Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Samson]

The "question" was answered before you answered it.

I certainly am not going to spend all evening explaining Standard Oil's predatory pricing to anyone: Look it the fuck up.

Here are a couple of educational video's to help you enlighten yourself as to why a Monoploy is not good:

Let me know if they're too complicated, and I'll try to find something with cartoons.

In other words, you don't want to support your claim. The theory of "predatory pricing" is a myth. No company ever engaged in it, and no company every would. The complaint against Standard Oil was never that it lowered its prices and then raised them. The complaint was that it lowered its prices and then lowered them again. Standard Oil never increased its prices in the whole history of Standard Oil. It continually lowered them.

Your theory of "predatory pricing" is a cartoon. It's a fiction that no company has ever perpetrated. It was invented by statist thugs to justify government taking control of private companies.

Outside the questionably objective Cato Institute blog by Thomas J. DiLorenzo holder of the dubiously honerable "Scott L. Probasco, Jr., Chair of Free Enterprise" at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga?

No.


There are many cases where businesses claims of predatory pricing have been heard in court, and have been confirmed.

But you said "NO COMPANY has ever perpatrated."



So, only one example will demonstrate what a complete and total moron you are.



This was too easy.

 

[occupied]

Insider trading is theft but they know that, no such thing as white collar crime to some of these plutocrat suck-ups.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

The "question" was answered before you answered it.

I certainly am not going to spend all evening explaining Standard Oil's predatory pricing to anyone: Look it the fuck up.

Here are a couple of educational video's to help you enlighten yourself as to why a Monoploy is not good:

[youtube]fqN3Ok6PhfM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]Uyq7srTy7Zg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Let me know if they're too complicated, and I'll try to find something with cartoons.

I'm going to hold my breath waiting for occupied to criticize you for neglecting to defend your position.

 

[Samson]

It is this level of astonishing naivete that makes reading discussion boards so entertaining.

A monopolist creates something called "barriers to market entry."

Be a big boy: Look it up all by yourself.

I agree, your naivete is astonishing and entertaining.

How does a corporation prevent other corporations from competing with it?

I'm certain your response will be hilarious.

Oh, and don't tell me to do your homework for you. That's the tactic of someone who isn't willing to back his claims - a loser, in other words.

Also, don't regurgitate the standard statist excuses for interfering in the market to me. Those claims are precisely what's being disputed here. We aren't required to accept all your bullshit interventionist theories at face value. Prove them or shut up.

Stamping your little foot.



Maybe you'll grow up one day: Tonight I'm done with spoon-feeding the hopeless.

Um, BTW; where on the planet does your free market utopia exist? Where has it ever existed?

No where.




Idiot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Bullshit, I never asked you to repeat to me your tired dogma and I damned sure am not going to just accept your absolute statements as the living gospel. If you have not seen my replies as substantive then just quit replying back to them, simple, otherwise quit acting as if you have reached political perfection and join the fray with the rest of us flawed creatures who suspect that we probably do not know all the answers to every problem but would like to figure them out the right way rather than ignorantly hiding behind a false front refusing to honestly examine your beliefs with the group.

Alright. But you realize everything you said here could apply to you as much as it applies to me, right?

 

[bripat9643]

The "question" was answered before you answered it.

I certainly am not going to spend all evening explaining Standard Oil's predatory pricing to anyone: Look it the fuck up.

Here are a couple of educational video's to help you enlighten yourself as to why a Monoploy is not good:

Let me know if they're too complicated, and I'll try to find something with cartoons.

In other words, you don't want to support your claim. The theory of "predatory pricing" is a myth. No company ever engaged in it, and no company every would. The complaint against Standard Oil was never that it lowered its prices and then raised them. The complaint was that it lowered its prices and then lowered them again. Standard Oil never increased its prices in the whole history of Standard Oil. It continually lowered them.

Your theory of "predatory pricing" is a cartoon. It's a fiction that no company has ever perpetrated. It was invented by statist thugs to justify government taking control of private companies.

Outside the questionably objective Cato Institute blog by Thomas J. DiLorenzo holder of the dubiously honerable "Scott L. Probasco, Jr., Chair of Free Enterprise" at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga?

No.


There are many cases where businesses claims of predatory pricing have been heard in court, and have been confirmed.

But you said "NO COMPANY has ever perpatrated."



So, only one example will demonstrate what a complete and total moron you are.



This was too easy.

1. The newspaper that filed the complaint is still in business.
   
2. The claim of "predatory pricing" and below market pricing was based solely on hearsay evidence.
   
3. There is no hard financial evidence that the defendant's total product was sold at below cost.
   
4. Even if the defendant drove the plaintiff out of business, what would stop a competitor from moving in to replace him?

The fact that some scumbag liberal judges make a ruling doesn't automatically make economic theory it's based on true. Judges aren't competent to rule on the laws of economics.

 

[Samson]

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?

The "question" was answered before you answered it.

I certainly am not going to spend all evening explaining Standard Oil's predatory pricing to anyone: Look it the fuck up.

Here are a couple of educational video's to help you enlighten yourself as to why a Monoploy is not good:

[youtube]fqN3Ok6PhfM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]Uyq7srTy7Zg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Let me know if they're too complicated, and I'll try to find something with cartoons.

I'm going to hold my breath waiting for occupied to criticize you for neglecting to defend your position.

This analysis is about what I expected to receive.

I'll try to find something with cartoons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There certainly is something preventing monopolies from occurring in an unregulated market: the ability of competitors to enter that market and compete with any companies currently doing business in it.

It is this level of astonishing naivete that makes reading discussion boards so entertaining.

A monopolist creates something called "barriers to market entry."


Be a big boy: Look it up all by yourself.

And the question is "How?" I'm starting to suspect you don't even know your own position, let alone the libertarian position.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There certainly is something preventing monopolies from occurring in an unregulated market: the ability of competitors to enter that market and compete with any companies currently doing business in it.

It is this level of astonishing naivete that makes reading discussion boards so entertaining.

A monopolist creates something called "barriers to market entry."


Be a big boy: Look it up all by yourself.

Those barriers are typically REGULATIONS.

The only other real barrier is the bigger company being able to price lower because of its output. Walmart is a good example. But not a common one.

And even in the case of Walmart we have to ask is that a monopoly? There are plenty of competitors, and lower prices only benefits the consumer. So if that's an example of a monopoly then I'd say we need more monopolies.

 

[bripat9643]

It is this level of astonishing naivete that makes reading discussion boards so entertaining.

A monopolist creates something called "barriers to market entry."

Be a big boy: Look it up all by yourself.

I agree, your naivete is astonishing and entertaining.

How does a corporation prevent other corporations from competing with it?

I'm certain your response will be hilarious.

Oh, and don't tell me to do your homework for you. That's the tactic of someone who isn't willing to back his claims - a loser, in other words.

Also, don't regurgitate the standard statist excuses for interfering in the market to me. Those claims are precisely what's being disputed here. We aren't required to accept all your bullshit interventionist theories at face value. Prove them or shut up.

Stamping your little foot.



Maybe you'll grow up one day: Tonight I'm done with spoon-feeding the hopeless.

Um, BTW; where on the planet does your free market utopia exist? Where has it ever existed?

No where.




Idiot.

Where does your liberal Utopia reside? Oh, now I remember: it resides in Cuba.

Feigning arrogant indignation seems to be your favorite tactic to avoid supporting your claims.

Who do you think you're fooling, moron?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.


.

I would agree with that sentiment. How does simply knowing something and then acting on that knowledge constitute fraud?

You said "if you can find any libertarian proposing to make fraud legal, please post that."


Well, there you go. You just said insider trading should be legal, and now I have posted it.


.

The question, however, is insider trading actually fraud?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The "question" was answered before you answered it.

I certainly am not going to spend all evening explaining Standard Oil's predatory pricing to anyone: Look it the fuck up.

Here are a couple of educational video's to help you enlighten yourself as to why a Monoploy is not good:

[youtube]fqN3Ok6PhfM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]Uyq7srTy7Zg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Let me know if they're too complicated, and I'll try to find something with cartoons.

I'm going to hold my breath waiting for occupied to criticize you for neglecting to defend your position.

This analysis is about what I expected to receive.

I'll try to find something with cartoons.

Just fighting oatmeal with hot cereal.

 

[bripat9643]

Insider trading is theft but they know that, no such thing as white collar crime to some of these plutocrat suck-ups.

How is it theft? I'd really love to see that explanation.

 

[bripat9643]

And the question is "How?" I'm starting to suspect you don't even know your own position, let alone the libertarian position.

I love the way these critics of libertarianism claim to be so knowledgeable and we're so ignorant, but they never want to support their claims with actual facts or logic. All they ever do is stomp their feet in indignation and then run away.

 

[occupied]

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.

Bullshit, I never asked you to repeat to me your tired dogma and I damned sure am not going to just accept your absolute statements as the living gospel. If you have not seen my replies as substantive then just quit replying back to them, simple, otherwise quit acting as if you have reached political perfection and join the fray with the rest of us flawed creatures who suspect that we probably do not know all the answers to every problem but would like to figure them out the right way rather than ignorantly hiding behind a false front refusing to honestly examine your beliefs with the group.

Alright. But you realize everything you said here could apply to you as much as it applies to me, right?

Not really, as the thread is on libertarianism and you have self-appointed yourself as a representative. Were that reversed and the thread was on the finer points of American liberalism I would not have the balls to present myself as anything other than just a curious person interested in the discussion, so fulfill your chosen role as glorious defender of your political faith, defend it with something other than absolute statements that I am somehow expected to just accept because that is just not cutting it.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Yeah, man. Can you believe that even though the federal government is a behemoth they do not yet control farting !!!!!!!!

What's their major malfunction?!?!?!?

.

 

[g5000]

Insider trading is theft but they know that, no such thing as white collar crime to some of these plutocrat suck-ups.

How is it theft? I'd really love to see that explanation.

Ask any Enron employee.


I can give you an example. If a CEO knows his company's SPV's are going to blow up in his face in the near future, and he decides to start off-loading his company stock, he is stealing from everyone who buys that stock since they do not have the same information he does. He has perverted the price discovery process of a free market system.


.

 

[bripat9643]

How is it theft? I'd really love to see that explanation.

Ask any Enron employee.

Enron execs were convicted of outright fraud, not insider trading.

I can give you an example. If a CEO knows his company's SPV's are going to blow up in his face in the near future, and he decides to start off-loading his company stock, he is stealing from everyone who buys that stock since they do not have the same information he does. He has perverted the price discovery process of a free market system.

Before I can respond to that, you'll have to explain what SPV's are.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of socialism/fascism and central planning.

.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

DC has shown again and again how willing they are to exploit or create loopholes in the law to become a gargantuan continuing criminal enterprise.