Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Aw, damn, Sig, I feel bad.

You asked nice, SHORT, valid hypothetical questions. And all you got out of Geezer was dismissal and an attack on your perceived starting bias. And from Six, anger and hostility.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

I was thinking about pioneering the other day, American wilderness style. In 1776, if you were broke, you could get a wagon, move westward over the mountains, find yourself a piece of land and make a fresh start, libertarian or anarchist style. Cut down the trees, build yourself a cabin, plant and grow animals and crops to feed yourself and family. Wouldn't have been EASY, would have been RISKY, but you could get away from society and do it all with your bare hands, or just a little help from your very few neighbors. .

---

Quote:

---

I provided answers to SignyM's questions, based on my understanding of how a Libertarian system would work.

---

Quote:

---

She either ignores them completely, ignores the effect that a large libertarian-minded population would have on society, or comes up with hypotheticals that are so outlandish they're similar to "What would your pitiful Libertarian society do if the Sun exploded?"

---

Quote:

---

Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.

---

Quote:

---

In May 1772, the Watauga and Nolichucky settlers negotiated a 10-year lease directly with the Cherokee, and being outside the claims of any colony, established the Watauga Association to provide basic government functions. The lease and the subsequent purchase of these lands in 1775 were considered illegal by the British Crown, and were vehemently opposed by a growing faction of the Cherokee led by the young chief Dragging Canoe.

---

Quote:

---

Aw, damn, Sig, I feel bad.
You asked nice, SHORT, valid hypothetical questions. And all you got out of Geezer was dismissal and an attack on your perceived starting bias. And from Six, anger and hostility.
I'd take a shot at ANSWERING your question, I WILL, even tho' I'm not a believer, but I'm busy today, got real world stuff I gotta do, and this is the first thread here I've looked at today. Maybe tomorrow or Monday.

---

Quote:

---

Look at you. Wanting more and more answers, to be told what to think and how to live. And sure as hell if i were to produce any sort of manifesto, you'd call me CRAZY for trying to impose my rules on your lifestyle- rapppy

And look at you. Wanting to avoid answers more and more! I don't want to be told what to think and how to live. I just wanted to know what you think. Is that such a problem?-signy

I've already told you. -rappy

---

Quote:

---

Pardon my french, Signy, but here's Libertarianism in TWO WORDS...
FUCK YOU
EDITED TO ADD:
Figured that wasn't sufficient.....
I'd like to elaborate.....
I own my own house and pay my taxes and the gumment wants in for any reason.....
FUCK YOU...
In the mean time, I'm glad that you were able to not have to go to the ghetto for weed and I could provide. Now that the government owns my house, not only do I apologize that you have to ask shady "niggers" in the ghetto for what after being covered in hair spray and MACE was weed, but you have to live with 3 feet of unkempt lawn across the street since I'm too busy being raped in prison to worry about mowing our lawns.

Bottom line Signy.......
Dems are even afraid of weed, although both sides allow it now (especially in corrupt IL) for money. Illinois decision will not alleviate illegal drug trade by a MICROCOSM because they will TAX IT SO HARRRRRDDDDDDDDDD.
That's the only reason the Pimps in IL allowed it.
Ahem... OBAMA.....
ILLINOIS IS EVIL$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Don't ask me....
you voted him in, assholes.....
Talk to his half-human hand

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What would libertarianism do SPECIFICALLY if there were individuals bent on using market forces to achieve power? That is the heart of the question. Since I can point to driven individuals in ANY economic system on any continent throughout history, I think it's a fair assumption that there will be such individuals under libertarianism as well.

So, what's the answer? What ethic, procedure, or contract would either prevent or respond to such a circumstance? All I ever got... and all I ever get... is That would never happen under libertarianism.

---

Quote:

---

As far as having a bias... or course, I have a bias. So do you. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about my "solutions"

---

Quote:

---

Small things that can be made and used locally aren't necessarily subject to monopolism. But things that require large capital investments- large manufacturing concerns, "infrastructure", and what are now considered "public utilities", communications systems (exactly the things MY monopolist targeted) are subject to monopoly forces because the cost of entry is so high.

---

Quote:

---

Also, most of the stuff you originally thought were small- like Ben & Jerry's, and Burt's Bees... turned out all to have been bought out by larger concerns. Been there and done that with you before. Most of what you think you know about "market forces", economies, and people is mostly wishful thinking, IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?

---

Quote:

---

And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.

---

Quote:

---

And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?

---

Quote:

---

name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds

---

Quote:

---

I wonder if Geezer has an answer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds

---

Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:

1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature.

---

Quote:

---

now you want to quibble about size.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

now you want to quibble about size.

---

Of course I do. And so do you, apparently. If YOU depend on me for water, you depend on me.

What an ass you are!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
And again.

Let's look more at this "Ownership of property, individualism, and a free market lead inevitably to monopoly" thing.

This explains why I can only get a hamburger at McDonalds.

Wait a minute.

I can buty a burger at McDucks.

I can also buy one at Burger King.

And Sonic.

And Hardees.

And 5 Guys.

Not to mention local places like BGR the Burger Joint, and Ray's Hell Burger, that cater to the folks who want a high end burger.

If I travel a bit I can have Krystal, Steak and Shake, or White Castle.

Going to the West Coast, I can get Carl Jrs, In and Out, Fatburger, etc.

More locally, I can go to the Greek pizza place up the street and get a burger.

And I've probably left out a few thousand places where I can get a burger.

Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Mags,
of course. Or you could, maybe, buy the land from the Indians, as the Dutch did Manhattan. Or they might give it to you, as with William Penn. Or trade with 'em, as the French fur trappers did. Or you might steal it, and piss them off, especially if the piece you stole was special to them. Or they might not care. That's parts of what made it risky. Could get you killed. and you might do something that made you commit the non-libertarian act of asking the government for help.

But my main point was in the next paragraphs, where I was agreeing with Frem, wasn't I?-- You can't even do that in 2013. Somebody else will already claim ownership of the land, private citizen, corporation or government, and you'll have to buy it, and be bound by their laws and regulations. Which means you can't even get the chance to do it on your own without a bunch of oney.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Economic power, especially the monopoly power over vital resources, is a power itself, without government. And you're free to own all the doodads and gizmos you want.

---

Quote:

---

Next, when you talk about killing people by purposely withholding services, don't you think that's initiation of force?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Firstly, what does 'land' mean? Does it mean that if you own it, you are able to do what you want with it entirely? Do you own it from the top down to the earth's core? The first hundred metres? Do you own the air above it, the airspace above it, the water that runs through it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?

---

So we all have to shop at Wal-Mart because its the only store left. Right?

Quote:

---

And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.

---

I seem to recall passing an Apple store in the mall the other day. How could that be?

And Betamax lost out because it was awkward. I'd note that you can get movies and video streaming, on Netflix, by download, and various other ways instead of DVD. This is a monopoly?

Quote:

---

And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?

---

Korea and other Asian producers subsidized by their governments. That's the way governments play the game. You okay with that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:

1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.

Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.

In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds

---

Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!

---

Oh, come on. You said that pretty much any society would eventually end up with monopolies and the very few running everything, and now you want to quibble about size.

And you complain about biased questions? Please.

But okay. Name an existing total monopoly in the U.S. over an area 100 miles from wherever the central water (or whatever) plant is (100 mile diameter), as you described earlier. Just to be fair (sorry) let's say in an area of pretty good population density, not wher there's 10 folks per square mile. And once again, no government, or government supported, monopoly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."

Do you think western democracy is the only point of all democratic development in this entire history of the human race? Really?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This says more about the nature of the obesity problem in the US, than the nature of libertarianism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Using economic power, the power of property, for individual benefit, is a common, nay, universal, phenomenon. That's what ALL commerce is about. Except that Geezer seems to be saying that, under libertarianism, that would never happen. But libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom of action.

---

Quote:

---

And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.

---

Quote:

---

2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Possibly, maybe probably, we would have those monopolies here in the USA under a libertarian government. The US certainly had those tendencies between the Civil War and 1929. Maybe we don't have them because government regulation prevented them. Maybe not having them is proof that the existing system WORKS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.

---

Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
1. I didn't say WalMart succeeded at it yet. But you could ask K-Nart, Sears, Wards, and local grocery chains how they feel about it.

---

Quote:

---

2. Apple Stores sell phones now, maybe SMART phones; and maybe music players, but not general purpose computers, a market they dominated and innovated in before the IBM PC and the Windows box came along.

---

Quote:

---

3. I remember Betamax as technically superior, better fidelity, longer playing time, several virtues. VHS only virtue was cheaper. That's how I remember it.

---

Quote:

---

4.Subsidized by some other government or not, dumped steel was one factor driving American steel mills out of business. They got OUR government to step in on their side. Didn't help much, most of them are still gone.

---

Quote:

---

All examples of somebody taking a short term loss to sell CHEAP, undercutting existing competition until in the long term that competition was gone from that market place, or reduced.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Damn, can you read? DO you? Or do you just ignore stuff that isn't what you want to bitch about? You even quoted it right there.

"And Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider."

Of course they're opinions. I don't think they're based on nothing. They're an observation based on what I've read. I offered them for Sig to consider. You could Argue against them. Do you want to do that? Or just say that that's all been settled, somewhere else?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:

1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.

Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.

In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony

---

Ah, damn. Spot on, and written better, more concisely, than I ever could have. Maybe a perspective I've never had, too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.

---

Quote:

---

Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."

So, what was your point? Be explicit. Spell it out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.

---

dug out my Webster's Unabridged dictionary. It's in the bookcase next to the computer desk, right here in the home office

Quote:

---

Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.

---

A word in common usage means what the common usage says it mean. You don't get to change that. You wanta use a word, use it correctly. You mean some other concept, use the word for that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

---

2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here.

---

You should read the threads Frem cited. Plenty of discussion from several folks about voluntary associations of folks in a Libertarian society to provide everything from fire services to medical care to charity.

---

OH, BTW, since I'm giving reading lessons, "here" means here, this thread. I haven't read others, didn't then, ain't gonna go back now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
NOBC "ah, a critical monopoly"
NOBC, I realize you're playing devil's advocate.

---

Quote:

---

posted by Geezer:
(as posted by NOBC)

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.

---