Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[bripat9643]

Kevin, I wish to believe that, but when I read some of the so-called libertarian postings, I have the feeling some would be quite willing to force others to submit.

What are you being forced to submit to? We're looking to REPEAL laws, which gives you more freedom. That's submission to you?

Yep. In Starkey's view, he's not free unless he can impose his laws and regulations on you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, I wish to believe that, but when I read some of the so-called libertarian postings, I have the feeling some would be quite willing to force others to submit.

What are you being forced to submit to? We're looking to REPEAL laws, which gives you more freedom. That's submission to you?

We'd be forcing them to relinquish power.

 

[Paulie]

There it is, the centerpiece of libertarian dogma, forever misunderstood outsiders who get to play the victim of the two party system every single time the voters foolishly vote for more of the same never to be even slightly responsible for the terrible state of our political landscape. There are far harsher critics than I and like usual it's my fault for not understanding. I understand your politics better than you do, there is nothing noble about playing the perpetual too cool for the room political hipster.

Yes, it's your fault for not understanding, and then passing judgement while criticizing us for not being able to convince you or work with others. For not understanding, and then pretending to have some great understanding of the topic. Yes, those are your fault, and your problem. I'm more than willing to discuss libertarianism with anybody at any time, but when they start making ridiculous claims that they can't back up and continually dismiss what I'm trying to say then I start to lose interest.

Stop making ridiculous statements and maybe I will not be so skeptical. You are right I did reject this crap long ago because you guys tend to be all attack all the time on everything and are yet terribly pathetic on defending your belief system. I have to defend my beliefs every day of the week on this board and I know it's tough but it builds character and makes one constantly re-examine their opinions, have you ever done that? Are you afraid that you might be proven wrong if you actually choose a side in a discussion?

If you would just admit that the thought of having to rely on yourself without the rest of us holding your hand scares the shit out of you, maybe we would take you more seriously.

 

[Samson]

Certainly, we all can easily guess what would happen to the markets and industry if all the cops clocked out and went home. Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me. We have it pretty bad now in our weakly regulated system where the worst practices might earn a slap on the wrist, I cannot imagine the catastrophe if they were to abolish the various watchdogs.

if you can find a quote of a libertarian advocating the elimination of police, please post it. Also, if you can find any libertarian proposing to make fraud legal, please post that.

You think we currently have a "weakly regulated system," and you accuse libertarians of being out of touch?

I did not read anything about eliminating "police."

I read a post about markets and industry.

The following is the Libertarian platform statement about

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets

By "cops clocking out" the reference is clearly about the Libertarian platform wishing to "divest government" of the regulatory functions that prevent market monopolies.

 

[occupied]

Kevin, I wish to believe that, but when I read some of the so-called libertarian postings, I have the feeling some would be quite willing to force others to submit.

What are you being forced to submit to? We're looking to REPEAL laws, which gives you more freedom. That's submission to you?

We'd be forcing them to relinquish power.

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of a power vacuum, and I don't mean that thing that cleans your rug.

 

[Paulie]

Yes they are a political junkpile of extreme positions without the conviction to actually attempt to implement them and the lacking the simplist ability to create consensus.

From what I've read in this tread, some do not even comprehend enough basic economic theory to define a monopoly.

This is especially concerning since the libertarian platform, which I have quoted, specifically supports unfettered free markets, which have, not in theory, but in reality, spawned market monopolies.

Certainly, we all can easily guess what would happen to the markets and industry if all the cops clocked out and went home. Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me. We have it pretty bad now in our weakly regulated system where the worst practices might earn a slap on the wrist, I cannot imagine the catastrophe if they were to abolish the various watchdogs.

Don't blame the regulatory system for the fact that white collar offenders never get prosecuted. There's plenty of regulations there. The reason they don't get prosecuted is called cronyism.

Jon Corzine should probably go to prison, but will he? Fuck no. That's not the fault of the regulatory system, that's the fault of the government not pursuing a harsh sentence.

 

[bripat9643]

I did not read anything about eliminating "police."

I read a post about markets and industry.

The following is the Libertarian platform statement about

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets

By "cops clocking out" the reference is clearly about the Libertarian platform wishing to "divest government" of the regulatory functions that prevent market monopolies.

First you claimed not read anything about eliminating "police." Then you quoted the text that mentions eliminating the police. Occupied clearly stated he believes libertarians want to make fraud legal. Regulators are not cops. They are third parties imposing their rules on market participants whether the later find those rules useful or not.

Regulators have never prevented a monopoly and they never will. In fact, government regulations often enforce monopolies. Monopolies simply can't exist in a market where capital is free to enter. Competition cannot be prevented except by law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What are you being forced to submit to? We're looking to REPEAL laws, which gives you more freedom. That's submission to you?

We'd be forcing them to relinquish power.

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of a power vacuum, and I don't mean that thing that cleans your rug.

Still waiting on you to make an argument, or are you no longer interested?

 

[bripat9643]

Don't blame the regulatory system for the fact that white collar offenders never get prosecuted. There's plenty of regulations there. The reason they don't get prosecuted is called cronyism.

Jon Corzine should probably go to prison, but will he? Fuck no. That's not the fault of the regulatory system, that's the fault of the government not pursuing a harsh sentence.

"Cronyism" is a fundamental feature of the regulatory system. Economists call it "industry capture."

 

[Paulie]

I did not read anything about eliminating "police."

I read a post about markets and industry.

The following is the Libertarian platform statement about

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets

By "cops clocking out" the reference is clearly about the Libertarian platform wishing to "divest government" of the regulatory functions that prevent market monopolies.

First you claimed not read anything about eliminating "police." Then you quoted the text that mentions eliminating the police. Occupied clearly stated he believes libertarians want to make fraud legal. Regulators are not cops. They are third parties imposing their rules on market participants whether the later find those rules useful or not.

Regulators have never prevented a monopoly and they never will. In fact, government regulations often enforce monopolies. Monopolies simply can't exist in a market where capital is free to enter. Competition cannot be prevented except by law.

The big corps and their lobbyists don't write regulatory legislation for nothing.

 

[occupied]

Certainly, we all can easily guess what would happen to the markets and industry if all the cops clocked out and went home. Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me. We have it pretty bad now in our weakly regulated system where the worst practices might earn a slap on the wrist, I cannot imagine the catastrophe if they were to abolish the various watchdogs.

if you can find a quote of a libertarian advocating the elimination of police, please post it. Also, if you can find any libertarian proposing to make fraud legal, please post that.

You think we currently have a "weakly regulated system," and you accuse libertarians of being out of touch?

I did not read anything about eliminating "police."

I read a post about markets and industry.

The following is the Libertarian platform statement about

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets

By "cops clocking out" the reference is clearly about the Libertarian platform wishing to "divest government" of the regulatory functions that prevent market monopolies.

Yes I thought my use of metaphor was fairly obvious. Wall Street has shown again and again how willing they are to exploit loopholes in the law to commit fraud or more precisely it would be considered fraud if we were on top of the many aspects of their daily operations that benefit no one except the glorified used car salesmen who push their worthless paper as sound financial securities.

 

[bripat9643]

One of the major problems with libertarianism is lots of broad generalizations that sound good on the surface with few details. That's where the devil lies and is the same problem the Marxists had. In practice their theories just didn't work. If you could point to just one country where it's been tried and worked maybe we could give it a shot, but right now it just seems to be a shot in the dark.

Libertarians have been providing details for 40 years. The claim that they don't understand the details always comes from people who can't tell you the details. What are the details of the ACA? Did you read the bill?

The reason Marxism doesn't work has nothing to do with "details." It is the result of the fact that the basic principles of Marxism are bogus. The idea that everyone should receive an equal share of production regardless of their contribution is moronic.

 

[Paulie]

Think about it from the big businessman's perspective, or the elected official's perspective...

The big businessman slips the elected official a couple bucks under the table to do whatever he can to keep the competition down. Obviously the government can't simply enact a monopoly for the big business, so they use regulations to stifle the smaller competitors from being a problem. If compliance costs are high enough, competitors can literally be priced right out of competition.

And no one is any the wiser, because all that happened was more regulation was put into place, and of course regulation is GOOD FOR EVERYONE!

 

[bripat9643]

Yes I thought my use of metaphor was fairly obvious. Wall Street has shown again and again how willing they are to exploit loopholes in the law to commit fraud or more precisely it would be considered fraud if we were on top of the many aspects of their daily operations that benefit no one except the glorified used car salesmen who push their worthless paper as sound financial securities.

The only such example I'm aware of is where regulators deliberately cast a blind eye on the quality of mortgages in bundled securities so the government could facilitate it's agenda of "affordable housing." As always, whenever some systemic defect in the market is unveiled, government always has a big hand in it.

 

[Samson]

a monopoly is a state granted privilege that would not exist in a free market.

It makes me sad to discover such remarkable ignorance:

MONOPOLY = exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

A monopoly can be a state granted privilage, but there is nothing preventing a monopoly from existing in a free market whether or not the state grants any privilage. The only thing preventing a monopoly is a MARKET REGULATED BY THE STATE.

A free market is one without state regulation (thus the word "free" and not "regulated")

Libertarians believe in free markets.


Monopolies exist without state regulation (see Standard Oil, late 19th century)


Libertarians believe in monopolies.

 

[occupied]

We'd be forcing them to relinquish power.

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of a power vacuum, and I don't mean that thing that cleans your rug.

Still waiting on you to make an argument, or are you no longer interested?

Not really as you are not interested in defending yourself from what I see as serious flaws in your ideology. All you are capable saying is that I am just wrong and ignorant about everything, you really do not know the art of rhetorical defense at all do you?

 

[g5000]

Certainly, we all can easily guess what would happen to the markets and industry if all the cops clocked out and went home. Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me. We have it pretty bad now in our weakly regulated system where the worst practices might earn a slap on the wrist, I cannot imagine the catastrophe if they were to abolish the various watchdogs.

if you can find a quote of a libertarian advocating the elimination of police, please post it. Also, if you can find any libertarian proposing to make fraud legal, please post that.

You think we currently have a "weakly regulated system," and you accuse libertarians of being out of touch?

I have heard many a Libertarian claim that insider trading is not fraud and should be legal.


.

 

[Samson]

Yes I thought my use of metaphor was fairly obvious. .

Well, we're clearly not dealing with higher level thinkers here.

You'll need to stick to spoon-feeding, small, simple amounts of information, and even then be prepared for the likelihood that it still might not be digested.



Keep a towel handy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

a monopoly is a state granted privilege that would not exist in a free market.

It makes me sad to discover such remarkable ignorance:

MONOPOLY = exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

A monopoly can be a state granted privilage, but there is nothing preventing a monopoly from existing in a free market whether or not the state grants any privilage. The only thing preventing a monopoly is a MARKET REGULATED BY THE STATE.

A free market is one without state regulation (thus the word "free" and not "regulated")

Libertarians believe in free markets.


Monopolies exist without state regulation (see Standard Oil, late 19th century)


Libertarians believe in monopolies.

So the questions I asked originally are still valid.

"This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?"

Standard Oil cut prices, it didn't raise them. You sure that's the example you want to use?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of a power vacuum, and I don't mean that thing that cleans your rug.

Still waiting on you to make an argument, or are you no longer interested?

Not really as you are not interested in defending yourself from what I see as serious flaws in your ideology. All you are capable saying is that I am just wrong and ignorant about everything, you really do not know the art of rhetorical defense at all do you?

I posted an example of me defending against substantive critiques of libertarian ideology, redundant though they were. You have yet to make any substantive critique, so what exactly am I supposed to defend against? If you feel you have, then I simply ask that you repeat it. But I've detailed the only arguments you've attempted to make as far as I could tell, and I've clearly refuted them.