Just What is Libertarianism?

[MisterBeale]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it


You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

As a broad philosophy, Libertarianism views are worth considering. But the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters who are little more than anarchists

"You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it"

Not at the Federal level, this is obviously something the founders had intended the various states to deal with. The constitution even states that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is an issue to be dealt with by the states.

"You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them"

Same as above, these issues are to be left to the various states to find the best solutions. ESPECIALLY education. That is a deeply local issue, how one educates ones child. The fact that there is a national agency to treat kids all across the land the same? Complete bureaucratic, corporate evil.


When you end your post with an ad hominem attack by saying, "the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters," you do yourself no favors. You only make them look quite good by comparing them to the most politically wise of all, anarchists. Remember, it's that State that is evil, not the individuals that question the wisdom of these bureaucratic monstrosities. Those individuals have learned from history, why haven't you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Down with losertarianism!!! Double the science budget in 2016!!! 1% to 2% of over all spending.

 

[PratchettFan]

... When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why do you waste your time trying to educate this guy? He's a jackass who isn't capable of being educate of of committing logic.

I enjoy discussing the topic, and I like interacting with people who see things differently than I do.

As do I.

Then why don't you ever respond to anything I post?

Because I don't like your style and I don't have to respond. If you wish to have a discussion with me then do it with a modicum of respect. You don't want to do that, that is your right and I fully support your right to do it. I also support my right to ignore you. Your choice.

You say one insulting thing after another about libertarians, and you believe you're entitled to be treated with respect?

The arrogance of liberals defies comprehension.

I disagree with libertarianism, you use personal insults. As I said, you have a choice and I have a choice. I am going to exercise mine. You enjoy.

 

[PratchettFan]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it


You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

As a broad philosophy, Libertarianism views are worth considering. But the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters who are little more than anarchists

"You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it"

Not at the Federal level, this is obviously something the founders had intended the various states to deal with. The constitution even states that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is an issue to be dealt with by the states.

"You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them"

Same as above, these issues are to be left to the various states to find the best solutions. ESPECIALLY education. That is a deeply local issue, how one educates ones child. The fact that there is a national agency to treat kids all across the land the same? Complete bureaucratic, corporate evil.


When you end your post with an ad hominem attack by saying, "the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters," you do yourself no favors. You only make them look quite good by comparing them to the most politically wise of all, anarchists. Remember, it's that State that is evil, not the individuals that question the wisdom of these bureaucratic monstrosities. Those individuals have learned from history, why haven't you?

What the Founders did was create a government. While they were alive, they operated that government and they argued about what the parameters of that government were. Washington sent armed troops against citizens over taxes. Jefferson bought up a huge chunk of land under executive order, while the Congress screamed he was exceeding his Constitutional authority.

This is now our government, not the Founders. Whether they intended for us to do something matters not a whit. They are dead and it is in our hands and is our responsibility.

 

[occupied]

American Libertarianism is but a way to hate on democrats while never having to defend the republicans you vote for. It's a political coward's refuge.

 

[dblack]

... When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

If you see no difference between a buyout offer and being thrown in jail, then libertarianism will never make sense to you.

 

[PratchettFan]

... When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

If you see no difference between a buyout offer and being thrown in jail, then libertarianism will never make sense to you.

On the contrary, I have no problem at all making sense of it. I just see that it won't work. I also have no problem making sense of communism, it just doesn't work. And they don't work for exactly the same reason. People are always going to act like people regardless of the system you put them in.

 

[dblack]

... When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

If you see no difference between a buyout offer and being thrown in jail, then libertarianism will never make sense to you.

On the contrary, I have no problem at all making sense of it. I just see that it won't work. I also have no problem making sense of communism, it just doesn't work. And they don't work for exactly the same reason. People are always going to act like people regardless of the system you put them in.

If aren't recognizing the difference between state power, which relies on coercive mandate, and economic power that is prohibited from using coercion, then you really aren't understanding libertarian thought. That distinction is central to everything we're about.

 

[PratchettFan]

... When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

If you see no difference between a buyout offer and being thrown in jail, then libertarianism will never make sense to you.

On the contrary, I have no problem at all making sense of it. I just see that it won't work. I also have no problem making sense of communism, it just doesn't work. And they don't work for exactly the same reason. People are always going to act like people regardless of the system you put them in.

If aren't recognizing the difference between state power, which relies on coercive mandate, and economic power that is prohibited from using coercion, then you really aren't understanding libertarian thought. That distinction is central to everything we're about.

If you remove the coercive mandate of government, how is economic coercion prohibited?

 

[kaz]

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

I don't know where you got that. But it has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

The irony you say this while you believe if government confiscates money with force it will use it to take care of people. Government isn't using money to help people, Virginia, it's using it to amass power. You aren't wearing blinders, you are wearing a blindfold

So you say. Care to support that with actual, supported facts?

LOL, I have to prove to you that government is incompetent and politicians buy power. You people reach new levels of sheep every day. That's just comical.

 

[kaz]

Well now you have met one though to be honest I really have not given that particualr aspect of libertarian thought a whole lot of time untill now.

That's why I phrased it the way I did. I was not making a True Scotsman claim, I stated the fact I've never met a libertarian who didn't support loser pays. Or as you say, until now. Loser pays is one solution, so I think it's clearly a True Scotsman fallacy to say a libertarian has to support that specific solution.

However, the right to be made whole when you are wronged is a clear libertarian value. Whether or not loser pays is the specific solution, I don't see how a libertarian would not support the ability to in some way sue back for a frivolous or malicious lawsuit. I see three hypothetical options:

1) Loser pays - automatic
2) Follow on trial after verdict to determine if and how much loser will pay. Sort of like after a murder trial there can be a follow on trial attached to determine whether or not to have the death penalty
3) Loser can file a separate lawsuit.

I would have a hard time processing that a libertarian would reject the idea of losers pursuing compensation with the burden shifting to them to prove the lawsuit was not filed with honest intent

I, personally, think that the entire system needs to be reworked and the end result might not even matter as far as looser paying. The idea that I have to expend massive amounts of money to defend my rights or persue those that have broken them just smacks of corruption to me. I would definately support a loser pays system in blatant cases but I am not so sure if the case is legitamately muddy.

So from this, I would guess you support option 2?

Absolutely. What I am less sure is the idea that one should automatically be paying through the nose should they lose a case. There are instance where the courts are used to settle grievances where there really is no clear 'winner' and to punish someone that took a case to court to get it resolved is not always going to be the best solution IMHO. If there is a judgment phase afterward that makes a ton of sense to me. Frivolous cases, cases where the outcome should have been obvious or, more importantly, cases where the very lawsuit was used in the first place to gain advantage could be rectified.

I agree with your point. I have the same thought. There are cases where both sides have legitimate points and the jury just has to divide the baby. There is no perfect solution. The flip side that bothers me though is that when you put decisions in the hands of the government, they suck at it and their interest is not the people's interests. I would go with option 2 as long as it's decided by the jury, not the judge. No, that's not perfect either, but there isn't a perfect solution. That at least takes the choice out of the hands of the worst solution though, government

 

[dblack]

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

If you see no difference between a buyout offer and being thrown in jail, then libertarianism will never make sense to you.

On the contrary, I have no problem at all making sense of it. I just see that it won't work. I also have no problem making sense of communism, it just doesn't work. And they don't work for exactly the same reason. People are always going to act like people regardless of the system you put them in.

If aren't recognizing the difference between state power, which relies on coercive mandate, and economic power that is prohibited from using coercion, then you really aren't understanding libertarian thought. That distinction is central to everything we're about.

If you remove the coercive mandate of government, how is economic coercion prohibited?

If my understanding of the term "economic coercion" is accurate, nothing. From my reading it's just another form of persuasion.

 

[PratchettFan]

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

I don't know where you got that. But it has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

The irony you say this while you believe if government confiscates money with force it will use it to take care of people. Government isn't using money to help people, Virginia, it's using it to amass power. You aren't wearing blinders, you are wearing a blindfold

So you say. Care to support that with actual, supported facts?

LOL, I have to prove to you that government is incompetent and politicians buy power. You people reach new levels of sheep every day. That's just comical.

Yeah. You have to prove your point if you expect me to pay it any attention. I drove to work this morning on roads built by the government and I personally found that helpful. So I would say your claim is untrue by a simple examination of the facts. But please present your case to the contrary.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

If you see no difference between a buyout offer and being thrown in jail, then libertarianism will never make sense to you.

On the contrary, I have no problem at all making sense of it. I just see that it won't work. I also have no problem making sense of communism, it just doesn't work. And they don't work for exactly the same reason. People are always going to act like people regardless of the system you put them in.

If aren't recognizing the difference between state power, which relies on coercive mandate, and economic power that is prohibited from using coercion, then you really aren't understanding libertarian thought. That distinction is central to everything we're about.

If you remove the coercive mandate of government, how is economic coercion prohibited?

If my understanding of the term "economic coercion" is accurate, nothing. From my reading it's just another form of persuasion.

Then you lack understanding of the term. If I buy a grocery store in a town, then purchase or come to an agreement with trucking companies servicing the town, then I can control competition by simply cutting off access to goods for any other store. I then control the food supply of the town. I can then apply precisely the same approach to hardware, electronics, or any other type of outlet to pretty much control the entire town. That is economic coercion. As you said, it is prohibited. But the only reason it is prohibited is because of that horrible coercive mandate of government.

Persuasion is not a limited term. Holding a gun to your head is persuasion too.

 

[dblack]

If you remove the coercive mandate of government, how is economic coercion prohibited?

If my understanding of the term "economic coercion" is accurate, nothing. From my reading it's just another form of persuasion.

Then you lack understanding of the term. If I buy a grocery store in a town, then purchase or come to an agreement with trucking companies servicing the town, then I can control competition by simply cutting off access to goods for any other store. I then control the food supply of the town. I can then apply precisely the same approach to hardware, electronics, or any other type of outlet to pretty much control the entire town. That is economic coercion. As you said, it is prohibited. But the only reason it is prohibited is because of that horrible coercive mandate of government.

The mocking tone is unnecessary. I don't think all state coercion is "horrible". When it's in defense of our freedoms, that's exactly what I want from government.

So it sounds like you're using "economic coercion" as a reference to the monopoly problem. True monopolies are rare, and as such I see little problem with using government, in those rare instances, to address the problem. Especially since the problem can usually be traced to a manipulation of state power in the first place.

Persuasion is not a limited term. Holding a gun to your head is persuasion too.

The gun makes it coercive. But if you tell you someone that you'll fire them if they don't do what you want, or that you won't shop at their store, is not coercive, and it's that conception of "economic coercion" that I consider just another form of persuasion.

 

[bripat9643]

... When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

Hiring thugs to beat people up is a crime, so your scenario doesn't pass the test. The malefactor in it uses the same kind of force the government uses. That isn't economic power. It's state power.

Furthermore, businesses have found ways around every tactic you mentioned. The only genuine effective method for putting your competitors under is to produce a better product.

 

[bripat9643]

If you see no difference between a buyout offer and being thrown in jail, then libertarianism will never make sense to you.

On the contrary, I have no problem at all making sense of it. I just see that it won't work. I also have no problem making sense of communism, it just doesn't work. And they don't work for exactly the same reason. People are always going to act like people regardless of the system you put them in.

If aren't recognizing the difference between state power, which relies on coercive mandate, and economic power that is prohibited from using coercion, then you really aren't understanding libertarian thought. That distinction is central to everything we're about.

If you remove the coercive mandate of government, how is economic coercion prohibited?

If my understanding of the term "economic coercion" is accurate, nothing. From my reading it's just another form of persuasion.

Then you lack understanding of the term. If I buy a grocery store in a town, then purchase or come to an agreement with trucking companies servicing the town, then I can control competition by simply cutting off access to goods for any other store. I then control the food supply of the town. I can then apply precisely the same approach to hardware, electronics, or any other type of outlet to pretty much control the entire town. That is economic coercion. As you said, it is prohibited. But the only reason it is prohibited is because of that horrible coercive mandate of government.

Persuasion is not a limited term. Holding a gun to your head is persuasion too.

Then you'll have to explain why such things never happened before it was "prohibited."

Holding a gun to someone's head is not "persuasion" except in the liberal mind.

 

[bripat9643]

... When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

No, they are not fundamentally different. Of course businesses can force their will on us, they are just not allowed to do so by the government. And because they are not allowed to do so you assume they can't.

Let us say I am a large manufacturer of widgets and people need widgets. You come up with a new way of making widgets that will make them better and cheaper, but to compete I would have re-tool my plant and I really don't want the competition. So what I do is first try to buy you out. If that doesn't work, I buy the sources of your raw material and refuse to sell them to you. I work out a deal with the shipping companies so they won't deliver for you. I hire local thugs to make it clear to your workers that working for you is unhealthy. All I have to do now is wait for you to starve and I am the only source of widgets. People will pay my price or do without.

Power is not a political or economic issue, it is a human issue. Whether the issue is in business or government, you are dealing with exactly the same people. There is no difference.

If you see no difference between a buyout offer and being thrown in jail, then libertarianism will never make sense to you.

BINGO! That's why you're wasting your time on him. He doesn't see any difference. He thinks hiring thugs to beat up the employees of a competitor is no different than purchasing raw materials from a cheaper source.

 

[bripat9643]

I enjoy discussing the topic, and I like interacting with people who see things differently than I do.

As do I.

Then why don't you ever respond to anything I post?

Because I don't like your style and I don't have to respond. If you wish to have a discussion with me then do it with a modicum of respect. You don't want to do that, that is your right and I fully support your right to do it. I also support my right to ignore you. Your choice.

You say one insulting thing after another about libertarians, and you believe you're entitled to be treated with respect?

The arrogance of liberals defies comprehension.

I disagree with libertarianism, you use personal insults. As I said, you have a choice and I have a choice. I am going to exercise mine. You enjoy.

Your "disagreements" are all in the form of insults, like your claim that libertarians don't understand human nature. You simply make assumptions and then ignore any evidence to the contrary. You're a typical close-minded liberal.