libertarianism is self-refuting
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:32:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  libertarianism is self-refuting
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: libertarianism is self-refuting  (Read 18197 times)
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2008, 07:11:11 PM »


Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.

Without government protection, there is nothing to stop slavery, which is a total lack of freedom. Though this may be uncommon in industrialized areas, wage slavery would be the norm.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2008, 08:35:45 PM »


Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

You are aware of the fact that in a free market those cartels can drive any competition that refuses to join out of business, right? It's especially easy for start ups. Since you're overcharging and making lots of money most of the time, cartel members would have extra money to spare in case of emergency. If you get a start-up trying to compete, just lower the price of your goods temporarily to a price lower than the new guy could possibly offer and wait until he goes under from lack of business. You've got the extra money and you can outlast him. Once he's gone raise prices again. It's really that simple.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2008, 08:43:50 PM »


Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

You are aware of the fact that in a free market those cartels can drive any competition that refuses to join out of business, right? It's especially easy for start ups. Since you're overcharging and making lots of money most of the time, cartel members would have extra money to spare in case of emergency. If you get a start-up trying to compete, just lower the price of your goods temporarily to a price lower than the new guy could possibly offer and wait until he goes under from lack of business. You've got the extra money and you can outlast him. Once he's gone raise prices again. It's really that simple.
What if Bill Gates gets into your market?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2008, 09:00:44 PM »


Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.

Without government protection, there is nothing to stop slavery, which is a total lack of freedom. Though this may be uncommon in industrialized areas, wage slavery would be the norm.

First of all, nobody with a gun is going to become a slave. Second, if the "Civil" War proved anything, its that slavery is no institution to base your economy on. you will get much better quality labor if it is voluntary. Third, slavery would not be permitted in a libertarian society, so your point is moot and a straw man. Next time you criticize my arguments, make sure the claim is valid.
Logged
specific_name
generic_name
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2008, 09:05:16 PM »

Frankly, Straha's initial argument is asinine. Libertarianism does not advocate corporate control of the populace. Its emphasize is on government and its regulation of the economy. I don't see how a free market automatically equals monopoly and a corporatist state. Like any ideology, libertarianism at the most extreme could be seen as the exercise of one ideal to the exclusion of all others. However, in reality libertarianism does not exist in a vacuum and it is certainly countered by other points of view. It does not counter itself because the ideal of person freedom is consistent throughout the ideology.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2008, 09:08:06 PM »


Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

You are aware of the fact that in a free market those cartels can drive any competition that refuses to join out of business, right? It's especially easy for start ups. Since you're overcharging and making lots of money most of the time, cartel members would have extra money to spare in case of emergency. If you get a start-up trying to compete, just lower the price of your goods temporarily to a price lower than the new guy could possibly offer and wait until he goes under from lack of business. You've got the extra money and you can outlast him. Once he's gone raise prices again. It's really that simple.

To start on a personal note, it seems that for a libertarian, you sure like to defend government intervention, Mr. Dibble.

Turning to your argument. First of all, that strategy would require you to take customers as imbeciles. Do you really think customers are going to continue to buy goods from companies that continue to raise and lower their prices to make it inconvienient for them? Second, if the cartel lowers their prices below the market level to lure customers away, they are losing a profit on those goods. Third, if a cartel lowers their prices to make their competitor leave, the competitor can innovate his produce so it is superior in quality to the cartel's product. Therefore, customers would be more willing to buy the competitor's product, and the cartel would have to dissolve if they wanted to stay in business. Any good entrepeneur will be willing to take risks like that.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2008, 09:48:16 PM »

To start on a personal note, it seems that for a libertarian, you sure like to defend government intervention, Mr. Dibble.

And you often seem more like an anarchist than a libertarian given the completely ludicrous positions you often espouse. Libertarianism recognizes the need for a government in many areas, just in a more limited fashion than most other political ideologies. If you find the fact that I don't ignore reality and pragmatism as being un-libertarian then you can continue to live in a fantasy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it's something they need or want badly enough, yeah they would. Oh, sure, you might get a few people who will think long-term, but not enough. Most people on the other hand will buy cheap in the short term even if they might be losing in the long term - hell, they do that right now. The whole "buy American" thing didn't work out, did it?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but only temporarily in order to drive those attempting competition out of business so they can resume overpricing.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing says the cartel can't do the same. Hell, they'd be motivated to do so anyways - producing their product for less means even more profit when they can overcharge, and members that produce at higher quality would get more customers.

And for some products you can't really increase quality. The gas you pump into your car is largely the same regardless of what station you buy it at for instance.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2008, 07:19:24 AM »

Because of the lack of perfect knowledge on the part of producer and consumer, consumer reporters would act as middle-men to help give consumers the facts they need. Also, it would be completely hypocritical for a coercive monopoly to be regulating to make sure monopolies don't form.

Firstly, it would be impossible for these consumer reporters to give consumers all the facts they need because it is impossible for them to attain perfect knowledge. Secondly, where do these consumer reporters come from? Seems to me that this system is one that is easy to corrupt; how do you decide between competing consumer reporters? Government should regulate because it is the representative of society whereas businesses are the representatives of their shareholders.

Because of those entry costs, natural monopolies aren't going to charge any more than the entry cost for a new business would be. For example, if the bottled water company is a natural monopoly (we'll call it Company A), and bottling water costs $1/bottle, but entry costs are $5, the prices for bottled water will not reach $6, because at that point, it would become profitable for a competitor to enter the bottled water business. Even then, it would be profitable for a competitor if they were to look into the long-term. If Company A currently charges $4/bottle, then even though it will cost a competitor $6 to enter initially, , he would gain enough customers to ofset that by selling bottled water at $3.50/bottle. Thus, natural monopolies cannot be exploitive for purely economic reasons.

You're assuming incredibly low entry costs there. I am talking more about things like utilities where the entry costs are astronomical; how expensive would it be to lay a completely alternative pipe grid to provide water to everyone?

Equally, you have to consider problems such as space; not only is an entirely alternative road network prohibitively expensive, there's also no space to build one. If I own a city's roads I can charge whatever I want for using them because there won't be an alternative system going up. Firstly there wouldn't be space and secondly they would have to cross my roads at one point and I could simply refuse the company the right to do that.

First of all, nobody with a gun is going to become a slave. Second, if the "Civil" War proved anything, its that slavery is no institution to base your economy on. you will get much better quality labor if it is voluntary. Third, slavery would not be permitted in a libertarian society, so your point is moot and a straw man. Next time you criticize my arguments, make sure the claim is valid.

Slavery would not be permitted? Hang on a second, in the other thread you just said that if you breach someone else's natural rights you forfeit yours to them. Now that sounds an awful lot like slavery to me, particularly given that you believe if you kill someone then your life becomes the property of their relatives. That sounds an awful lot like slavery to me.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2008, 11:54:01 AM »

To start on a personal note, it seems that for a libertarian, you sure like to defend government intervention, Mr. Dibble.

And you often seem more like an anarchist than a libertarian given the completely ludicrous positions you often espouse. Libertarianism recognizes the need for a government in many areas, just in a more limited fashion than most other political ideologies. If you find the fact that I don't ignore reality and pragmatism as being un-libertarian then you can continue to live in a fantasy.


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do I prioritize individual liberty? Yes
Do I seek to minimize/eliminate the state? Yes
Therefore, I qualify as a libertarian. Nowhere in the definition does it say that libertarianism necessarily recognizes the need for government in many areas. I never said you weren't a libertarian, I just found it odd that you were advocating anti-trust laws and government regulation of the market. I'm not ignoring reality. Reality has shown that every government in history has either been overthrown or has grown past its original size. Out constitutional republic has been a failure in keeping government from growing to a size that conflicts with individual liberty. I do not think our Founding gained independence by being pragmatic with the English.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2008, 12:08:25 PM »

Because of the lack of perfect knowledge on the part of producer and consumer, consumer reporters would act as middle-men to help give consumers the facts they need. Also, it would be completely hypocritical for a coercive monopoly to be regulating to make sure monopolies don't form.

Firstly, it would be impossible for these consumer reporters to give consumers all the facts they need because it is impossible for them to attain perfect knowledge. Secondly, where do these consumer reporters come from? Seems to me that this system is one that is easy to corrupt; how do you decide between competing consumer reporters? Government should regulate because it is the representative of society whereas businesses are the representatives of their shareholders.

John Stossel's book Give Me a Break devotes an entire chapter on consumer reporting, and shows that while private consumer reporting has been successful, public consumer reporting has been a failure. In a nutshell, he states that while private consumer reporting has been accurate in an attempt to attract viewers, public consumer reporting has been a failure been the public broadcasting has been too afraid of offending anybody to provide accurate consumer reporting. One chooses a consumer reporter based upon his/her past accuracy. If they have been accurate in the past, they will attract viewers, if they have been blatantly biased towards their advertisers, fre people will watch them.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're assuming incredibly low entry costs there. I am talking more about things like utilities where the entry costs are astronomical; how expensive would it be to lay a completely alternative pipe grid to provide water to everyone?

Equally, you have to consider problems such as space; not only is an entirely alternative road network prohibitively expensive, there's also no space to build one. If I own a city's roads I can charge whatever I want for using them because there won't be an alternative system going up. Firstly there wouldn't be space and secondly they would have to cross my roads at one point and I could simply refuse the company the right to do that. [/quote]

Believing in homestead principle, I believe that unowned resources should be transfered to the first user. Thus, city roads would still be, in a sense, 'publicly' owned, since they would be jointly owned by the residents, similar to a community association. On the other hand, more rural areas' roads would be more likely to be privately owned, since fewer people live in those areas. With regards to crossing roads, both road companies would gian the others' customers if they crossed roads, thus both would make a profit.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slavery would not be permitted? Hang on a second, in the other thread you just said that if you breach someone else's natural rights you forfeit yours to them. Now that sounds an awful lot like slavery to me, particularly given that you believe if you kill someone then your life becomes the property of their relatives. That sounds an awful lot like slavery to me.
[/quote]

No, I said that if you breach someone else's natural rights and are not able to provide sufficient restitution to them, you forfeit yours to them. Murderers cannot bring their victims back to life, so the only just punishment would be to let the family members decide what to do with the murderer.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2008, 12:14:35 PM »

To start on a personal note, it seems that for a libertarian, you sure like to defend government intervention, Mr. Dibble.

And you often seem more like an anarchist than a libertarian given the completely ludicrous positions you often espouse. Libertarianism recognizes the need for a government in many areas, just in a more limited fashion than most other political ideologies. If you find the fact that I don't ignore reality and pragmatism as being un-libertarian then you can continue to live in a fantasy.


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't consider anarchism to be a school of libertarian thought, and I'm not alone in that. Wikipedia doesn't get to decide that for the rest of us. The things you advocate are such that you seem to want no government at all, so I'm inclined to consider you an anarchist and not a libertarian.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes you are. You ignore reality whenever it contradicts your beliefs.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly you don't even know what the word pragmatic means.

prag·mat·ic (prg-mtk)
adj.
1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.

The founders didn't gain independence by dealing with a magical fairy land where independence would come by asking nicely, they knew it would take a war to win it because reality dictated that it was what it would take. The founders were very pragmatic in fact. The Declaration of Independence was done out of pragmatism - they wrote it in such a way that they could justify independence not to Britain but to the other monarchies who might have otherwise supported Britain for fear that their colonies might rebel. By recognizing the threat that those other nations could pose to the independence effort and heading it off, they were being pragmatic.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2008, 12:22:33 PM »

To start on a personal note, it seems that for a libertarian, you sure like to defend government intervention, Mr. Dibble.

And you often seem more like an anarchist than a libertarian given the completely ludicrous positions you often espouse. Libertarianism recognizes the need for a government in many areas, just in a more limited fashion than most other political ideologies. If you find the fact that I don't ignore reality and pragmatism as being un-libertarian then you can continue to live in a fantasy.


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't consider anarchism to be a school of libertarian thought, and I'm not alone in that. Wikipedia doesn't get to decide that for the rest of us. The things you advocate are such that you seem to want no government at all, so I'm inclined to consider you an anarchist and not a libertarian.

http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2008, 01:20:00 PM »

To start on a personal note, it seems that for a libertarian, you sure like to defend government intervention, Mr. Dibble.

And you often seem more like an anarchist than a libertarian given the completely ludicrous positions you often espouse. Libertarianism recognizes the need for a government in many areas, just in a more limited fashion than most other political ideologies. If you find the fact that I don't ignore reality and pragmatism as being un-libertarian then you can continue to live in a fantasy.


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't consider anarchism to be a school of libertarian thought, and I'm not alone in that. Wikipedia doesn't get to decide that for the rest of us. The things you advocate are such that you seem to want no government at all, so I'm inclined to consider you an anarchist and not a libertarian.

http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism

And? I still disagree that anarchy should be considered one of  the many libertarian ideologies. Obviously there are those that disagree. Arguing "What is libertarianism" isn't going to get us anywhere. My points on the obvious ignorance of reality in your ideology still stand.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2008, 03:28:05 PM »

Standard monopoly theory as taught to undergraduates in Introduction to Microeconomics assumes government is a perfect agent who only has society's general interest in mind. There are enough insights from Public Choice theory to show that the choice is not between a market failure and a correction by government, but between a market failure and a government failure.
Logged
Albus Dumbledore
Havelock Vetinari
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,917
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the


Political Matrix
E: -0.71, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2008, 06:04:49 PM »

If Economics gets to be a science why not raciology or creationism or reptilians or the hollow earth theory?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2008, 06:54:21 PM »

To start on a personal note, it seems that for a libertarian, you sure like to defend government intervention, Mr. Dibble.

And you often seem more like an anarchist than a libertarian given the completely ludicrous positions you often espouse. Libertarianism recognizes the need for a government in many areas, just in a more limited fashion than most other political ideologies. If you find the fact that I don't ignore reality and pragmatism as being un-libertarian then you can continue to live in a fantasy.


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't consider anarchism to be a school of libertarian thought, and I'm not alone in that. Wikipedia doesn't get to decide that for the rest of us. The things you advocate are such that you seem to want no government at all, so I'm inclined to consider you an anarchist and not a libertarian.

http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism

And? I still disagree that anarchy should be considered one of  the many libertarian ideologies. Obviously there are those that disagree. Arguing "What is libertarianism" isn't going to get us anywhere. My points on the obvious ignorance of reality in your ideology still stand.

Mr. Dibble, it would seem that of all the libertarians who have posted in this thread (me, you, Bono, dead0man, generic), you are the only one who finds it more worthwhile to debate me than to debate our statist opponents. For a supposed 'pragmatist', you seem to be doing more to be divisive than any other libertarian who has posted here. By the way, while we're talking about reality, could you please name one constitutional government that has remained strictly limited to its constitutional size?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2008, 06:59:27 PM »


Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.

Without government protection, there is nothing to stop slavery, which is a total lack of freedom. Though this may be uncommon in industrialized areas, wage slavery would be the norm.

First of all, nobody with a gun is going to become a slave. Second, if the "Civil" War proved anything, its that slavery is no institution to base your economy on. you will get much better quality labor if it is voluntary. Third, slavery would not be permitted in a libertarian society, so your point is moot and a straw man. Next time you criticize my arguments, make sure the claim is valid.

If I had 5 people with submachine guns and you had a shotgun, I'd be able to enslave you. And why wouldn't slavery be permitted?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2008, 07:05:04 PM »


Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   
What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.

Without government protection, there is nothing to stop slavery, which is a total lack of freedom. Though this may be uncommon in industrialized areas, wage slavery would be the norm.

First of all, nobody with a gun is going to become a slave. Second, if the "Civil" War proved anything, its that slavery is no institution to base your economy on. you will get much better quality labor if it is voluntary. Third, slavery would not be permitted in a libertarian society, so your point is moot and a straw man. Next time you criticize my arguments, make sure the claim is valid.

If I had 5 people with submachine guns and you had a shotgun, I'd be able to enslave you. And why wouldn't slavery be permitted?

Slavery is a violation of man's right to life, liberty, and property. Also, the main difference between polycentric law and centralized government is that in the former, if you do not like the service of your protection agency, you can hire another one instead. You do not have that choice with the latter.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2008, 09:20:16 PM »

Mr. Dibble, it would seem that of all the libertarians who have posted in this thread (me, you, Bono, dead0man, generic), you are the only one who finds it more worthwhile to debate me than to debate our statist opponents.

None of those other libertarians have posted against me here either, unless you count dead0man's Bill Gates comment which was meant as a joke. Since they don't seem to be siding with you, I don't see how you have a point here. Maybe they just don't want to bother debating you - did that thought ever occur to you?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does that have to do with pragmatism? I think you still don't even understand what that word means. Pragmatism and divisiveness are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but I don't believe I ever claimed there was one, so do you have a point with this question? Since we're asking questions, can you even name one successful civilization that worked the way you've advocated?
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2008, 08:13:52 AM »

John Stossel's book Give Me a Break devotes an entire chapter on consumer reporting, and shows that while private consumer reporting has been successful, public consumer reporting has been a failure. In a nutshell, he states that while private consumer reporting has been accurate in an attempt to attract viewers, public consumer reporting has been a failure been the public broadcasting has been too afraid of offending anybody to provide accurate consumer reporting. One chooses a consumer reporter based upon his/her past accuracy. If they have been accurate in the past, they will attract viewers, if they have been blatantly biased towards their advertisers, fre people will watch them.

Having looked Stossel up, it is shocking that a private consumer reporter would write a book explaining why private consumer reporters were good. So which watchdog will measure their past accuracy? Are there consumer reporters for consumer reporters?

Because of those
Believing in homestead principle, I believe that unowned resources should be transfered to the first user. Thus, city roads would still be, in a sense, 'publicly' owned, since they would be jointly owned by the residents, similar to a community association. On the other hand, more rural areas' roads would be more likely to be privately owned, since fewer people live in those areas. With regards to crossing roads, both road companies would gian the others' customers if they crossed roads, thus both would make a profit.

Sounds like a distortion of the free market to me. On crossing roads, if I owned a monopoly on roads and someone was attempting to introduce a separate system, why would it be in my interest to let theirs cross mine? If I control the entire grid and someone is trying to introduce an alternative then I could just say no and maintain my monopoly. Alternatively, if there already are two road systems then we can band together as a cartel and collectively raise prices and there is nothing the public can do about it. That's a fact that is true of all industries that are dominated by a select few firms with an immense degree of market power.

No, I said that if you breach someone else's natural rights and are not able to provide sufficient restitution to them, you forfeit yours to them. Murderers cannot bring their victims back to life, so the only just punishment would be to let the family members decide what to do with the murderer.

That is simply slavery by another name.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2008, 11:56:00 AM »

No, but I don't believe I ever claimed there was one, so do you have a point with this question? Since we're asking questions, can you even name one successful civilization that worked the way you've advocated?

You trying to be pragmatic by advocating a limited government, but that hasn't existed in all of history.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2008, 12:03:21 PM »

John Stossel's book Give Me a Break devotes an entire chapter on consumer reporting, and shows that while private consumer reporting has been successful, public consumer reporting has been a failure. In a nutshell, he states that while private consumer reporting has been accurate in an attempt to attract viewers, public consumer reporting has been a failure been the public broadcasting has been too afraid of offending anybody to provide accurate consumer reporting. One chooses a consumer reporter based upon his/her past accuracy. If they have been accurate in the past, they will attract viewers, if they have been blatantly biased towards their advertisers, fre people will watch them.

Having looked Stossel up, it is shocking that a private consumer reporter would write a book explaining why private consumer reporters were good. So which watchdog will measure their past accuracy? Are there consumer reporters for consumer reporters?

If you has competition for a job you have, and your competitor gives false information on television, would you even hesitate to expose him if it were false information?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like a distortion of the free market to me. On crossing roads, if I owned a monopoly on roads and someone was attempting to introduce a separate system, why would it be in my interest to let theirs cross mine? If I control the entire grid and someone is trying to introduce an alternative then I could just say no and maintain my monopoly. Alternatively, if there already are two road systems then we can band together as a cartel and collectively raise prices and there is nothing the public can do about it. That's a fact that is true of all industries that are dominated by a select few firms with an immense degree of market power.[/quote]

Like I said, most roads today would be owned by 'road associations'. Only the roads in places nobody lived would be owned by private companies. Given that fact, if a road owner tried to raise costs, people could either cut back on their driving or start a competitor road. Either way, the road owner would lose money by overcharging his customers.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is simply slavery by another name.
[/quote]

And, as I said in the other thread, how would you punish murderers?
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2008, 12:50:11 PM »

If you has competition for a job you have, and your competitor gives false information on television, would you even hesitate to expose him if it were false information?

Again, how do I determine which consumer reporter has the best record? Do we have consumer reporters for that? The fact is that these consumer reporters can't combat the interminable problem of perfect knowledge in the free market because they won't have it about the industries they cover themselves and their customers will not have perfect knowledge about which consumer reporter to choose.

Having not read the Stossel book I cannot comment on exactly what he says but I would assume that it is patently obvious that he would not criticise consumer reporters as a whole because he is one, although he may choose to single some out and attack them. If I cited government-produced material which argued that actually the government was a better arbiter in this matter then you would scream and cry that it was obvious the government would be saying this because it makes them look good. The tool works both ways.

Because of those
Like I said, most roads today would be owned by 'road associations'. Only the roads in places nobody lived would be owned by private companies. Given that fact, if a road owner tried to raise costs, people could either cut back on their driving or start a competitor road. Either way, the road owner would lose money by overcharging his customers.

What about the pavements? Are those not included in the road system; it's impossible that people cut back on using both because they have to get to work or to the shops to buy food and the such. It's also not just a question of money, it's also a question of space; there is hardly the space to introduce two parallel road systems.

Equally, how are these 'road associations' run? While I'm sure the wealthy could afford the upkeep of their roads or to implement a system of charging, that is hardly going to be the case in poorer areas.

And, as I said in the other thread, how would you punish murderers?

As I've said there, I do not believe that punishment should solely be about retribution which is largely what it would end up as under your system because the decision of the family would hardly be made in a moment of calm. I think it is far better that we have a system that is at least to some extent impartial in the matter and also that there exists a prison system that serves simultaneously to protect the public, to institute a form of punishment for a crime but also to attempt to rehabilitate a criminal. On that note, how exactly would the prison system work under your system? Who pays for that exactly? Who runs that? Or would you just leave the criminals to those whose rights they transgressed?
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2008, 12:51:42 PM »

No, but I don't believe I ever claimed there was one, so do you have a point with this question? Since we're asking questions, can you even name one successful civilization that worked the way you've advocated?

You trying to be pragmatic by advocating a limited government, but that hasn't existed in all of history.

My pragmatism is about limiting government where it's possible to do so. On the other hand you drone on and on about stuff that is so unlikely to happen it might as well be a fantasy.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2008, 12:28:43 PM »

No, but I don't believe I ever claimed there was one, so do you have a point with this question? Since we're asking questions, can you even name one successful civilization that worked the way you've advocated?

You trying to be pragmatic by advocating a limited government, but that hasn't existed in all of history.

My pragmatism is about limiting government where it's possible to do so. On the other hand you drone on and on about stuff that is so unlikely to happen it might as well be a fantasy.

First, I've already demonstrated that limited government is as much a fantasy as my system is, if not more so, since both systems have not been demonstrated before, and the former system is impossible. Second, while were on the subject of pragmatism, I seem to remember this wuote from last year:

I'd rather put my time and energy into libertarian pursuits that actually have a chance of success.

Such as.........?

Well, I support the Libertarian Reform Caucus - probably the best chance to turn the LP into a viable political force. Also, I'd support libertarian candidates (regardless of party) in races they could win. For instance in races where only one of the major parties are competing. Don't get me wrong - I support Paul's candidacy, but I'm not going to invest alot of energy into it unless I think it's viable. As human beings we each have limited time and resources, so I'd prefer to use mine as best as I can.

And, of course, the end result was that Paul got ~300,000 more votes than the LP's most successful candidate and over $32 million, so I wouldn't be quick to shun beliefs as impossible, expecially when you consider Paul was willing to dive into deep libertarian issues such as non-interventionism and a free market in money. On the other hand, the current reformist candidate Bob Barr struggles to obtain ballot access and only has $430,000 right now, part of which is being spent on air conditioning.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.085 seconds with 13 queries.