The Libertarian Fallacy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jimi Thing, Dec 17, 2010.

  1. #21 aaronman, Dec 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2010
    Natural monopolies are good, they benefit consumers and piss off competitors.

    Standard Oil was closer to a natural monopoly, and they pissed off competitors to the point they were broken up.

    The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

    Predatory Pricing is a retarded myth


    Turns out your anti-trust laws actually made the market less competitive. :rolleyes:

    Exploitative monopolies and cartels can only form and be sustained by state protections. The only reason that consumer supported monopolies, like Microsoft or Standard Oil, are broken up is to benefit competitors, not consumers.

    JimiThing, can you show me an example of an exploitative monopoly that arose without political entrepreneurship?
     

  2. you're supposing a lot in this argument. how can a coercive monopoly exist in a libertarian society? the only coercive monopolies that exist do so by state grant. you mentioned Rockerfeller, good one. but, his rise to power was aided and abetted by his powerful friends in the government, carnagie? same deal. the only monopolies that can exist in a libertarian society are called 'natural monopolies' that is the situation where a business or person controls the entire market due to providing the best service at the best price. this condition changes even one whit, and you open the door to smaller more efficient business grabbing their piece of the pie.

    you are also supposing that a competing business would allow itself to be 'bought out'. usually companies 'sell out' due to an inability to compete with a larger business, and this is usually due to government interference in the business realm. take the glaring example of walmart. yes they bully into communities and force mom and pops out of business, but they use the powers granted to them by the government to do so. they lobby (bribe) city and county councils for extraordinarily low tax rates using the rationale of all the 'jobs' they provide. you bet your ass that if take away this, small business can and do compete with the chainstores.

    and finally you are supposing that in a libertarian society people can be coerced into patronizing a business that coerces them (well that is straight from the department of redundancy department :D) in a libertarian society it is the patronage of customers that keep business alive, not state largess

    i used to have these exact same reservations about libertarianism and stateless soceities, but then i started looking into it more. coercion starts with the state, and any businesses that utilize coercion as part of their business model does so by state grant.
     
  3. His rise to power was due to vertical integration, check out that article above.

    The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily See: Oily Characters

    The only reason they were broken up was because of the debunked predatory pricing theory (ie chainstore paradox).
     
  4. #24 Limecat, Dec 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2010

    Wouldn't that be nice? Lol
     
  5. Is the government operating with in the bill of rights?
    If their laws to not apply to them why should they apply to me?

    How much corruption will you tolerate to oppress those you disagree with?
     
  6. #26 Jimi Thing, Dec 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2010
    So you guys are against everything this man says, right?
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY&feature=rec-LGOUT-farside_rn-2r-9-HM]YouTube - Sen Bernie Sanders Amazing Speech![/ame]
     
  7. Income disparity is caused by central planning, which Bernie advocates. While he didn't support the bailouts, he still supports the mechanisms that allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the middle class. For example, central banking.

    Violent wealth redistribution will not alleviate the inequalities of opportunity provided to the rich by the state.
     

  8. yes.....Yes it would.
     
  9. #30 Mirvs, Dec 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2010
    Hey man,

    Can you explain how government isn't just another corporation with their own goods and services that they force consumers to buy and patronize through force?

    That you do not have the ability to withdraw or not participate makes it tyrannical by nature. But it's very important that you read that correctly, by nature.

    That means that just because a lot of people agree that Michelle Obama's plans are good things there does not now exist a right that enables this idea or thing to be forced on everyone else, or for everyone else to pay for it.

    Or, in other words, a slave owner could be very nice to their slaves. They could clothe them, feed them well, let them celebrate holidays and have children. They could support those children, feed them well, ensure they have proper nutrition and education regarding the job they are enslaved to. But that makes them no less a slave owner, and therefore no less a tyrant.


    Also, I feel it's unfair for you to ask if we are against everything someone says. I didn't bother watching the Sanders video but I was a fan of his for long enough, and still am to some degree, to feel out what I think is in there.

    I haven't met very many people against feeding the starving, housing the homeless and improving everyone's standard of living. It's just not up to one person or group of persons to decide what those things should be, or how they should be solved, for everyone.

    Are you a pig if you buy a gold plated humvee and drive it in front of homeless people everyday and waste good food in front of them, I think so. But I don't think we should force that person to surrender those items anymore than I think you or I are a pig for buying marijuana or on things that aren't necessities instead of helping the homeless. Although, I don't think someone in the position to do this would have any interests in that or benefit from it.

    Or, again, in other words, it is up to people to decide what to spend their money on. Just because it's not being spent the way you want it to be spent doesn't make it wrong.
     

  10. Vermont
    Population \tRanked 49th in the US
    - Total\t621,760 (2009 est.)[1]
    609,903 (2000)
    Median income \t$52,104 (20th)
     
  11. My thoughts on this video are easily summed up. I watched the thing a week or two ago. Basically, it's one big long appeal to emotion. He makes a few decent points, but IMO he is misguided and misses the mark.
     
  12. I wonder if the OP will respond to aaronman or Mirvs?

    I guess it was better for him to just post a video we already had a thread about. Wouldn't want to directly engage an opposing viewpoint now, would we?
     
  13. I have to write a paper. I'll respond to them later. I'm clearly outnumbered here opinion wise, and fighting a one man argument against 20 is time consuming.
     
  14. Hey it's finals week for me too, so I understand.

    I'd really like to see you address Aaron first, but mostly because he's much better versed in it than I am. If you get a chance I'd still like you to put some time into mine though.
     
  15. Yea, I was going to write a response as well, but I want to see your responses to them first. Take your time.
     
  16. #37 GreenReaper56, Dec 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2010
    You do not? Why the hell would we want anything near that?

    How is taxing not thieving? What the hell do you call it when people STEAL money by force? Maybe i'm missing something. Do you know something we dont? I dont mind paying a few taxes for certain services(Military, Fire, Police, Teachers) but cmon they want more and more and then call you anti American for not wanting to give them more of your hard earned money.

    Well i'm glad you said it yourself. Everything the government introduces to you and everyone else "SEEMS HARMLESS", NO SHIT. But have you ever thought about the other shit thats in their bills/legislation that they DO NOT tell you about? Quote from good ol' pelosi "You'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it". But you just keep on supporting them, they LOVE IT.

    It's the only idea. Have you forgotten what this country was founded on? Lemme spell it out for ya, ready........F.R.E.E.D.O.M.

    Karl Marx, really? Nuff said

    It IS so right. Thats what makes this country so great. Everyone has the freedom to prosper and utilize the opportunities that are here. After your OP, somehow I don't think you've come back down to "this brutal place we call earth". Most of us in this thread have NEVER left.


    We're not here to gang up on you or bash you in any way. Thats not what this site represents or is for. We are trying to get you to see the GOOD light and inform you in the best way possible. Good luck on your paper. Let us know how you did.
     
  17. Is this serious? I would like to know why if this is the case. Sorry if I'm not supposed to show my rep comments I just want to know.
     
  18. Hey Jimi, got some time to go through the entire thread. I'm adding more on to my reply.


    But this isn't basic or proven. In fact, it's horrible economics. If all your business does it buy out other businesses what would stop everyone from opening that type of business up and getting a free paycheck?

    When the use of force is not involved, the only way to put your competitors permanently out of business is to provide the cheapest, highest quality good that everyone wants to buy.

    That's what a true monopoly is. It's one where that sector of the market disallows competition because consumers aren't interested in competitors because they don't need them. When the business starts to slack, that is when a competitor has room to enter that market.

    Furthermore, if you were a competitor to a company that just bought out all the smaller businesses, wouldn't you start paying people to start businesses? Or do all you could to get as many of them started as possible to drain your competitors money?

    And where is all that money going to come from to keep doing that? If all it took for a business to succeed was buying up competition we'd all be millionaires.


    Well. this is like asking why the batters don't tackle the first basement and why basketball players don't use sticks to hit the the ball through the net.

    It's easier for me to think of economic rules as people rules, because that's essentially all they are.

    I would imagine, that in a Libertarian society, all economic rules still do apply. Probably more so than now. But again, just buying your competitor is not an economic rule. Also, no one said these rules wouldn't apply.

    For example, you've heard of tariffs. Tariffs are horrible things, they artificially inflate the value of goods and the consumer has to buy a more expensive or lower quality (or both) product that the government decides upon instead - or pay more for the tariffed good than it's worth.

    If you are truly interested in workers and their movement, you will understand how tariffs are bad. At least, I've yet to have anyone explain how it is not brutal and inhumane to punish a group of people for making a cheaper/higher quality product and then artificially raising it's value just because the workers/industry in your own country can't keep up.




    This is kind of true.

    But not how I think you think it is.

    I interpret this to mean that you assume once a company has beaten all other companies in it's market sector that, then, because it is the only business left, it can jack it's prices up to where ever it wants.

    Yeah, that's possible. But as soon as they raise prices like that those businesses that used to compete with them can start competing again, or someone else can compete with them. Lowering prices is probably what drove competition out in the first place as they would have had to find a way to attract consumers to their company exclusively.

    But, ultimately, the consumer controls the price. Unless their is a gun to their head, then they are slaves or citizens. A consumer has the ability to say "No, I won't pay for that."

    In today's reality in America, a company dominates a market because they get in bed with politics, and in turn, gain favorable legislation, no bid contracts, etc etc etc.


    Please tell me if I'm connecting on this next part:
    I believe, from what I've read that you have posted, that you believe it is possible to have an ideal government. By ideal I mean to say that it is possible to elect the most altruistic smartest, fastest, most qualified people to the best positions for them, where they will do the most good and then Democracy will work.

    I'll concede that point but if I'm right, I want to know:
    How do you know what is best and how does that make it any better than anyone else's interpretation of 'best', therefore how does anyone know who these people are, including these people, and how do we know, even if we think we have them, that what we are doing is best?

    For me, I think it's better to let people make their own decisions. That's why I'm an anarchist.
     


  19. These two statements are the KEY points which the advocates for more government disagree with. They don't want to admit it outloud ... but deep down they want to be protected and controlled, ( because living life by your own means, without help is undoubtedly hard, no matter who you are) and they think that they are in possesion of morals and intelligence that trump people whom are not living to their standards, furthermore they think this gives them the right to judge others, and enforce their way of life on others as a matter of "progression."
     

Share This Page