The three main goals of libertarianism

[JoeNormal]

"Undercut"? You mean providing a product at a fraction of the cost than competitors? That's not undercutting anyone, it's competition. FAIL.

Monsanto has these patents through govt. favoritism. FAIL.

And the East India Company was a govt. sanctioned corporation. Double fail.

When big corp cuts their prices its to drive competitors out of the market so that they can come back and raise the prices later. i.e. Wal Mart

In fact, the way big corp operates is more by eliminating competition than by actually competing. Rather than beat their opponents fair and square they'd rather run them off the track. The end goal is to extract as much profit off the backs of consumers and employees as is humanly possibly without any regard for anything else.

When big corporations cut prices, that signals they can operate still by doing so and if other competitors want to stay that way, they will change practice to become so. That's how compeition works, Cork.

As for Walmart, if consumers didn't buy the cheap shit there, it wouldn't be a problem. Thats the market deciding cheap, shit goods are better than quality made items. In some cases the market is correct. On the other hand it is the consumer that made that decision (albeit the govt. favoritism provided to cheap chinese goods)

Maybe you missed my previous post. Large corporations can afford to sell a product below cost for as long as it takes to kill their competition. Of course that's not legal but in the absence of government regulation, it happens.

And yeah, consumers have decided that Walmart isn't too evil to support. Of course, long term thinking or standing on principles aren't the strong suits of the average American. Count on corporations like Walmart to capitalize on that.

 

[JoeNormal]

"Undercut"? You mean providing a product at a fraction of the cost than competitors? That's not undercutting anyone, it's competition. FAIL.

Monsanto has these patents through govt. favoritism. FAIL.

And the East India Company was a govt. sanctioned corporation. Double fail.

Oh brother. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in anyway? What is it that you do for a living?

My profession has nothing to do with your failed argument, Joe Dirt.

Translation: I've never worked for a corporation, nor do I have any first hand experience in how they operate, nor have I really thought about it very much.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

When big corp cuts their prices its to drive competitors out of the market so that they can come back and raise the prices later. i.e. Wal Mart

In fact, the way big corp operates is more by eliminating competition than by actually competing. Rather than beat their opponents fair and square they'd rather run them off the track. The end goal is to extract as much profit off the backs of consumers and employees as is humanly possibly without any regard for anything else.

When big corporations cut prices, that signals they can operate still by doing so and if other competitors want to stay that way, they will change practice to become so. That's how compeition works, Cork.

As for Walmart, if consumers didn't buy the cheap shit there, it wouldn't be a problem. Thats the market deciding cheap, shit goods are better than quality made items. In some cases the market is correct. On the other hand it is the consumer that made that decision (albeit the govt. favoritism provided to cheap chinese goods)

Maybe you missed my previous post. Large corporations can afford to sell a product below cost for as long as it takes to kill their competition. Of course that's not legal but in the absence of government regulation, it happens.

And yeah, consumers have decided that Walmart isn't too evil to support. Of course, long term thinking or standing on principles isn't the strong suit of the average American. Count on corporations like Walmart to capitalize on that.

That's gotta be the most absurd post of the day. So this company "kills" the competition by running at a loss "for as long as it takes" to kill the competition?

Can you provide an example of this that is absolutely free of any govt. involvement?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh brother. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in anyway? What is it that you do for a living?

My profession has nothing to do with your failed argument, Joe Dirt.

Translation: I've never worked for a corporation, nor do I have any first hand experience in how they operate, nor have I really thought about it very much.

No, the trasnlation is that you provided "evidence" of your assertion by citing instances where the govt. is directly involved in aiding these corporations. You provided absolutely no example of your assertion of what you claim. Then you want to try and turn your failure on me.

How truly shocking.

 

[JoeNormal]

When big corporations cut prices, that signals they can operate still by doing so and if other competitors want to stay that way, they will change practice to become so. That's how compeition works, Cork.

As for Walmart, if consumers didn't buy the cheap shit there, it wouldn't be a problem. Thats the market deciding cheap, shit goods are better than quality made items. In some cases the market is correct. On the other hand it is the consumer that made that decision (albeit the govt. favoritism provided to cheap chinese goods)

Maybe you missed my previous post. Large corporations can afford to sell a product below cost for as long as it takes to kill their competition. Of course that's not legal but in the absence of government regulation, it happens.

And yeah, consumers have decided that Walmart isn't too evil to support. Of course, long term thinking or standing on principles isn't the strong suit of the average American. Count on corporations like Walmart to capitalize on that.

That's gotta be the most absurd post of the day. So this company "kills" the competition by running at a loss "for as long as it takes" to kill the competition?

Can you provide an example of this that is absolutely free of any govt. involvement?

You know, you really shouldn't just jump into a conversation a couple of posts from the end and feel like you understand the arguments. Gawd, I get tired of rehashing the same shit over and over for dumb asses.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Maybe you missed my previous post. Large corporations can afford to sell a product below cost for as long as it takes to kill their competition. Of course that's not legal but in the absence of government regulation, it happens.

And yeah, consumers have decided that Walmart isn't too evil to support. Of course, long term thinking or standing on principles isn't the strong suit of the average American. Count on corporations like Walmart to capitalize on that.

That's gotta be the most absurd post of the day. So this company "kills" the competition by running at a loss "for as long as it takes" to kill the competition?

Can you provide an example of this that is absolutely free of any govt. involvement?

You know, you really shouldn't just jump into a conversation a couple of posts from the end and feel like you understand the arguments. Gawd, I get tired of rehashing the same shit over and over for dumb asses.

In other words you can not provide any examples of the above. I didn't think so, because it doesn't happen that way.

 

[kaz]

You got the bolded part right.

But lesser-of-two-evils in the sad sellout killing our nation.

When the level of evil is relatively equal, that is true. Obamacare along with Social Security/Medicare are the greatest evils every perpetrated on the American people by our government because they are the programs that make EVERY American dependent on government for their basic needs.

I'm in libertarianism to actually maximize my liberty, not to pursue an intellectual exercise that would maximize it in theory. Most libertarians in not trying to oust a Marxist demonstrated the second is a large part of their quest. And since I didn't vote Republican between 1988 until 2012, give me more than a platitude how a cancer to our liberty like Obama was an evil, as was Romney, ergo they are the same. Evil isn't binary. Romney while assuring nothing was at least a capitalist, something else we haven't seen in a while, and libertarians passed on that too.

Your argument assumes Romney opposed PPACA, when in fact - up until it Obama took up the cause, Romney did more to advance the cause of government controlled health care than anyone else in the nation. Arguably, PPACA would never have become law without his 'success' in Massachusetts. It's utter insanity to elect him as the champion to repeal it.

You're the only "libertarian" on the board who continually reverts to Democratic Party talking points. You're a totalitarian freedom fighter who voted for a Marxist.

So seriously, you don't know the difference between a State program and a National program and one is as dangerous as the other. Gotcha.

 

[dblack]

When the level of evil is relatively equal, that is true. Obamacare along with Social Security/Medicare are the greatest evils every perpetrated on the American people by our government because they are the programs that make EVERY American dependent on government for their basic needs.

I'm in libertarianism to actually maximize my liberty, not to pursue an intellectual exercise that would maximize it in theory. Most libertarians in not trying to oust a Marxist demonstrated the second is a large part of their quest. And since I didn't vote Republican between 1988 until 2012, give me more than a platitude how a cancer to our liberty like Obama was an evil, as was Romney, ergo they are the same. Evil isn't binary. Romney while assuring nothing was at least a capitalist, something else we haven't seen in a while, and libertarians passed on that too.

Your argument assumes Romney opposed PPACA, when in fact - up until it Obama took up the cause, Romney did more to advance the cause of government controlled health care than anyone else in the nation. Arguably, PPACA would never have become law without his 'success' in Massachusetts. It's utter insanity to elect him as the champion to repeal it.

You're the only "libertarian" on the board who continually reverts to Democratic Party talking points. You're a totalitarian freedom fighter who voted for a Marxist.

Right. Black is white. Ignorance is strength.

I'm just not a Republican. That gnaws at you. Too bad.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

When the level of evil is relatively equal, that is true. Obamacare along with Social Security/Medicare are the greatest evils every perpetrated on the American people by our government because they are the programs that make EVERY American dependent on government for their basic needs.

I'm in libertarianism to actually maximize my liberty, not to pursue an intellectual exercise that would maximize it in theory. Most libertarians in not trying to oust a Marxist demonstrated the second is a large part of their quest. And since I didn't vote Republican between 1988 until 2012, give me more than a platitude how a cancer to our liberty like Obama was an evil, as was Romney, ergo they are the same. Evil isn't binary. Romney while assuring nothing was at least a capitalist, something else we haven't seen in a while, and libertarians passed on that too.

Your argument assumes Romney opposed PPACA, when in fact - up until it Obama took up the cause, Romney did more to advance the cause of government controlled health care than anyone else in the nation. Arguably, PPACA would never have become law without his 'success' in Massachusetts. It's utter insanity to elect him as the champion to repeal it.

You're the only "libertarian" on the board who continually reverts to Democratic Party talking points. You're a totalitarian freedom fighter who voted for a Marxist.

So seriously, you don't know the difference between a State program and a National program and one is as dangerous as the other. Gotcha.

Well, not for nothing, kaz, but your'e the first libertarian leaning fellow I've heard who voted for Romney. I think dblack understands the differences between state and federal policy. I agree that Romney would NOT have repealed Obama Tax if he managed to get elected.

That's really not a democrat party talking point that I know of...

 

[asterism]

Your argument assumes Romney opposed PPACA, when in fact - up until it Obama took up the cause, Romney did more to advance the cause of government controlled health care than anyone else in the nation. Arguably, PPACA would never have become law without his 'success' in Massachusetts. It's utter insanity to elect him as the champion to repeal it.

You're the only "libertarian" on the board who continually reverts to Democratic Party talking points. You're a totalitarian freedom fighter who voted for a Marxist.

So seriously, you don't know the difference between a State program and a National program and one is as dangerous as the other. Gotcha.

Well, not for nothing, kaz, but your'e the first libertarian leaning fellow I've heard who voted for Romney. I think dblack understands the differences between state and federal policy. I agree that Romney would NOT have repealed Obama Tax if he managed to get elected.

That's really not a democrat party talking point that I know of...

I voted from Romney and I regret it. I should have voted for Johnson.

 

[kaz]

Your argument assumes Romney opposed PPACA, when in fact - up until it Obama took up the cause, Romney did more to advance the cause of government controlled health care than anyone else in the nation. Arguably, PPACA would never have become law without his 'success' in Massachusetts. It's utter insanity to elect him as the champion to repeal it.

You're the only "libertarian" on the board who continually reverts to Democratic Party talking points. You're a totalitarian freedom fighter who voted for a Marxist.

Right. Black is white. Ignorance is strength.

I'm just not a Republican. That gnaws at you. Too bad.

If I respond to a poster on a message board, that means what they are saying "gnaws" at me. Got it. Sorry I'm gnawing at you. BTW, thanks, but I don't need someone to discuss my feelings with, girlfriend.

Republicans blow chunks, they suck. But Democrats are the opposite of libertarian in every way. You cannot simultaneously maximize and minimize government. That you think you're a libertarian's a joke. And you continually demonstrate that. Just the fact.

Here's a tip, if you post on a message board, you ... just ... might .... get .... replies. If that bothers you, stop posting. Sorry I'm bothering you so much.

 

[kaz]

Your argument assumes Romney opposed PPACA, when in fact - up until it Obama took up the cause, Romney did more to advance the cause of government controlled health care than anyone else in the nation. Arguably, PPACA would never have become law without his 'success' in Massachusetts. It's utter insanity to elect him as the champion to repeal it.

You're the only "libertarian" on the board who continually reverts to Democratic Party talking points. You're a totalitarian freedom fighter who voted for a Marxist.

So seriously, you don't know the difference between a State program and a National program and one is as dangerous as the other. Gotcha.

Well, not for nothing, kaz, but your'e the first libertarian leaning fellow I've heard who voted for Romney.

I know a lot of them. Not sure how much of the discussion you read, but the key parts. I do agree the majority did not. And I think the ones who did not are nuts because Obama is a Marxist. I did not vote Republican since 1988 and regretted that one. So I'm not exactly into voting for the lesser of two evils.

I think dblack understands the differences between state and federal policy.

Why when he said Romney did more than Obama to advance socialized medicine and didn't think that a point worth making?

I agree that Romney would NOT have repealed Obama Tax if he managed to get elected.

I agree as well. But that sort of activisim rarely comes from the President anyway. I do believe he wouldn't have blocked it. Realistically, repeal will only start in the house.

That's really not a democrat party talking point that I know of...

I hear it all the time from the left, particularly during the election, so we're hearing different sources.

BTW, I totally did not say dblack reverts to Democratic points motivated by this particular discussion. It's the body of work. This one was more minor.

 

[Contumacious]

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

"Undercut"? You mean providing a product at a fraction of the cost than competitors? That's not undercutting anyone, it's competition. FAIL.

Monsanto has these patents through govt. favoritism. FAIL.

And the East India Company was a govt. sanctioned corporation. Double fail.

When big corp cuts their prices its to drive competitors out of the market so that they can come back and raise the prices later. i.e. Wal Mart

Yo ding

In North America, Wal-Mart's primary competition includes department stores like Kmart, Target, ShopKo and Meijer, Canada's Zellers, The Real Canadian Superstore and Giant Tiger, and Mexico's Comercial Mexicana and Soriana. Competitors of Wal-Mart's Sam's Club division are Costco, and the smaller BJ's Wholesale Club chain

Are you fucking telling me that Walmarts competitors are out of business or that you don't know your ass from a hoile in the ground?

.

 

[Sallow]

When big corporations cut prices, that signals they can operate still by doing so and if other competitors want to stay that way, they will change practice to become so. That's how compeition works, Cork.

As for Walmart, if consumers didn't buy the cheap shit there, it wouldn't be a problem. Thats the market deciding cheap, shit goods are better than quality made items. In some cases the market is correct. On the other hand it is the consumer that made that decision (albeit the govt. favoritism provided to cheap chinese goods)

Maybe you missed my previous post. Large corporations can afford to sell a product below cost for as long as it takes to kill their competition. Of course that's not legal but in the absence of government regulation, it happens.

And yeah, consumers have decided that Walmart isn't too evil to support. Of course, long term thinking or standing on principles isn't the strong suit of the average American. Count on corporations like Walmart to capitalize on that.

That's gotta be the most absurd post of the day. So this company "kills" the competition by running at a loss "for as long as it takes" to kill the competition?

Can you provide an example of this that is absolutely free of any govt. involvement?

Wait..what?

That's pretty much what they do..with the exception of "taking" a loss.

One way or another..it comes out in the wash.

And your "government involvement" is pretty cynical. One a company gets big enough, with enough money..that company gets the government involved.

 

[dblack]

BTW, I totally did not say dblack reverts to Democratic points motivated by this particular discussion. It's the body of work. This one was more minor.

Yeah, well - opinions .... everybody's got one. In my view, sellouts like you do more to harm the libertarian cause that jackboot corporatists like Obama. He at least inspires a response. You water it down by pretending assholes like Romney deserve our votes.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Maybe you missed my previous post. Large corporations can afford to sell a product below cost for as long as it takes to kill their competition. Of course that's not legal but in the absence of government regulation, it happens.

And yeah, consumers have decided that Walmart isn't too evil to support. Of course, long term thinking or standing on principles isn't the strong suit of the average American. Count on corporations like Walmart to capitalize on that.

That's gotta be the most absurd post of the day. So this company "kills" the competition by running at a loss "for as long as it takes" to kill the competition?

Can you provide an example of this that is absolutely free of any govt. involvement?

Wait..what?

That's pretty much what they do..with the exception of "taking" a loss.

One way or another..it comes out in the wash.

And your "government involvement" is pretty cynical. One a company gets big enough, with enough money..that company gets the government involved.

Provide an example where this is "pretty much what they do".

 

[RKMBrown]

My three biggest fears

1) My poor ass having to work to earn a living.

2) Someone else making more money than me.

3) The government stops writing me checks every month.

Ayup, that about sums it up!

One common aspect of the millions of sheep herded by libertarian power elite is their inability to take anything seriously - except of course guns and what they are told is "freedom".

Your wrong, I for one, take very seriously your view that I should pay you to sit on your ass.

As to the guns issue, you mean like the fact that arms are constitutionally guaranteed so we can protect ourselves from government thugs coming to our homes to redistribute our assets to people like you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Joe, I hope you are normal and understand that REPUTATION is an asset.

So give me an example of a company that engaged in that type of behavior.

.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

"Undercut"? You mean providing a product at a fraction of the cost than competitors? That's not undercutting anyone, it's competition. FAIL.

Monsanto has these patents through govt. favoritism. FAIL.

And the East India Company was a govt. sanctioned corporation. Double fail.

SNAP! SNAP! SNAP!

That's gotta hurt.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're the only "libertarian" on the board who continually reverts to Democratic Party talking points. You're a totalitarian freedom fighter who voted for a Marxist.

So seriously, you don't know the difference between a State program and a National program and one is as dangerous as the other. Gotcha.

Well, not for nothing, kaz, but your'e the first libertarian leaning fellow I've heard who voted for Romney. I think dblack understands the differences between state and federal policy. I agree that Romney would NOT have repealed Obama Tax if he managed to get elected.

That's really not a democrat party talking point that I know of...

I voted from Romney and I regret it. I should have voted for Johnson.

I voted Johnson, without regret.

 

[kaz]

BTW, I totally did not say dblack reverts to Democratic points motivated by this particular discussion. It's the body of work. This one was more minor.

Yeah, well - opinions .... everybody's got one. In my view, sellouts like you do more to harm the libertarian cause that jackboot corporatists like Obama. He at least inspires a response. You water it down by pretending assholes like Romney deserve our votes.

I'll give $100 to your favorite charity if you can back up this piece of crap you pulled from your ass. When did I say ever Romney deserved our vote? Anyway, you can pick the ACLU, Greenpeace, something starting in "UN," whatever charity you want.