libertarianism is self-refuting

[SPC]

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.   

I would challenge you to show ONE libertarian say that private groups/individuals are free to force others. Libertarianism advocates the non-agression principle, stating that no individual or group can initiate force against another individual or group, and we consistantly apply this to government as well. Explain to me the consistency of your theory in thinking that theft, murder, and slavery are illegal for individuals but legal for a monopolistic organization?

[SPC]

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.

[SPC]

I'm more of a social libertarian than an economic one, but riddle me this:

) Aren't even the most extreme of libertarians, like Ayn Rand, supportive of a judiciary system and an army?

Being an extreme libertarian myself, there are the anarcho-capitalists like myself who support privatization of all government services, or at the very least allowing individuals to secede from the government. Many people at the Mises Institute follow this line of thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is a good place to look. Corporate abuses wold be rare in a true free-market economy, as any corparate wrongdoing would lose customers. Monopolies would be near non-existant in a free-market economy as well, since people would be free to open competing businesses. Only the iron fist of government coercion can keep a monopoly existant. Price-rigging couldn't happen either, since any natural monopoly overcharging would face competition.

[SPC]

Here is a good place to look. Corporate abuses wold be rare in a true free-market economy, as any corparate wrongdoing would lose customers. Monopolies would be near non-existant in a free-market economy as well, since people would be free to open competing businesses. Only the iron fist of government coercion can keep a monopoly existant. Price-rigging couldn't happen either, since any natural monopoly overcharging would face competition.

Corporate abuses would be rare in a perfect free-market economy but perfect competition is a complete pipe-dream; it requires perfect knowledge on the part of both producer and consumer which is simply impossible to achieve. Given this problem, it is entirely sensible that government should exist to regulate the market and ensure that corporations do not abuse their power.

It's also naive to suggest that monopolies wouldn't exist in a perfect free market because people could open rivals because your point completely ignores prohibitive entry costs into certain industries. As I have frequently pointed out, things like road networks and water piping are natural monopolies because the entry-barriers to competition are prohibitively high. The fact that there would eventually be a price ceiling hardly prevents price rigging as that ceiling would be almost astronomical.

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.

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.

[SPC]

There's also the matter of cartels.

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.

[SPC]

There's also the matter of cartels.

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.

[SPC]

There's also the matter of cartels.

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.

[SPC]

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.

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.

[SPC]

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.

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.

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.

[SPC]

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.

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

[SPC]

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.

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?

[SPC]

There's also the matter of cartels.

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.

[SPC]

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.

[SPC]

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?

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.

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?

[SPC]

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.

[SPC]

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.

No, you haven't. Your system is an absolute fantasy, mine at least has a chance to be at least partially implemented, even if only temporarily.

The likelihood of my system being implemented doesn't dismiss the morality of it. If I were an abolitionist in 1800, would you call my dream of abolishing slavery a "fantasy", whereas the system of abolishing the slave trade at least has a chance to be implemented? Just because the idea seems improbable at the time doesn't dismiss the morality of it. I'm not suggesting my ideas will be implemented tommorow, or even 50 years from now, but educating people is the first step. On the other hand, the libertarians who are willing to compromise principle in favor of electoral sucess are unlikely to ever reach their goals, as the Barr/Root campaign is trying so hard to prove right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such as.........?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

And as I recall he still lost as I predicted - he put on a nice performance, but he didn't win. Besides, the LP hasn't been reformed in such a way it can become a major party, so why would I expect it to do better than a well known Republican? BTW, I would mention that Paul attracted a lot of people who didn't agree with all his ideas (hell, many of them probably didn't know a lot of his ideas) - he was a strongly anti-Bush candidate, which in itself attracted many. And frankly, I think even Paul would think you're nuts given some of your ideas.
[/quote]

He still came closer to electoral victory than any other LP candidate in history, including Ed "low-tax liberalism" Clark. Also, why dismiss the anti-establishment coalition that Paul was able to bring together in support of liberty? I doubt Paul would dismiss me as nuts for holding my ideas, considering his best friend (Lew Rockwell) holds the same philosophy.

[SPC]

The likelihood of my system being implemented doesn't dismiss the morality of it. If I were an abolitionist in 1800, would you call my dream of abolishing slavery a "fantasy", whereas the system of abolishing the slave trade at least has a chance to be implemented?

No, because abolition would still be feasible. It would be a long road, but not an infinitely long one. Don't confuse my being pragmatic with being impatient - if I think what I want can be accomplished in the long term I'm still willing to go for it.

And who made you the ultimate arbitrer of what's feasible and what's not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if they know about the ideas, they'll just follow along like brainless zombies? Oh please. Don't expect people to just become mindless zombies who blindly follow your ideas just because they know about them. You'll never have enough people on board with your anarchist views of the world to get it implemented.[/quote]

No, I meant educating people and convincing them that the non-agression principle is the only moral system you can have. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. To call all libertarians who follow this principle 'mindless zombies' completely ignores the point of education. Don't expect to tell me to believe that you were libertarian since the day you were born. Somewhere between your birth and now, you would have had to have someone to have educated you to libertarian principles.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Barr/Root campaign will fail because the Libertarian Party is currently too small of a political force to have success in the presidential race, not because of lack of principle. We've had "principled" Libertarian Party candidates for the most part since the party was founded, and that includes the time Ron Paul ran as the LP candidate. Each and every one of those principled guys lost. Frankly, I see the guys who make some compromises more likely to have at least some of their goals accomplished, while the principled people who can't convince enough people to agree with them will get absolutely nothing done.[/quote]

Well, good luck with that. I'll be over here laughing when the ex-drug warrior gets the usual >0.5% on Election Day. In the meantime, if you're advocating growing the party (which BTW, I have not been associated with since Ruwart lost the nomination), don't be a hypocrit and purge people with more radical views the yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he still lost by a wide margin. And he wouldn't have had that success unless he compromised principle for electoral success by joining the corrupt Republican party. Since you believe him to be such a big success, I thank you for proving my point for me.

As far as Lew Rockwell, show me where he advocates private police and military for everyone while also saying there would be no free riders with that system.
[/quote]

Despite his being a Republican, Paul was willing to dwell into issues that you would rather not discuss, such as abolishing the income tax, having competing currencies, ending military interventionism abroad, relegalizing drugs, etc. As for Lew Rockwell, this should do the trick.