Libertarian

Post Reply New Topic

Thats not why I 'complain.' I think rich people are another matter and the fact of the matter is, I'm against taxing the rich 'more' so where do I fall in? Most libertarians support the 'no tax' argument. The only people who complain about 'rich people' are 'poor people' or people who need someone to 'blame.'

As well, no one would be forced to buy anything. An open market would provide alternatives. What you describe exists more in todays world because certain 'restrictions' that 'rich companies FAVOR' hinder 'smaller companies' from ever getting started. In other words, the open market, in theory, is supposed to prevent 'monopoly' by allowing more business to start. Don't like someones products? Well, chances are YOU arent the only one and as a customer, you have more choice then you think you do.



A misunderstanding of an open market. They dont control you, you control them! Dont buy their products. Dude, if they are screwing us over, then chances are, you're not alone. Its supply and demand and if people 'demand' cheaper products from a company then someone who wants to make money sees a market and jumps in potentially "rescueing" you from your above scenario. Whats funny is that the government business laws, in place today, do more to prevent competition then create it. What you are 'afraid' of exists TODAY.



Supply and demand. Suppose in a free society, you have 1 milk company and they jack their prices up. What happens? Well, everyone suffers with it. You think EVERYONE is going to sit there and continue to pay high prices? As well, do you think entrepreneurs are going to walk by that? Hell no! All they have to do is offer milk at a slightly cheaper price then WAM, he has ALL the business, just like that. Then, another company can do the same. Its called 'competition' and, essentially, that is what you seem to fear.

If that milk monopoly has enough power, and a mercanary army, then yes, people WILL have to keep paying high prices.

"In other words, the open market, in theory, is supposed to prevent 'monopoly' by allowing more business to start."

Well, that's an easily disproved theory. The only reason Microsoft isn't a monopoly is because of the government stepping in.

Capitalism starts out with a lot of little companies. As they start expanding, they begin to eat each other until there's only a few....or just one. When the big companies gain power, they're so far ahead, that it makes it near impossible for small businesses to expand. The big businesses can EASILY supply a product at a slightly lower price and drive the small business out in a snap. A monopoly can drop prices whenever they want to to quickly kill any new "threat" to them...aka competition.
In competition there's always a winner...

Army? What Army? Who has an army now and why would a libertarian society all of a sudden spawn armies? Am I missing something here? Why is 'law' gone, now?



Ever heard of a Mac? You don't like Microsoft, go buy a Mac. ALL of us can go buy a Mac, right now, and drive Microsoft out of business but we don't. We run our companies from it, we run our lives from it, etc. Whose fault is it that we let Microsoft get so big? All of ours. However, are they jacking prices up on everything? Are they doing anything that any other software company isn't?



Right, so tell me when Walmart is going to jack their prices up (latest commercial is that they lowered it)? Seems to me like they have a strangle hold on the market. They run everyone out of business, all those small stores, but guess what? 'You' (generally speaking) ARE NOT helping the situation because you, yourself, probably run Microsoft products, you probably shop at large 'retailers' and ignore those small shops. You BLAME them but I doubt you push yourself to shop at 'variety' stores versus 'megamart' or something. Lets face it, Walmart gets GREAT deals on companies products because they buy it in huge bulk. That savings is passed on to you. I'll wait until they jack prices up which doesnt seem to be happening. Today its walmart, tomorrow its some other company. I was buying products at 'Woolco' before Walmart, who knows whats next.

If you theory is correct, the U.S.A. will remain the number 1 country and China will stay a hole and a non-competitor. Same with India. In fact, everything stays the same, correct? In my eyes, a company thats #1 today can only go one direction afterwards - down.

If one has a mercenary army then one does not have to care much about a monopoly over milk. We then have organized crime. However, one must recognize that without the additional premise of organized crime then we simply have a milk monopoly. What must be recognized is that even if said monopoly existed, still other people could enter the milk market with their cows, milk substitutes could be created, and consumers can shift their consumption habits to reduce or avoid the use of milk.
The government really is not stepping in that much. The last major act by a governing body against microsoft that I have heard of is in the EU and all that ended up with is microsoft created a packaged product with one less device in it than originally planned.

Except that your conceptualization is easily refuted by the fall of American auto and the rise of Toyota. American auto industries were the big dogs, they were so big that economist J K Galbraith considered them beyond market control. However, what is happening now though? Toyota has gotten the press, Toyota has made things more efficient, Toyota is successful while the American industries are now suffering. Will it always be that way? Likely not. Does that provide an example going counter to those who make the same claims as you do? I believe so. Competition has winners, we are just fortunate that those winners are the consumers for it is they who always judge the contest. You tend to see markets as going towards this final end point, that is far from the truth though. Markets are always in flux and not even the wisest minds know exactly where they are going. Things change, new ideas are born, creative destruction even dooms entire industries and life continues. The dinosaurs did die in our history and they do die on the market as companies become soft and stagnant.

Thanks Awesome, I had a bunch of crap written up but deleted it - I had the 'auto' industry as part of that. I edited it, though, since I was at work and responded with some half-assed response

No probs. The auto industry is ideal because it is an area where change is clearly seen and where predictions were made.

Is Libertarianism practical, it seems too closely related to Anarchism.

There'd still be 'law' but you can do whatever you want, to yourself, you desire. Prostitution, drugs, hell, beat yourself up. Rape, theft, murder - those infringe on other people, but drugs don't (unless you're DRIVING which is, essentially, "wreckless driving" (see, I removed a category called "impaired" driving and just called it "wreckless" because, the theory behind that is, everyone can be intoxicated at different levels so its hard to generalize people - arresting them for something they may not be.))

Its just a lot more freedom to make choices. If you want to be a moron (not you, specifically) and buy a gun and start shooting it in the downtown, people may want you to be removed from society. Basically, its just a lot of "common sense" which is why, yes, I may be impractical (now)

It depends on the extent of libertarianism. At the most basic point libertarianism tends to be a philosophy of freer markets, smaller governments, less social restrictions, and less foreign intervention and all 4 of those points can have rational defenses, it really falls down to the level of which we speak of. The libertarian party may not actually be practical, but libertarianism taken as a broad philosophy with all people that seem to accept those 3 stances can be practical. Really though, you would have to ask specific questions though, I would bet that even anarchists think that their ideas are the best even from a utilitarian standpoint as well.

Its true. I think Libertarianism is better off only when everyone supports it. Until everyone 'stands on their own' and stops 'depending on others with whatever excuse they can create' then it won't work, but only because people won't want it to (ya, you can say that for all governments but the others use 'force' to work, libertarianism is more 'making the right choice' or 'being responsible' which most people are choose not to be). Thats the difference between 'choosing to give out of freewill' and 'being forced to give under socialism.'

Well, I suppose I agree to some extent. If people accept that they and not the government is responsible for promoting their ideas then I think things are better. I think that more libertarian ideas are better even if people do not agree though as such a system will give individuals more choice and promote better conditions for their community. I think that under any system the government will have to take from individuals and they will be forced to give though, I just hope to reduce that to what is necessary for the sake of the communal good and not other things or overspending on things that are not as good to deserve such.

I agree, as a Libertarian, I think everything would be better. I'm highly biased only because of the restrictions seen in todays world. They need to be removed.

I still think we need police, but I would LOVE to remove their power, as well, which is mainly symbolic, in my opinion. I dont see why normal citizens should fear police officers the way they do. Officers are nothing more then people we have told can 'arrest' on behalf of the rest of us. I dont feel safe with officers around, in fact, I feel I'm being judged. Hell, a woman cop drove by me, while I sat on my motorcycle at a traffic light, and stared at my quite dramatically, like I was committing the worst crime ever. That BS should not happen (seems small but they love to intimidate which is the point I'm trying to make)

You know what's funny? I actually DO own a Mac which is what I'm typing this message on now!

I also boycotted Wal-Mart years ago, and I never go to Target for movie candy anymore (a new small-chain candy shop opened up). I do most my grocery shopping at a local grocery store.

Sadly though, only one person can't really bring capitalism down to its knees.

Interesting. I have heard that macs are better at some things, I have a pc though.

Meh, never found a need to do any of that. The entire purpose of me buying stuff is to satisfy my own desires, so therefore the way to promote efficient outcomes is to go to the place that sates my desires most effectively.

I am quite happy that one person cannot. Heck, just think about how the one person rule would work if applied to all beliefs. It would end up with insane policy lurches that would be destructive to any system. Then again I do not consider myself an enemy of the market system but rather have bought into it and seek my own benefit from it.

This is in response to some older post in that government spending on welfare, social security, etc. isn't constitutional.

It is, just read the articles.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

All the rest is just other stuff. They did a lot of combination in a single sentence.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv ... cript.html