Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
7
Markets fail when resource allocation is not efficient.
As is healthcare is a market failure in America. Two similar hospitals with similar levels of service offer two completely different prices for the same procedure even in the same city.
One of the causes of market failures are inequality.
Botom line : libertarians overvalue the power of markets and have a blind spot for the other aspects of economy.
That's an imaginary line. Libertarians value liberty.
Well if it is imaginary , then tell me : what went wrong in 1930? what allows Monsanto to patent seeds and starve people to death? how do you cope with the power of big corporations? What about the subprime MBS were they not a product of "free trade" coupled with a ton of corruption ?
I think it is naive to think they will self-regulate just by eliminating government intervention.
You're missing the point. I'm not a Republican market worshipper. I don't think freedom always produces ideal outcomes. I just don'l like bullying.
Well nor do I . But people ( specially reps ) tend to forget the bullying can come from both the government and large corporations. People with two much power tend to abuse it.
Sometimes some freedom has to be given away to have a working society.
Corporations have no power to bully anyone, unless government does it on their behalf. Economic power is not coercive.
Loserterianism is nothing more then anarchy that wants to bomb other countries!!!!
Seriously, they don't give a damn if America has no roads, science institutions, police or regulations protecting the worker.
These people are every man for himself to the core.
Regarding your morality argument economist Ha Joon Chang put an example about the moral quandary of taxation and equality:7
Markets fail when resource allocation is not efficient.
As is healthcare is a market failure in America. Two similar hospitals with similar levels of service offer two completely different prices for the same procedure even in the same city.
One of the causes of market failures are inequality.
Botom line : libertarians overvalue the power of markets and have a blind spot for the other aspects of economy.
That's an imaginary line. Libertarians value liberty.
Well if it is imaginary , then tell me : what went wrong in 1930? what allows Monsanto to patent seeds and starve people to death? how do you cope with the power of big corporations? What about the subprime MBS were they not a product of "free trade" coupled with a ton of corruption ?
I think it is naive to think they will self-regulate just by eliminating government intervention.
You're missing the point. I'm not a Republican market worshipper. I don't think freedom always produces ideal outcomes. I just don'l like bullying.
Well nor do I . But people ( specially reps ) tend to forget the bullying can come from both the government and large corporations. People with two much power tend to abuse it.
Sometimes some freedom has to be given away to have a working society.
Corporations have no power to bully anyone, unless government does it on their behalf. Economic power is not coercive.
Corporations have no power to bully anyone, unless government does it on their behalf. Economic power is not coercive.
Oh , here we go again. Monsanto and its patented seeds, the SPM, the predatory lending made by the banks, the MBS , the overpriced surgeries charged by hospitals, and that's just the US where there is a working government and strong institutions. You think a corporation like Academi has no power ?
If you think large corporations have no power you are being too naive.
Corporations have no power to bully anyone, unless government does it on their behalf. Economic power is not coercive.
Oh , here we go again. Monsanto and its patented seeds, the SPM, the predatory lending made by the banks, the MBS , the overpriced surgeries charged by hospitals, and that's just the US where there is a working government and strong institutions. You think a corporation like Academi has no power ?
If you think large corporations have no power you are being too naive.
They have no legal coercive power. They can't force you to buy their products or give them money. Whenever a company does employ coercion of fraud, I'll be right there with you insisting that the government act. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
Corporations have no power to bully anyone, unless government does it on their behalf. Economic power is not coercive.
Oh , here we go again. Monsanto and its patented seeds, the SPM, the predatory lending made by the banks, the MBS , the overpriced surgeries charged by hospitals, and that's just the US where there is a working government and strong institutions. You think a corporation like Academi has no power ?
If you think large corporations have no power you are being too naive.
They have no legal coercive power. They can't force you to buy their products or give them money. Whenever a company does employ coercion of fraud, I'll be right there with you insisting that the government act. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
That's a very subtle line. Monopolies and Oligopolies have that kind of power. Try running a desktop without Windows ( a Mac Maybe) sure , it can be done, but it is hard.
Patenting seeds or the human genome should be forbidden, that's fraud to me ( as 99% of the genetic code was already there) .
Tobacco companies lied about the effect of tobacco on health, that's also fraud. Same goes with VW and their tunned diesel cars.
That said, the government is not exempt of fraudulent practices: recently some countries in the EU have been pushing negative interest rates !!! couple that with the prohibition of cash and banks get free money with every single savings account!
The problem I see is the bigger the corporation the bigger tendency there is to commit fraud and get away with it ( add to that the revolving door) . So maybe in theory large corporations don't have power, but in practice they do, so designing a system not based in reallity is a recipe for disaster.
... those are my two cents about libertarian practices.
Corporations have no power to bully anyone, unless government does it on their behalf. Economic power is not coercive.
Oh , here we go again. Monsanto and its patented seeds, the SPM, the predatory lending made by the banks, the MBS , the overpriced surgeries charged by hospitals, and that's just the US where there is a working government and strong institutions. You think a corporation like Academi has no power ?
If you think large corporations have no power you are being too naive.
They have no legal coercive power. They can't force you to buy their products or give them money. Whenever a company does employ coercion of fraud, I'll be right there with you insisting that the government act. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
That's a very subtle line. Monopolies and Oligopolies have that kind of power. Try running a desktop without Windows ( a Mac Maybe) sure , it can be done, but it is hard.
Patenting seeds or the human genome should be forbidden, that's fraud to me ( as 99% of the genetic code was already there) .
Tobacco companies lied about the effect of tobacco on health, that's also fraud. Same goes with VW and their tunned diesel cars.
That said, the government is not exempt of fraudulent practices: recently some countries in the EU have been pushing negative interest rates !!! couple that with the prohibition of cash and banks get free money with every single savings account!
The problem I see is the bigger the corporation the bigger tendency there is to commit fraud and get away with it ( add to that the revolving door) . So maybe in theory large corporations don't have power, but in practice they do, so designing a system not based in reallity is a recipe for disaster.
... those are my two cents about libertarian practices.
The problem is that what you're describing aren't "libertarian practices". Libertarians want a government that aggressively prosecutes fraud. This is not where the disagreement lies. What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control.
Corporations have no power to bully anyone, unless government does it on their behalf. Economic power is not coercive.
Oh , here we go again. Monsanto and its patented seeds, the SPM, the predatory lending made by the banks, the MBS , the overpriced surgeries charged by hospitals, and that's just the US where there is a working government and strong institutions. You think a corporation like Academi has no power ?
If you think large corporations have no power you are being too naive.
They have no legal coercive power. They can't force you to buy their products or give them money. Whenever a company does employ coercion of fraud, I'll be right there with you insisting that the government act. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
That's a very subtle line. Monopolies and Oligopolies have that kind of power. Try running a desktop without Windows ( a Mac Maybe) sure , it can be done, but it is hard.
Patenting seeds or the human genome should be forbidden, that's fraud to me ( as 99% of the genetic code was already there) .
Tobacco companies lied about the effect of tobacco on health, that's also fraud. Same goes with VW and their tunned diesel cars.
That said, the government is not exempt of fraudulent practices: recently some countries in the EU have been pushing negative interest rates !!! couple that with the prohibition of cash and banks get free money with every single savings account!
The problem I see is the bigger the corporation the bigger tendency there is to commit fraud and get away with it ( add to that the revolving door) . So maybe in theory large corporations don't have power, but in practice they do, so designing a system not based in reallity is a recipe for disaster.
... those are my two cents about libertarian practices.
The problem is that what you're describing aren't "libertarian practices". Libertarians want a government that aggressively prosecutes fraud. This is not where the disagreement lies. What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control.
It is a nice ideal DBlack , unfortunately an ideal that doesn't match reallity.
Maybe if we can take the human corruption out of the equation it could be achieved. Right now the only alternative I see is : don't let any single company become too big to fail.
Oh , here we go again. Monsanto and its patented seeds, the SPM, the predatory lending made by the banks, the MBS , the overpriced surgeries charged by hospitals, and that's just the US where there is a working government and strong institutions. You think a corporation like Academi has no power ?
If you think large corporations have no power you are being too naive.
They have no legal coercive power. They can't force you to buy their products or give them money. Whenever a company does employ coercion of fraud, I'll be right there with you insisting that the government act. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
That's a very subtle line. Monopolies and Oligopolies have that kind of power. Try running a desktop without Windows ( a Mac Maybe) sure , it can be done, but it is hard.
Patenting seeds or the human genome should be forbidden, that's fraud to me ( as 99% of the genetic code was already there) .
Tobacco companies lied about the effect of tobacco on health, that's also fraud. Same goes with VW and their tunned diesel cars.
That said, the government is not exempt of fraudulent practices: recently some countries in the EU have been pushing negative interest rates !!! couple that with the prohibition of cash and banks get free money with every single savings account!
The problem I see is the bigger the corporation the bigger tendency there is to commit fraud and get away with it ( add to that the revolving door) . So maybe in theory large corporations don't have power, but in practice they do, so designing a system not based in reallity is a recipe for disaster.
... those are my two cents about libertarian practices.
The problem is that what you're describing aren't "libertarian practices". Libertarians want a government that aggressively prosecutes fraud. This is not where the disagreement lies. What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control.
It is a nice ideal DBlack , unfortunately an ideal that doesn't match reallity.
Maybe if we can take the human corruption out of the equation it could be achieved. Right now the only alternative I see is : don't let any single company become too big to fail.
What are you saying is a "nice ideal"? You don't seem to be responding to my post as much as making general comments about something else.
Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.
Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.
Loserterianism is nothing more then anarchy that wants to bomb other countries!!!!
Seriously, they don't give a damn if America has no roads, science institutions, police or regulations protecting the worker.
These people are every man for himself to the core.
A libertarian America would have roads, science institutions, and police. They would simply be privately owned.
[
The modern state of commerce is dependent upon state recognition of a medium of exchange, legal guarantee of contract and the protection of private property by a coercive force. Can we then excuse the great expenditure upon these functions, unless the same government curbs the evils that afflict society because of commercial activities? I dare say we cannot. To do so, would be to treat the different economic classes inequitably.
Oh , here we go again. Monsanto and its patented seeds, the SPM, the predatory lending made by the banks, the MBS , the overpriced surgeries charged by hospitals, and that's just the US where there is a working government and strong institutions. You think a corporation like Academi has no power ?
If you think large corporations have no power you are being too naive.
They have no legal coercive power. They can't force you to buy their products or give them money. Whenever a company does employ coercion of fraud, I'll be right there with you insisting that the government act. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
That's a very subtle line. Monopolies and Oligopolies have that kind of power. Try running a desktop without Windows ( a Mac Maybe) sure , it can be done, but it is hard.
Patenting seeds or the human genome should be forbidden, that's fraud to me ( as 99% of the genetic code was already there) .
Tobacco companies lied about the effect of tobacco on health, that's also fraud. Same goes with VW and their tunned diesel cars.
That said, the government is not exempt of fraudulent practices: recently some countries in the EU have been pushing negative interest rates !!! couple that with the prohibition of cash and banks get free money with every single savings account!
The problem I see is the bigger the corporation the bigger tendency there is to commit fraud and get away with it ( add to that the revolving door) . So maybe in theory large corporations don't have power, but in practice they do, so designing a system not based in reallity is a recipe for disaster.
... those are my two cents about libertarian practices.
The problem is that what you're describing aren't "libertarian practices". Libertarians want a government that aggressively prosecutes fraud. This is not where the disagreement lies. What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control.
It is a nice ideal DBlack , unfortunately an ideal that doesn't match reallity.
Maybe if we can take the human corruption out of the equation it could be achieved. Right now the only alternative I see is : don't let any single company become too big to fail.
What are you saying is a "nice ideal"? You don't seem to be responding to my post as much as making general comments about something else.
DBlack: you said :
"What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control."
To which I answer that given the amount of corruption, skewed laws and the revolving door, what you libertarians seek is utopic. In order for that to work you would have to have the following changes as a minimum :
a) Ban any contributions for elections: make five debates and that would be the end of it ( and forget about superdelegates).
b) Forbid any person holding a key post in government to move to any large corporation ( this would mean Trump could not even dream to become a candidate).
c) Make every penny the government spends accountable.
d) Forbid any act of war which is not UN sanctioned.
e) Publish any trade agreement and have it debated on congress one year before aproval ( say goodbye to TTP ).
Now , that would just leave out the social aspects of large corporations. It doesn't address the cyclical crashes due to asset bubbles and private debt bubbles and increasing inequality due to network effect, all of which are built into capitalism.
You may discuss at any length , the moral merits or libertarians but the above two factors are enough to paint a bleak future for such a society : greatly unequal, plagued with cyclical crisis and long stages of stagnation.
Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).That's a very subtle line. Monopolies and Oligopolies have that kind of power. Try running a desktop without Windows ( a Mac Maybe) sure , it can be done, but it is hard.
Patenting seeds or the human genome should be forbidden, that's fraud to me ( as 99% of the genetic code was already there) .
Tobacco companies lied about the effect of tobacco on health, that's also fraud. Same goes with VW and their tunned diesel cars.
That said, the government is not exempt of fraudulent practices: recently some countries in the EU have been pushing negative interest rates !!! couple that with the prohibition of cash and banks get free money with every single savings account!
The problem I see is the bigger the corporation the bigger tendency there is to commit fraud and get away with it ( add to that the revolving door) . So maybe in theory large corporations don't have power, but in practice they do, so designing a system not based in reallity is a recipe for disaster.
... those are my two cents about libertarian practices.
The problem is that what you're describing aren't "libertarian practices". Libertarians want a government that aggressively prosecutes fraud. This is not where the disagreement lies. What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control.
It is a nice ideal DBlack , unfortunately an ideal that doesn't match reallity.
Maybe if we can take the human corruption out of the equation it could be achieved. Right now the only alternative I see is : don't let any single company become too big to fail.
What are you saying is a "nice ideal"? You don't seem to be responding to my post as much as making general comments about something else.
DBlack: you said :
"What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control."
To which I answer that given the amount of corruption, skewed laws and the revolving door, what you libertarians seek is utopic. In order for that to work you would have to have the following changes as a minimum :
a) Ban any contributions for elections: make five debates and that would be the end of it ( and forget about superdelegates).
b) Forbid any person holding a key post in government to move to any large corporation ( this would mean Trump could not even dream to become a candidate).
c) Make every penny the government spends accountable.
d) Forbid any act of war which is not UN sanctioned.
e) Publish any trade agreement and have it debated on congress one year before aproval ( say goodbye to TTP ).
Now , that would just leave out the social aspects of large corporations. It doesn't address the cyclical crashes due to asset bubbles and private debt bubbles and increasing inequality due to network effect, all of which are built into capitalism.
You may discuss at any length , the moral merits or libertarians but the above two factors are enough to paint a bleak future for such a society : greatly unequal, plagued with cyclical crisis and long stages of stagnation.
You're presuming quite a lot. I was addressing the particular premise that wealth is inherently coercive. I'd be interested to hear your take on that. You're jumping ahead to what you believe is the inevitable outcome of rejecting that notion, without really examining it in the first place.
I'm open to discussing the merits of corporations (personally, I think the standard corporate charter is indefensible), or how to deal with state corruption vis-a-vis wealthy influence. But I think it's important to understand where we're coming from. The premise of your position could give us common ground, or it could make common ground impossible. That's what I'm try to get to here. It's not a trick question.
