libertarianism is self-refuting

[John Dibble]

Monopolies would be near non-existant in a free-market economy as well, since people would be free to open competing businesses.

Not true. Local monopolies would be plentiful, just as they are now, because with local monopolies the services they provide can't be provided by multiple companies in the same area for logistical reasons. Larger monopolies can still exist as well and can use their influence to prevent start-ups from succeeding. There's also the matter of cartels.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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?

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.

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?

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe I mentioned morality in this thread, so I don't see how that's important. Whether a system is "moral" or not is certainly a concern to me, but there's also the matter of whether or not it can work and whether or not society will ever be willing to implement it.

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.

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.

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.

[John Dibble]

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

Nobody, but I can use logic, reason, and facts to determine what is feasible and what isn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's easy enough to say "non-aggression" is moral, but when it comes down to it that's an overly vague concept and many people will take it differently. My statement was more on the specifics of your beliefs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never called them such - I was claiming that human beings as a whole aren't going to mindlessly follow what you or anyone else teaches just because you want them to. All people live different lives, and their circumstances are different as well. There's enough people who live in circumstances that make hardcore libertarianism seem like an extremely bad idea to them that it would be impossible to implement hardcore libertarianism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I never made a different claim. Of course I wasn't always a libertarian, though my own circumstances probably helped me become one. My family had a rather libertarian attitude on social issues, though economics weren't as big a consideration - it wasn't all that political. When I became a libertarian initially I had a lot of zeal and believed in very hardcore libertarian ideals, but as time passed I discussed, debated, and researched and gradually moved towards a more moderate position.

But again, someone else given the same information might reach an entirely different conclusion on libertarianism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't expect him to do all that well - I never said he would. He's not the type who has enough mass appeal to get elected even if we were a major party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no intention of purging people with more radical views from the party, and again I never said I would. However, there is a problem in the party that I like to call the purist faction that would like to purge moderates such as myself from the party. I do think those people are holding us back quite a bit.

Also, just for the record, I don't expect we would ever grow to the size of the two major parties barring one of them collapsing due to some event we can't currently forsee. I would consider it a win if we could take 5-10% of the House of Representatives (arguably the easiest federal office to get elected to) - that would give us enough political force to encourage some fiscal responsibility as well as place some libertarian initiatives in bills before allowing them to pass.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that he made a compromise in joining the Republicans in exchange for electoral success. I applaud his principle, and I think he's a good voice of conscience for the house, but unfortunately I don't see too many of people like him getting elected.