to their wrists, dresses to their ankles and scarves over their heads even when it was 115 outside. Don't tell me about freedom and oppression, I've seen a few things. I could go on about our time in SE asia or even Mexico. But suffice it to say that I've SEEN what corrupt and powerful governments do to people first hand. Socialism sure does give people equality, they all are equally poor, equally uneducated and equally hopeless about the future, while their leaders rake in the cash their people create through their labors.

So, don't presume to tell me I've never been free, WTF do you think you mean, who the hell do you think you are? Do you think that all pervasive oppressive government is freedom? I assure you it is most certainly not. If you think that the protesters in Tienamin Square were dying for MORE socialist government you have your head frimly embedded in your colon. If you think you have a right to a home, food and an education just for breathing, independent of your efforst to earn it, well I just find that sense that the world owes you something offensive. That costs something, and other people will have to earn the money to pay for it if you wont do it yourself.

As for the crack about the corporations being our parents, you clearly missed the point. I don't want any other parents than the ones I was born with. Governments can force me at gunpoint under threat of imprisonment to do things I wouldn't otherwise do. In the context of my argument, that meant eating vegetables instead of McDonalds. But it could mean doing a job you have no desire or apptitude for. It could mean fighting in a war without adequate supplies or equipment. It could mean suppressing your sexual identity or religious beliefs. It has meant all those and more in the past. You forget that without the assistence of the government, all a corporation can do is ask me to buy their stuff. They can't control my mind, nor can they force me at gunpoint to buy it. If they could, they wouldn't bother with advertising.

If you had, like myself, any experience starting and running your own business, you would realize that the reason it takes money to make money is that at every turn govenment regulation and licensure and taxes add costs and create barriers to entry. You have to hire lawyers and accountants and spend huge amounts of unproductive time filing forms and business plans and the like. That is why jobs are leaving the US.

As for my real parents, I will say that I have seen real freedom exercised by my mother. She came home from Saudi Arabia, having no work experience (did I mention women weren't allowed to work?) and as a forty year old divorcee took a menial jobthat payed poorly. My father paid very little child support and he did so infrequently, and since he was living in Japan, there was little chance of collection action succeeding. So my mom began to work her ass off. She worked full time, went to school at night and raised my sister and I all at once. She got her bachelor's degree, she was then remarried, but continued to work, and when she earned her MBA, she had already risen from receptionist to Plant Manager.

In the following years she has worked her way into the highest executive levels of many of the most prominent businesses in America, and she is now part owner and partner in a large facility in Mexico. She runs a clean, modern facility which is one of the most advanced of it's kind in North America, and the workers are proud and eager to work there. Competition is tight for the jobs they offer, and far from exploiting these people, they are offering them a real chance to succeed and prosper. The business treats them well, with a full service cafeteria, recreation facilities on-site and even an aviary with exotic birds they can enjoy and a pair of Giant McCaws in the lobby. My mother owns a home there and splits her time between Mexico and LA.

My parents own a boat and 3 homes and they paid for my sister and I to go to college. They earned it through hard work and rose from poverty (my stepfather was one of 3 kids born to an enlisted man and a housewife) to the very top of the corporate world. It can be done, and in a capitalist society everyone has the chance. In socialism, the only way to get there is through the Party, oppressing and exploiting all those to whom you deny the chance to succeed. It always puts an elite in power while squashing the poor under their boot. In capitalism, if there is a rich elite and a huge underclass, they have no one to blame but themselves, after all, nothing is stopping them form working their way up, as long as the government stays out of their way, they can make it.

Freedom means the chance to succeed or fail on your merits, without interference from the government, good or bad. Sure, you can get help from family or others, but they have to freely choose to give it to you, you have to demonstrate that you deserve it and that you'll make the most of the investment. It is not a handout stolen from someone else by force and given to you for no other reason than that you have a pulse. Freedom is not entitlement, it is responsibility for one's self. It means you can do what ever you want until it interfere's with someone else's freedom, and it means that whatever you do, you must accept the responsibility for your actions and their effects.

Now, those of you who made silly comments about not being free, or knowing what it means or never having faced poverty or adversity, can take it from this Libertarian...I became what I am because of experiencing all these things, tyrrany, poverty, religious oppression, socialist meddling, excessive regulation and punitive taxes. All these things come at the hand of governments, not corporations. Governments are by nature coercive, and they can be downright cruel with their monopoly on the use of force. That is why they should be as small as possible, laws should be the last resort for changing society, not the first, and we should try to negotiate life without seeing fit to force others to do or think as we do.

Thanks for posting the above. You've got to remember that most people know as much about Libertarianism as they do the last number of Pi.
They are socialists, and nothing will change their minds. I could make gross generalisations as well to suit my point, it's easy.
I too grew up in less than the lap of luxury. Dad died when I was 4, mom couldn't raise us. My Grandmother did a good job, but a pension only goes so far.
We did without things, and never received a handout, never. Garage sale clothes were the norm. These kids (here's a generalization for ya) grew up wearing Nikes.
Now I own a small business. I'm a successful artist (try making it in that field with no trust fund) and work with other businesses every day. I hear stories all the time similar to mine and yours. It's not all about Big Business.
Don't worry about the silly socialists, they're too lazy to do much harm.
Just persue your own happiness.

Psylos, could you explain to this European die-hard Libertarian what freedom really is?


[edit: typo]

Didn't you ever learn about the 19th century in school? Child labor, 14 hour work days, no social saftey net, old people living in poverty and starving? Thats what libertarian society would be like.
The whole legalizing drugs, gay marriage and all that jazz is cool but the whole Darwinian society is pretty brutal.
That's right, without regulation, corporations will hurt everyone.

More and more, it seems to me that a lot of Libertarians are just uber-capitalists who don't want the government to get in the way of them making money, and only care about civil rights because they think it will quell the masses that they're screwing over.
That's Republicans, actually. Their pro-corporate economic plans screw working-class people. They use "moral values" to distract poor people into voting for them.

Well Eroa, you did a fabulous job of responding in a way that totaly proves my point! See the fact that poor people exsist is a bad thing. You might want to read that last sentence twice. Now, you mentioned the tremendous outpour of charity following 9/11. This was a national tragedy that shocked a everyone. And the charity to the families of the victims was well placed. However those 3000+ people are only a fraction of the number of people who die on a yearly basis from the effects of poverty. This isn't merely that poor people dont have cable and a fridge, its that they have no home or food. Usually its not their own choices, but enviormental factors, bad luck, poor eduacation ect. An education that could be better if it public schools got better funding that was used wisely instead of the lions share going to nice white suburban schools. Basically, you are saying that over a third of the Unites States CHOOSES to be poor. Does that sound silly to you becasue it just doesnt sound possible to me, especially since I know a number of homeless people and I'm pretty sure if they asked you, they wouldn't choose to be poor. You are exactly the type of person that taxes and the Government protect people from.

plus, Andew Carnegie was as much luck as skill. A man in the right place at the right time which all you uber-capitalists love to tote out the eglitarian poster child

Proponents of socialism (democrats are guilty of this too) proclaim to the highest mountains that the peoples economic rights are not being satisfied. These proponents say that every person have:

The right to a house,

The right to a job (they say nothing about weather the person is qualified for The job),

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation

The right of business to compete in a market free from unfair competition at home and abroad (I am aware of the contradiction in this statement),

The right to a good education,

The right to protection from economic fears(old age, disability, ect.).

This sounds good and anyone that would disagree with it would be a bad person, right?

Not at all. The aforementioned statements might sound good but they fail to determine where the funds to provide for all of this will come from. In the end this country and many other countries to a greater degree force those in there society that lead productive lives to pay for the existence of others.
It could be taken as far as saying the govt. makes the productive people in the nation sacrifice their happiness so as to buy the happiness of others.

All those "socialist" rights that you mentioned are, in fact, rights (except for protectionism - I don't believe in that) that everyone should have.

Taxes are not nice, but they're a necessary evil. It's immoral for the government to forcefully take money from its citizens, but it is even more immoral to allow corporations to trample on citizens, or to allow them to starve to death through lack of the ability to pay for food. And what makes you think you would be earning much if there were no minimum wage laws (assuming you're not a manager)?

Do you honestly believe that people who cannot work due to disability, do not deserve the support of society? I'm not talking lazy welfare sponges, I'm talking about people who genuinely depend on government handouts to live.

I'd rather die trying to succeed than in the forced labor camp while being "re-educated." In fact, it was truly idiotic to bring up the 19th century as a refutation of Libertarianism, since the 20th century was made a horror of unimaginable proportion by socialists! Give me the Gilded Age over Stalinism any day. Government should be as small as it can be!
The left in the west is nothing like the Soviet Bolsheviks. The vast majority of modern socialists hate Stalin, and would never put people in gulags.

Your equation of socialism = Stalinism is nothing more than a cop-out of the argument.

You cannot even justify your belief in allowing corporations to stamp out our rights.

Now I own a small business. I'm a successful artist (try making it in that field with no trust fund) and work with other businesses every day. I hear stories all the time similar to mine and yours. It's not all about Big Business.
Don't worry about the silly socialists, they're too lazy to do much harm.
Just persue your own happiness.
What kind of art do you do? I myself am an art student.

Not everyone who is to the left of libertarians is necessarily a socialist. The problem people have with libertarianism is that it naively believes that corporations are nice and will respect our rights voluntarily.

The fact, as we have seen in the past, is that corporations can prevent the pursuit of happiness as much as any socialist government.

I love how many of the Libertarians here are copping out of arguing against socialists by demonising them as Stalinists.

I'm not really a socialist - I support the existence of a (moderately regulated) free market - but I realise that socialism is about giving more democracy to the people, not removing it.

I feel that unadulterated capitalism will almost assuredly end in communism, talk about irony.
Or rather, corporatism, where The Company basically owns you. Like in mid-19th century Britain.

People seem to want to tie their ideas to Utopia, and it drives them to believe totally in a system. That is why you see so many people who believe in complete capitalism or complete socialism. What we need is moderation, we need a blend of each, capitalism to ensure progress, socialism to make sure no one is trampled by the progress.
I agree.

So then you pay for cheap schools if you're poorer.
What if you're so poor that you can't afford to send your kids to any of the schools on the market? Or if the only one you could afford is 100 miles away? Do you just settle for your kids not getting any education?

And Libertarians will never suppost Totali-Fascism, thank you very much.
Who is proposing fascism?

Unfortunately, you've missed the part where Libertarianism advocates maximum civil rights, civil liberties and democracy.
Yes, Libertarians and Liberal Socialists agree on social/policial issues. It's the economic matters that they disagree on.

Price gouging is when another company deliberately drops their prices below the level that others can possibly compete, usually in an attemp to squeeze out competition or attempt to monopolize a market.
This is always followed by huge markups once the competition is out of the way. In certain industries, this practice is currently illegal.
A good example of this maneuver in play is Wal Mart, who has singlehandedly destroyed more small businesses than anyone else in American history.
They offer cheap sweatshop goods made in China that nobody else can offer at the same price here in the States.

Walmart has such low prices because of scalability and a brilliant inventory/warehousing system. I admire Walmart, but don't shop there because the people that frequent it depress me.

That's right, without regulation, corporations will hurt everyone.


Completely false. What regulations, if removed, would cause corporations to 'hurt everyone?'

There were chimney sweeps before the 19th century...and child labor was the norm rather than the exception before the industrial revolution. The advent of free market capitalism created enough wealth that child labor was no longer necessary.

As I said before, I think the only government regulations that are needed are those that enfore financial transparency. Although the NYSE has some rules of its own that work pretty well.

What kind of art do you do? I myself am an art student.

I do everything, really. From oils to photography, but I get paid for web design/Flash animation.

I get tired of typing the same things again and again.
So here it is one last time:

Libetarianism does not mean putting an end to taxes and government.

It means different things to many people, as does being a Democrat or Republican to those who choose these parties (talk about not acknowledging a statement? Haven't heard this acknowledged once.)
I am for less government. I am for less taxation and porkbarrel spending.
I am not for kicking the poor or unfortunate in the nads.
I am not for letting people starve.

I think it's funny that these Democrats get so offended by we Libertarians. We're not exactly their biggest threat.
(The Republicans are so not arguing much here)

I think it's funny that these Democrats get so offended by we Libertarians. We're not exactly their biggest threat.
(The Republicans are so not arguing much here)

Well you see you are kind of a centrist in the scale of Libertarians.

Many of your compatriots are for kicking the poor and the unfortunate in the nads and letting them starve. After all, if they took personal responsibility for themselves they wouldn't be in that mess.

As to the Republicans? Well you used to be able to find moderates but these days I am not so sure..

If the demos can't pull their heads of their asses the greens and the liberts will see the rosters get bigger.

Completely false. What regulations, if removed, would cause corporations to 'hurt everyone?'

There were chimney sweeps before the 19th century...and child labor was the norm rather than the exception before the industrial revolution. The advent of free market capitalism created enough wealth that child labor was no longer necessary.

As I said before, I think the only government regulations that are needed are those that enfore financial transparency. Although the NYSE has some rules of its own that work pretty well.
In the UK it took things like the Factory Acts to stop employers using children. The Housing Act was needed to make developers build housing that met basic standards and it took acts of Parliament and prosectutions to enforce equal pay for men and women.

Well you see you are kind of a centrist in the scale of Libertarians.
Actually, it's funny that given any political test, I've always scored as high as you can get toward the Libertarian side.

I don't think that most Libertarians are against helping the poor or downtrodden. They resent the government stealing from them to help the poor.
Said it before: Why do people think that the government makes a good Robin Hood?
Do they know who the bad guy was in the fable?

Also, why was it that when I needed help while attending college, I was turned down for any kind of help because of the color of my skin and lack of illegitimate children?
I actually had a job and was trying to better my future. Seriously, I was told that because I was white and had no children, I wasn't eligible for any handouts the government had to offer.
You know who did help me out and kept the roof over my head for three months while I struggled to get over that hump in my life?
The same Churches I resented. Not our kind, caring government fat with our tax dollars.
WHY?

WHY?
Because you live in a country that doesn't see education as the business of the state so other people have to do their best to make up for it. The government doesn't have to be the bad guy, it depends who we elect.

No offense, but this is kinda like one of those Queen or PM conversations. My respnses are aimed directly at my fellow Americans, but thanks for the input.

In the UK it took things like the Factory Acts to stop employers using children. The Housing Act was needed to make developers build housing that met basic standards and it took acts of Parliament and prosectutions to enforce equal pay for men and women.

That has nothing to do with the age old argument that capitalism is somehow responsible for things like child labor.

In the US, child labor was on the decline long before any labor laws were created. As wages naturally increased it became less necessary for children to work.

No offense, but this is kinda like one of those Queen or PM conversations. My respnses are aimed directly at my fellow Americans, but thanks for the input.


That has nothing to do with the age old argument that capitalism is somehow responsible for things like child labor.

I thought this was a thread about the political philosophy of Libertarianism. Whilst that is very US I didn't realise you have to be a US citizen to take part or that uncomfortable answers can be dismissed so easily. I'll leave you lot to go in ever decreasing cirlces then. :rolleyes:

I thought this was a thread about the political philosophy of Libertarianism. Whilst that is very US I didn't realise you have to be a US citizen to take part or that uncomfortable answers can be dismissed so easily. I'll leave you lot to go in ever decreasing cirlces then. :rolleyes:

My point is that the corporate world did not create child labor. Nor would there be child labor in industrialised nations with or without said legislature.

Although I must say I don't see anything wrong with allowing a 15 year old to drop out of school and head to the factory if that is what he/she wants to do.

When did I say only Americans can participate?

My point is that the corporate world did not create child labor. Nor would there be child labor in industrialised nations with or without said legislature.

What changes to the economy and the industries occurred so that child labor was not profitable?

What changes to the economy and the industries occurred so that child labor was not profitable?

A variety of factors...

- Children are pretty much worthless. How many eight year olds would it take to paint your house? And how good a job would they do? An adult can mine a heck of a lot more coal than half a dozen ten year olds.

- Wage increases; families could support themselves while sending their kids to school instead of the factory.

"The emancipators and benefactors of those children were not legislators or factory inspectors, but manufacturers and financiers. Their efforts and investments in machinery led to a rise in real wages, to a growing abundance of goods at lower prices, and to an incomparable improvement in the general standard of living."

- Robert Hessen, The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children

A variety of factors...

- Children are pretty much worthless. How many eight year olds would it take to paint your house? And how good a job would they do? An adult can mine a heck of a lot more coal than half a dozen ten year olds.

- Wage increases; families could support themselves while sending their kids to school instead of the factory.

"The emancipators and benefactors of those children were not legislators or factory inspectors, but manufacturers and financiers. Their efforts and investments in machinery led to a rise in real wages, to a growing abundance of goods at lower prices, and to an incomparable improvement in the general standard of living."

- Robert Hessen, The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children

That is fine, I can see your points and I can agree with you.

However, I see Libertarian failings in an economic sense, rather than a human rights sense.

That is fine, I can see your points and I can agree with you.

However, I see Libertarian failings in an economic sense, rather than a human rights sense.

You believe that the government must interfere with business for economic success? In which way exactly? Keep in mind, libertarians are not in favor letting companies get away with illegal activities. For example, if there is cyanide in your soup, you should be able to file a suit.

And remember, as we have said before, all monopolies have been created because of government interference.

And remember, as we have said before, all monopolies have been created because of government interference.

You are going to have to explain that one to me.

I believe that businesses will always try to undermine competition. That is the point of business. Eventually a few companies will succeed.

You are going to have to explain that one to me.

I believe that businesses will always try to undermine competition. That is the point of business. Eventually a few companies will succeed.

First, let's define a coercive monopoly. It is the exclusive control to a given field of production which is closed to competition and outside the laws of supply and demand.

This implies the impossibility of competition, which cannot happen in a free market. The only way to get rid of competition is through law. The railroads were a coercive monopoly, the government gave them exclusive rights to land and materials. Utilities companies are coercive monopolies; the government forbids the entry of competitors. Ford had what could be considered a monopoly, but it was neither coercive nor long lasting.

Many have tried to corner the market without govt aid. All have failed. As soon as prices are set above the natural level, competition arises. People would flock to the market to reap the rewards of high profit, with virtually no risk.

There can be non-coercive monopolies in the free market. As I've pointed out before, small towns are dominated by monopolies. There is only one place to get christmas trees in my town - it is effectively a monopoly. If a company can dominate the market within the laws of supply and demand, more power to them.

It is even more difficult to create monopolies today, because of the availability to purchase goods from companies that don't exist nearby (such as amazon, staples.com, etc).

First, let's define a coercive monopoly. It is the exclusive control to a given field of production which is closed to competition and outside the laws of supply and demand.

This implies the impossibility of competition, which cannot happen in a free market. The only way to get rid of competition is through law. The railroads were a coercive monopoly, the government gave them exclusive rights to land and materials. Utilities companies are coercive monopolies; the government forbids the entry of competitors. Ford had what could be considered a monopoly, but it was neither coercive nor long lasting.

Many have tried to corner the market without govt aid. All have failed. As soon as prices are set above the natural level, competition arises. People would flock to the market to reap the rewards of high profit, with virtually no risk.

There can be non-coercive monopolies in the free market. As I've pointed out before, small towns are dominated by monopolies. There is only one place to get christmas trees in my town - it is effectively a monopoly. If a company can dominate the market within the laws of supply and demand, more power to them.

It is even more difficult to create monopolies today, because of the availability to purchase goods from companies that don't exist nearby (such as amazon, staples.com, etc).

There will always be competition, even in a monopoly dominated market, I will give you that. However, the monopolies in these markets are the 1000lb gorilla, you can get into a fight with them, but they are generally going to win. Through brand name marketing, economies of scale, established routes of distribution, and established sources of financing, the monopoly has an insurmountable advantage over the small start up business.

And what stops though retailers from forming online monopolies? I think Wal-Mart has shown that retail monopolies are more than possible.

There will always be competition, even in a monopoly dominated market, I will give you that. However, the monopolies in these markets are the 1000lb gorilla, you can get into a fight with them, but they are generally going to win. Through brand name marketing, economies of scale, established routes of distribution, and established sources of financing, the monopoly has an insurmountable advantage over the small start up business.

And what stops though retailers from forming online monopolies? I think Wal-Mart has shown that retail monopolies are more than possible.

You do have a point that more established enterprises with existing infrastructures have a distinct advantage. However, they are still offering goods at a lower price than any competitor could, thus making their monopoly the result of efficiencies rather than coercion.

Walmart is certainly no monopoly. They sell goods that can be purchased from a number of other sources.

Keep in mind that all of the 'monopolies' were once small start-ups. The giant IBM could do nothing to stop the onslaught of insignificant Gates during the 1980s.

You believe that the government must interfere with business for economic success? In which way exactly? Keep in mind, libertarians are not in favor letting companies get away with illegal activities. For example, if there is cyanide in your soup, you should be able to file a suit.

At the very least. In such a case, criminal charges may be warrented... unless of course the soups is the "assisted suicide special"

There will always be competition, even in a monopoly dominated market, I will give you that. However, the monopolies in these markets are the 1000lb gorilla, you can get into a fight with them, but they are generally going to win. Through brand name marketing, economies of scale, established routes of distribution, and established sources of financing, the monopoly has an insurmountable advantage over the small start up business.

And what stops though retailers from forming online monopolies? I think Wal-Mart has shown that retail monopolies are more than possible.
Wal-Mart is hardly a monopoly. There are many discount retailers. Wal-Mart is simply the biggest. They work very hard to maintain that spot. I spent half a year driving truck, and I've seen how they operate their distribution centers. They run a tight ship. They work very hard to keep prices down. Still, there are not necessarily the cheapest place in town, and they don't sell anything you can't get somewhere else.

I shop at a Wal-Mart Supercenter because the prices are reliably low, especially on food, and they carry lots of inventory. However, if cost was less important to me, and hopefully that will be the case within a few years, I would try and stay away. Especially from the Supercenters.

I don't know. I made it up.
:eek: You're kidding!

A Libertarian State would have to become polyandric or gay.
If you don't believe me... just visit a Libertarian get-together.
It's a 99% stag-party.

A Libertarian State would have to become polyandric or gay.
If you don't believe me... just visit a Libertarian get-together.
It's a 99% stag-party.
You are a miserable idiot. I've been to plenty (and will be attending Florida's LP convention in Febuary). This isn't the case, you're thinking of the Republicans.

:eek: You're kidding!
There's nothing funny about prostitution.

[QUOTE=Davistania]This is the fundamental point where the road forks. I think you need to give the American public its medicine- even if it's screaming and kicking. If they won't make the right choices, the government has to FOR them. I know it sounds tyrannical, but that's why we have government in the first place. It's gotta get done. Otherwise, how do you propose we solve any of these problems?{/QUOTE]
That doesn't just sound tyrannical, it is! :mad: It really is. That's NOT what government is for. That's what your parents are for until you're mature enough to take care of yourself. I can't believe how many little tyrants frequent this forum. It's probably a good thing for you, since there aren't nearly enough guillotines to go around.
;)So you'd rather choose a failed society than a successful one? I'm no Commie. Capitalism is great. It does have some protocol and tendencies that need to be sorted out. That's what government CAN do. And if we CAN solve a problem, why not? How can you just sit on your behind and not stick your finger in the levee?

Libertarianism-The belief that people without money deserve to starve and die.

OR

The belief that the Law of Gravity is coercive and should therefore be repealed

Seriously folks, it's anarchism

A Libertarian State would have to become polyandric or gay.
If you don't believe me... just visit a Libertarian get-together.
It's a 99% stag-party.
It's mostly made up of paranoid college kids who smoke several substances simultaneously

Libertarianism-The belief that people without money deserve to starve and die.

OR

The belief that the Law of Gravity is coercive and should therefore be repealed

Seriously folks, it's anarchism

Nice straw man you've built yourself there.

Nice straw man you've built yourself there.Ok, so you caught me on my cynical side. But seriously, it's not that short of anarchy!