NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, so I couldn't resist using the Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world%2C_unite%21) quote. Ehem.

You: the classical liberal state, with stunning individual property rights and sexy, laissez faire policies. Me: the handsome anarchy with a passion for free markets and personal liberties. We met at a free trade convention. We exchanged a few anti-statist jokes. I found myself strangely attracted to your small, limited government and shapely economy. I turned around for a moment and then you were gone. I want to lift your trade barriers and develop better relations.
;) I'd like to get to know some of the more libertarian people on NationStates, particularly anarchocapitalists like myself. I thought it would be fun to get some like-minded individuals together to bounce ideas off one another, discuss recent events, talk economics and engage in, you know, general preaching to the choir. So if you feel like you're in support of "sexy, laissez faire policies," post on here! Maybe we'll even get a decent, intelligent conversation going (I understand that's a rarity on these liberal-ridden forums xP)

There are dozens of libertarians here, but I don't know of many anarcho-capitalists.
Welcome to General, the edge of insanity.

Once I took a college course,
titled "intro to philosophy".
The book was put together by the 2 heads of the department.

Under the topic of "anarchy" (or was it "anarchism"?),
they had an article on the political philosophy
Libertarianism.

I found this to be rather offensive.
To me, Libertarianism, as I understood it,
was basically a philosophy or party (that was just starting
in this town) that was an apologist for robber barons.

They did not touch one bit on the issue of corporations.
Their idea of no (or much less) government was just
to let corporations be.
To me, I said, still say, why don't we eliminate corporations
all together.
Corporations are, after all, a legal entity.
They exist ONLY via a state granted license, i.e. charter.

So, I did not, and do not believe that Libertarianism
is anarchy or anarchism.
Certainly not while they do not come out against corporations.

Wooo libertarianism!

libertarians LOL

you're on the INTERNET
stealing your information, sending to fbi
have a nice day sirz

Um its a legal political party you know...

OFF COURSE

BUT ZEES INTARNET CONTAINZ MENNY PEOPLES WHO VOULD USE DEES MEEDIUM FOR EEVIL. ONE VOULD SAY DAT DEE EENTARNET EES THE MOST LEEBERTARIAN PLACE IN EXISSTENCE, SEEING AS HOW EET IS THE LEEST REGULATED MEEDIUM, BUT THE POTENTIALL FOR ABUSE OF CEEVIL RIGHTS IS GREAT

its all porn and credit card fraud man live with it

OFF COURSE

BUT ZEES INTARNET CONTAINZ MENNY PEOPLES WHO VOULD USE DEES MEEDIUM FOR EEVIL. ONE VOULD SAY DAT DEE EENTARNET EES THE MOST LEEBERTARIAN PLACE IN EXISSTENCE, SEEING AS HOW EET IS THE LEEST REGULATED MEEDIUM, BUT THE POTENTIALL FOR ABUSE OF CEEVIL RIGHTS IS GREAT

its all porn and credit card fraud man live with it

Honestly, WTF?

*sigh* Here we go.... I'd really like to hear from people actually interested in discussion. I would rather this not turn into an argument for/against libertarianism, or whether anarchocapitalism is anarchism, but I'll briefly clarify anyway. Shingogogol, libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarianism is, more or less, limiting government to protecting individual's basic rights (life, liberty, property). Anarchocapitalism, in a nutshell, says all government is bad and that even public goods like laws and courts can be supplied by the private sector (see David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom for an example of how this could be done). Anarchocapitalism is therefore taking libertarianism to the extreme. It's also technically "anarchism" because it opposes any form of government (i.e. monopoly on force). Anarchists, however, have traditionally been communists and, thus, the modern Anarchist movement opposes both government and capitalism. That's why we make the distinction between anarchocapitalism and anarchism -- we'd hate to hurt their feelings.

Lousy libertarians. You're always so helpful when it comes to supporting sensible decisions about why we shouldn't legislate morality, but then you have to ruin it by going on about how the free market's apparently so awesome :D

Lousy libertarians. You're always so helpful when it comes to supporting sensible decisions about why we shouldn't legislate morality, but then you have to ruin it by going on about how the free market's apparently so awesome :D

Don't even get me started :P Consider that something like welfare is also a form of legislating morality. Also, while I don't think anyone should blindly accept the free market as the answer in all cases, government intervention has proven to be unfair, wasteful, and disproportionately more beneficial to the elected officials than their constituents time and time again (take, for example, minimum wage laws).

I'd like to get to know some of the more libertarian people on NationStates, particularly anarchocapitalists like myself. I thought it would be fun to get some like-minded individuals together to bounce ideas off one another, discuss recent events, talk economics and engage in, you know, general preaching to the choir.


Check out "libertarian." (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=libertarian)

Oh, and "anarcho" anything is impossible. :D

Check out "libertarian." (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=libertarian)

Oh, and "anarcho" anything is impossible. :D

I know about the region; I was just hoping to get an actual discussion on the boards going. It's frustrating trying to hold a conversation in a region's civil headquarters. Oh, and please elucidate on your last statement. ^^

How would a Libertarian or libertarian explain
the difference between these 2 laws?

1) a law making it illegal to kill someone, say with a gun;

2) a law making it illegal to kill someone, via lead or mercury poisoning, i.e. environmental regulation on legal entities that
are called corporations.

So, I did not, and do not believe that Libertarianism
is anarchy or anarchism.
Certainly not while they do not come out against corporations.

"We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business.

...

In order to achieve a free economy, in which government victimizes no one for the benefit of any other, we oppose all government subsidies to business, labor, education, agriculture, science, broadcasting, the arts, sports, or any other special interest. In particular, we condemn any effort to forge an alliance between government and business under the guise of "reindustrialization" or "industrial policy." Relief or exemption from taxation or from any other involuntary government intervention, however, should not be considered a subsidy."

-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml )

All of these are policies that any good corporation would oppose. :D

Alright, so I couldn't resist using the Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world%2C_unite%21) quote. Ehem.


;) I'd like to get to know some of the more libertarian people on NationStates, particularly anarchocapitalists like myself. I thought it would be fun to get some like-minded individuals together to bounce ideas off one another, discuss recent events, talk economics and engage in, you know, general preaching to the choir. So if you feel like you're in support of "sexy, laissez faire policies," post on here! Maybe we'll even get a decent, intelligent conversation going (I understand that's a rarity on these liberal-ridden forums xP)

Pardon me? You ARE a liberal! don't let these anticapitalists and socialists steal the term "liberal." Increasing state power at the cost of liberty is NOT truly liberal. Laissez faire is liberal!

But anyway, you won't really get a casual and intelligent conversation going here. This is NS. There are already anticapitalists preparing long Marxist diatribes about teh evil corporate overlords. You see freedom. They see:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/saintmaggot/CapitaliztOverlord.jpg

anarchism and communism are not the same thing.



my thoughts on the topic of anarchism were that
corporations and such (hu)man made institutions that
propagated the artificially maintained concept of
heirarchy had to go.

How could we maintain a non-existence of gov't?
Wouldn't some wealthy person just hire a bunch
of thugs thus forming a de facto gov't?

With that (and perhaps input from else where) I thought
we'd have to have a more equitable division of the planet's wealth.
Even now there's no way we'd allow one person to "own"
the entire or even 1/2 the planet. Or maybe we would?
They'd be like kings. Uuuuup. de facto gov't again.
Those with the gold make the rules after all, says both
capitalism & communism.

Workers should own and operate, democratically,
their work place. Why not elect our own bosses?


Of course there are those out
there who claim people are not smart enough to run things.
Those people also do not believe in democracy.

How would a Libertarian or libertarian explain
the difference between these 2 laws?

1) a law making it illegal to kill someone, say with a gun;

2) a law making it illegal to kill someone, via lead or mercury poisoning, i.e. environmental regulation on legal entities that
are called corporations.

"Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government policies that separate liability from property. Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false concept of "public property," block privatization of the use of the environment and hence block resolution of controversies over resource use. We condemn the EPA's Superfund whose taxing powers are used to penalize all chemical firms, regardless of their conduct. Such clean-ups are a subsidy of irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones.

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property."

-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml )

Your question should be directed to the government bureaucracies that make excuses for corporations. :)

There are already anticapitalists preparing long Marxist diatribes about teh evil corporate overlords. You see freedom. [/IMG]


anti-corporate is not Marxist. sorry.
corporate does not even mean 'business'.
a corporation is a legal entity and exists only from
a license from one of the 50 states.

is that long enough for you?

Oh, and please elucidate on your last statement. ^^

I understand "anarchism" to be the elimination of all social hierarchy; this is simply impossible. The group with the most influence (and/or guns) will always rise to the top. Simple fact of life. Besides, social hierarchy exists in all areas of human society, not just government. Private sector businesses and corporations are social hierarchies, just like government. The key difference between the "private" and "public" sectors is not the elimination of arbitrary authority; arbitrary authority exists and flourishes in each. The difference is that in the "private" sector, the arbitrary authorities are more decentralized and must compete with each other.

"Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government policies that separate liability from property. Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false concept of "public property," block privatization of the use of the environment and hence block resolution of controversies over resource use. We condemn the EPA's Superfund whose taxing powers are used to penalize all chemical firms, regardless of their conduct. Such clean-ups are a subsidy of irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones.

Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml )

Your question should be directed to the government bureaucracies that make excuses for corporations. :)



I remember now, regulation of corporations are exactly what
the corporations wanted. Instead of facing the real threat
of having their corporate charter revoked - as is our right
as sovereign people.

I'm not so sure on this only pollution of private property stuff.
After all, NO ONE owns the air.
And only a sick person (truly) bent on enslaving all of humanity
would try it. Come to think of it, water cannot be owned either.
Water is needed for the very essence of life.
No, only sick bastards would try to control other people.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/saintmaggot/CapitaliztOverlord.jpg



Here's some more accurate pics of how corporations in our
society.

http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/personhood.jpg

http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/umbrella.jpg



especially this great injustice
http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/black_quote.jpg

I remember now, regulation of corporations are exactly what
the corporations wanted.


Considering that government is the main conduit by which corporations exert their political control, yes, bigger stronger government is exactly what the corporations what. Calling for bigger government to control corporations is, in the long run, painting a target on one's chest and handing the corporations a bow and arrow. (EDIT: as soon as the next corporate welfare politician is elected, that increased power will be turned against you and the damage will be that much greater.)

But, I'm still not going to let an institution,
that has the profit motive as the reason for
its existence written in its "dna", to police
themselves when it comes to pollution controls.

Corporations are different from regular businesses.
As far as I am concerned we can have different
laws for them both.
We can have regulations when one gets a corporate
license, just as we have certain regulations for
a drivers license. Maybe we shouldn't have that though...?
Getting a corporate charter is a privelage, not a right.


Perhaps we, in our individual states,
should just revoke all corporations that were incorporated
in our home states.
Or just via our legislatures eliminate these licenses.
No more privalege of legal limited liability.
You want to do something, then do it.
Just don't go crawling to the nanny-state looking for
legal shielding.

But, I'm still not going to let an institution,
that has the profit motive as the reason for
its existence written in its "dna", to police
themselves when it comes to pollution controls.


Who said corporations should (edit: only be policed by) themselves? Libertarians what to get corporate-controlled government out of the way so that corporations will be held responsible for their actions.

I should stop deceiving myself into thinking posts like these won't inevitably turn into debates *sigh*

How would a Libertarian or libertarian explain
the difference between these 2 laws?

1) a law making it illegal to kill someone, say with a gun;

2) a law making it illegal to kill someone, via lead or mercury poisoning, i.e. environmental regulation on legal entities that
are called corporations.

Well, Dissonant did a decent job. I'll add my two cents for what it's worth.

A Libertarian might argue that the latter law is not necessary because consumer choice, combined with private ownership of property, would perform the same role as a government regulation. Let's say Joe owns a stream and sells his water (for simplicity's sake, we'll say directly to the public). A nearby factory dumps waste into Joe's stream. Joe can sell the toxic water, but his sales will drop once consumers learn that his water is contaminated. He'll also (arguably) be liable for any injuries or deaths because he comitted fraud. Because the factory violated his property rights, he can sue them for damages (whatever it takes to restore the quality of his stream + any loss of sales he experienced as a result of therr actions). Selling the contaminated water is against Joe's best interest, and contaminating the water is against the factory's interest.

Two more points: (1) Even in that simple scenario, some consumers can still get hurt. BUT, don't think that in the case of government regulation, the same isn't true. Despite the laws that are in place, incidents still occur. In fact, incidents that result in harm to the consumer are more likely in the government regulation scenario because the politicians who write the laws and oversee the regulatory agencies often come under the influence of the industries they're supposed to be regulating (via campaign donations and the like). (2) I openly admit there are still some issues with air pollution, primarily because it is so difficult to establish causation in cases where a person suffers as a result of poor air quality. But, again, government regulation is not the best solution.

Shingogogol, with regards to your objections to anarchism, I again seriously recommend David Friedman's book. I'd also recommend taking a basic economics course before you start making leaps of logic like anarchocapitalism => "one person [owning] the entire or even 1/2 the planet." Nice touch with the quotes around "own." You sound like you're on the verge of raving. Consider that individuals earn wealth only by providing labor or goods that are desired by others. Capitalism does not necessarily mean wealth has to be concentrated in a select few individuals.Consider that individuals earn wealth only by providing labor or goods that are desired by others. Capitalism does not necessarily mean wealth has to be concentrated in a select few individuals. In my opinion this is mostly the result of cultural values. As far as your mantra on corporations, I am not opposed to syndicates, where employees control the company and elect their management. I've considered going to Argentina to study how companies like that operate (I suspect they are probably much more efficient due to less conflicts of interest). And with government protecting corporations, as your political cartoons illustrate, I'm totally with you. I don't remember ever mentioning I am pro-business. Libertarianism aims to end all protectionism and subsidies to any and all business. In a purely libertarian society, with complete separation of "business and state," corporations could only exist through private contracts and would most likely not enjoy the same protections as they do now.

To reiterate, since both Dissonant and myself more or less agree with you on the corporation question (although I speak only for myself), you're wrestling with a strawman, Shingogogol. And I still fail to see why you're posting on a thread I opened for the purpose of getting in touch with other Libertarians, not to defend my political views.

Here's some more accurate pics of how corporations in our
society.

http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/personhood.jpg

http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/umbrella.jpg



especially this great injustice
http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/black_quote.jpg

Nah. Sorry. I like my picture better. I think the scaly green feet and horns represent the anticapitalist view best.

Libertarianism is flawed in three ways:
1. It expects people to be able to obtain perfect information.
2. It does not acknowledge that money is tantamount to power even without government intervention.
3. It does not acknowledge that some things done cannot be made right by legal action no matter what the penalty is.

An example:
A corporation dumps toxic materials onto their own property.
Due to groundwater effects, the farmer's field a half kilometre away starts to die, but the effects become noticable only after a year or two.
In the meantime, the corporation has closed up shop and its owner taken his profits and headed elsewhere.
First, how does the farmer find out where the toxic materials came from?
Second, even if he does, who does he sue?
Third even if he does sue, he's a broke farmer, he can't afford a decent lawyer to press his case.

The typical libertarian answer to this is that the farmer should have had insurance. So let's consider the results on the society of this assertion. Because there are no environmental protections, and because environmental damage is so difficult to determine exactly who caused it, insurance companies will often be left holding the bag in these types of cases. This means that in order to be able to offer this type of insurance, the insurance company must charge extremely high premiums. These premiums in turn affect the profitability of farming, which affect the cost to the consumer, so sooner or later, the average citizen ends up paying for it either way.

And of course let's not forget that the land is still ruined and will not be producing food. So the cost for the average consumer goes up again. As for the CEO who did all this? Well, assuming he can be found, it somehow needs to be proven that he did it, or knew of it, and that it wasn't the company before him, or the person who bought the land after. Realistically, he gets away with no penalty because nothing can really be proven.

With no environmental protection, the citizens' money, in essence, pays for the crooked CEO to amass the profits he did by performing damaging actions. With environmental protections, the citizens' money, in essence, pays (hopefully) to ensure the crooked CEO is caught before damage is done.

It's TANSTAAFL people. I still don't know why Libertarians think it doesn't apply to them. Sooner or later we all pay for each others actions. All we get to choose is whether we pay to stop damage from being done, or to clean up after it is done.

I'm a libertarian, classical liberal, whatever. I have anarchocapitalist leanings. I am against all coercive and involuntary taxes and I support the right of individuals to engage in private and mutual contracts - sexual, economic or otherwise. I'm a free trader and opposed to all government subsidies. I happen to be pro-life (http://www.l4l.org/) since I see abortion from a libertarian, not religious, perspective. I am for drug legalization. I'm against the draft. I'm not an anarchist, but this website surely seems to think so! Even though I'm not religious, I'm what I'd characterize as a deist or theistic agnostic. I'm not Christian, but I respect Christian teachings. I am most certainly not a geo-libertarian; I love property rights.

My favorite philosopher is John Locke--but of course, a staple for any committed libertarian--and right now I'm reading Democracy in America by Tocqueville. I also like Thomas Paine.

You can telegram me if you think we have anything in common. It's nice to meet like-minded individuals.

Also, check out the Neo-Libertarian link in my signature. The URL goes to a quiz my friend created. If you haven't yet, check out the Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/).

Lousy libertarians. You're always so helpful when it comes to supporting sensible decisions about why we shouldn't legislate morality, but then you have to ruin it by going on about how the free market's apparently so awesome :D

Lousy lefties. You're always so helpful when it comes to supporting sensible decisions about why we should allow people to be free in their personal and social decisions, but then you get inconsistent and say that a person's economic decisions shouldn't be free.

Lousy lefties. You're always so helpful when it comes to supporting sensible decisions about why we should allow people to be free in their personal and social decisions, but then you get inconsistent and say that a person's economic decisions shouldn't be free.



Don't confuse "a person's economic decisions" with a corporation,
as I find quite common with Libertarians just parroting the mainstream
corporate politicians line/ideology that tries to make us think that
a corporation and a regular business are the same thing.

How would a Libertarian or libertarian explain
the difference between these 2 laws?

1) a law making it illegal to kill someone, say with a gun;

2) a law making it illegal to kill someone, via lead or mercury poisoning, i.e. environmental regulation on legal entities that
are called corporations.

There is no difference between the two if, in situation 2, the corporations are full in disclosing the toxic materials that are existent, and their actions do not infringe unlawfully on other's private property or public property.

I guess you can draw lines between the intent of the two.

Don't confuse "a person's economic decisions" with a corporation,
as I find quite common with Libertarians just parroting the mainstream
corporate politicians line/ideology that tries to make us think that
a corporation and a regular business are the same thing.

They are the same and should be treated the same. The only difference between the two is in how widely the ownership is distributed. A corporation is given legal entity because it is infeasible for 50,000 shareholder's to adequately maintain their legal interest in the business.

Libertarianism is flawed in three ways:
1. It expects people to be able to obtain perfect information.
2. It does not acknowledge that money is tantamount to power even without government intervention.
3. It does not acknowledge that some things done cannot be made right by legal action no matter what the penalty is.

That's an excellent assesment of the limitations of self-regulation Waterkeep.

In an increasingly complex and technologically advanced world, it is difficult to obtain and make sense of information. This is counter-intuitive to a certain degree, the internet is supposed to fill the gap between the layperson and the professional.

Also, I would add another flaw:

4) The free-market will efficiently adjust price and quantity of a good or service in responce to demand and supply conditions. Those conditions can be affected by social and enviromental ills, such as pollution, but there is no guarantee that the market will respond in such a way, in a timely fashion, as to correct these ills. React to them yes, correct them, not necesserily.

4) The free-market will efficiently adjust price and quantity of a good or service in responce to demand and supply conditions. Those conditions can be affected by social and enviromental ills, such as pollution, but there is no guarantee that the market will respond in such a way, in a timely fashion, as to correct these ills. React to them yes, correct them, not necesserily.

It depends on what you mean by "correct." The market through the selfish motivation of the people, always adjusts to create the optimum utility to the people. So in some sense of the word, the market will "correct" the situation, even if it is just making the best out of a situation.

You are right, the word correct is too vague in this context.

When I say correct, I mean remedy the specific social or enviromental ill.

Take, for example, the use of oil as fuel. Now it can be argued that we will use it until the point that it is no longer cost-effective and at that point we will develop alternate means of powering industry, transporation, recreation, etc. While theoretically that holds true, we do not know if, at that time, we would have reached a point of no return. Perhaps even if oil is too costly to use, we may not be able to develop alternate sources of energy and implement them very quickly. At that time we may have burned up so much oil as to cause serious enviromental damage that cannot be undone.

The market 'corrects' itself in terms of price and quantity in responce to real world conditions, but it doesn't 'correct' real world conditions.

You are right, the word correct is too vague in this context.

When I say correct, I mean remedy the specific social or enviromental ill.

Take, for example, the use of oil as fuel. Now it can be argued that we will use it until the point that it is no longer cost-effective and at that point we will develop alternate means of powering industry, transporation, recreation, etc. While theoretically that holds true, we do not know if, at that time, we would have reached a point of no return. Perhaps even if oil is too costly to use, we may not be able to develop alternate sources of energy and implement them very quickly. At that time we may have burned up so much oil as to cause serious enviromental damage that cannot be undone.

The market 'corrects' itself in terms of price and quantity in responce to real world conditions, but it doesn't 'correct' real world conditions.

Oil will continue to get more and more expensive until the various other inefficient or expensive forms will become cheaper, and then those will become cheaper and cheaper as competition increases.

But you are correct that the free market does not specifically account for the social and economic reprecusions of its movements, and there could be some very serious problems that arise from the growing scarcity of oil. However, the current level of government interference with oil trade is only hurting the matter.

Maybe we'll even get a decent, intelligent conversation going (I understand that's a rarity on these liberal-ridden forums xP) Anarcho-Capitalism is liberalism, j00 ph00lz0rz! Proposed as Liberalism by John Locke and refined by Adam Smith.

Incidentally, I don't really have anything to add here, as my country experience Maggy Thatcher. Bye.

Oil will continue to get more and more expensive until the various other inefficient or expensive forms will become cheaper, and then those will become cheaper and cheaper as competition increases.

Of course, I don't think I wrote anything to the contrary, but I also wasn't very specific.

But you are correct that the free market does not specifically account for the social and economic reprecusions of its movements, and there could be some very serious problems that arise from the growing scarcity of oil.

Right, that is all I was getting at.

However, the current level of government interference with oil trade is only hurting the matter.

Fair enough. I was only using oil as a hypothetical because it is easy to relate to and has a number of non-economic concerns that branch off of it.

Fair enough. I was only using oil as a hypothetical because it is easy to relate to and has a number of non-economic concerns that branch off of it.

And I was just agreeing with you in my long winded way.