REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

So, what the heck is libertarianism?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, November 10, 2022 08:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12043
PAGE 2 of 5

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:24 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thanks NOBC. I have some questions but I need to save them for later.



Hey, throw 'em out there. I'm actually enjoying this thread, and it hasn't yet turned into a flame war. Maybe we could all get a worthwhile discussion going on, and keep it running for a while.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:33 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:


So there I am on my own plot of land not bothering anyone. But directly upwind of me, on THEIR own plot of land, a battery recycling facility gets built. Now all of the sudden I'm breathing lead fumes; and lead, arsenic and cadmium dust; as well as generically harmful ultrafine particles; and having my health and lifespan slowly chipped away at. Not to mention the dust, traffic, and noise, and that I think the place is an eyesore. Surely they haven't taken out a gun and FORCED me to do anything. OTOH they didn't exactly give me a choice about whether or not I wanted to breathe toxic air. I suppose I could always stop breathing. Or I could sell my property and move away. But somehow that doesn't seem very libertarian to me - I didn't create the problem, so why should I have to be mitigating it?

Who in this circumstance wins the coveted 'allowed in libertarian-land' award? Me and my right to 'own' my own health and the qualities of the property, and the air and water that flow through, as I bought it? Or the battery recycler to do what they want on their own property as long as they haven't 'forced' anyone else to do anything.




That case SHOULD be covered in the "freedom to do whatever they want, up to the point where it harms someone else" , which is to say "you", rule, but you'd probably have to PROVE that they were harming you. Which would involve a court or voluntary arbitration, and if they had enough influence (money) could stretch out until you die of the cancer they caused. Which would (maybe, or maybe not) be enough to prove that they harmed you. Your descendants might win, eventually.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:42 AM

PENQUIN11


"Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."
- http://www.lp.org/our-history


I can't quite claim to be a libertarian, notably because I believe in an active foreign policy, that stated there are many points of which I agree with libertarians with.

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Rules should apply or not apply to all or none, anything less reeks of a caste system and is by design, a tyranny - and make no mistake, a lot of so-called libertarians are really just a false front for the NeoFeudoFascists who want exactly that and have ever since Robespierre put paid to that divine right of kings crap.



Of course you could say the same about "so-called" democrats (small "d"), "so-called" communists, "so-called" socialists, and probably some "so-called" anarchists.

Seems to me that Governments work (assuming that "work" means most benefits, as defined by the particular system of government, for most people) or don't depending in large on the quality of the people. If they're philosophically minded to support, say, "...the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association..." then you can have an effective libertarian government. If it's "...all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination." then democracy is possible. Common support of "...a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order." would result in successful communism. I think you get the idea. (And thanks Wiki for the definitions)

As folks have noted before, power tends to concentrate. What has happened in many countries (Russia, China, to an extent the U.S.) is that the power has concentrated in the hands of the government, which is supposed to be the guarantor of the function of the system the people wanted. Since governments in these countries are so strong, relative to the people, there's not much can be done about it.

It would seem to me that one plus of a smaller and less over-reaching Libertarian government would be that the government, though able to defend citizens against coercion by other citizens or associations of citizens, would not be large and powerful enough to coerce all the citizens at one time.

Of course, people being people, this wouldn't work 100% of the time, but I'd like to think it'd be more successful than the stuff not working now.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 8:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
That case SHOULD be covered in the "freedom to do whatever they want, up to the point where it harms someone else" , which is to say "you", rule, but you'd probably have to PROVE that they were harming you. Which would involve a court or voluntary arbitration, and if they had enough influence (money) could stretch out until you die of the cancer they caused. Which would (maybe, or maybe not) be enough to prove that they harmed you. Your descendants might win, eventually.



That's why many Libertarians, myself included, fall into the Minarchist category. There'd still be enough government in place to adjudicate on such cases, and enforce any decisions. Then again, to have a Libertarian government, a majority of folks would have to believe in the Non-aggression Principle, so the populace as a whole (and the folks they elected) would be more supportive of prompt and fair resolution of such aggression on your property.

And I wouldn't look upon our current system as such a shining exemplar of fairness in property damage claims.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 3:52 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


So, what is the purpose of libertarianism? Usually, political/ economic philosophies have some sort of stated goal: prosperity for all. Prosperity for some now, so that there will be more in the future. The genetic improvement of the human race in a dog-eat-dog system. Equity. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I've heard no such overarching goal for libertarianism. Now usually if people won't tell me why they're doing something and why I should too (What's in it for me and mine?) I get the strange feeling that either they don't know, or they don't WANT to tell me because... well, I probably wouldn't agree with it.

So, for anyone who has an idea of what the end goal of libertarianism is, please feel free to speak up!




I don't think it has one. It's kind of, generally, about individual freedom for everyone, about the right to be left alone, and it's kind of a rule about the process of going forward-- sort of, "Under our libertarian rule, we, the rulers (I was going to strike that word. I'll let it stand, free of connotation, but also substitute the word "legislators.) need to keep these limitations in mind, and not do these things, not interfere in these matters, but leave as many individuals alone to do whatever they want, however they want." a great speil, as mentioned above. But how does it play out?

Maybe it doesn't-- maybe the complexity of industrial, inter-connected modern life makes it impossible.

It's a very hard subject to pin down-- there are a lot of denominations, just as there are in "Christianity." I looked, again, at Geezer's link to Wikipedia-- there's a sidebar of related topics, 2 screens and more long, a lot of sometimes contradictory options to choose from, a lot of varied ideas to research.

Gotta run, it's chow time. And I want to come back, later, to the comments about diversity raised by several posters. Maybe libertarianism doesn't work because society REQUIRES diversity, and libertarianism can't accommodate too much divergence of opinion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 6:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Just to take this discussion sideways a bit - what's all this about 'rights'? Rights are an imaginary concept: people have as much rights as the society they tolerate enough to live in says they have. And people live within those social definitions until the society around them becomes overall not useful enough to hew to, and then there's a 'revolution' and a new set of rules comes about. There's no god, or natural order, or universal law that somehow creates an idealized set of 'rights' that people somehow 'deserve' just b/c of being human. Those 'rights' as imaginary as the 72 virgins that people attribute to Islam (not found in the Koran btw).

Taking a step back historically, just to get this off my chest b/c it bugs me and it applies: the American experiment was NOT democracy. The British had been tinkering with democracy for a few centuries before the American revolution. And globally and over the thousands of years of human evolution I'm pretty sure there were other democracies as well.

No, what distinguished the US revolution from the more recent European history was the creation of a system of government that didn't have a king. And POOF! went the whole rationalization of the natural order of authority that went from god the father down through kings and nobles and to the lowest of the low, peasant female infants.

So, the 'FOUNDERS' had to invent a rationalization for a system with no king. And they found it in the writings of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rosseau which outlined the notions of the 'natural' rights of man. Remove 'god' and spell it 'nature' and you have the same justification by appeal to a really big - and equally non-existent - authority for your particular philosophy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 10:43 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So there I am on my own plot of land not bothering anyone. But directly upwind of me, on THEIR own plot of land, a battery recycling facility gets built. Now all of the sudden I'm breathing lead fumes; and lead, arsenic and cadmium dust; as well as generically harmful ultrafine particles; and having my health and lifespan slowly chipped away at. Not to mention the dust, traffic, and noise, and that I think the place is an eyesore. Surely they haven't taken out a gun and FORCED me to do anything. OTOH they didn't exactly give me a choice about whether or not I wanted to breathe toxic air. I suppose I could always stop breathing. Or I could sell my property and move away. But somehow that doesn't seem very libertarian to me - I didn't create the problem, so why should I have to be mitigating it?

Who in this circumstance wins the coveted 'allowed in libertarian-land' award? Me and my right to 'own' my own health and the qualities of the property, and the air and water that flow through, as I bought it? Or the battery recycler to do what they want on their own property as long as they haven't 'forced' anyone else to do anything.


Well...
Okay, I am most empthatically NOT a libertarian, I am an Anarchist, so take that into account, right ?
This would constitute violation of the non-aggression principle, and violence WOULD ensue, not just from that individual, but all those negatively impacted, plus friends and family.

Anarchists don't pretend this doesn't happen, whether one calls it government or not, nor do they pretend such things can be prevented - but they resent, quite bitterly, being told they HAVE to lay down and take it, or the corp will set government guns on them.

Consider well that in EVERY engagement of unions vs corporations that turned violent, WHICH side the govt took, often under the thin fiction of restoring order, but nonetheless find me even ONE case where the govt intervened to protect the workers FROM the corp...
Believe me, you will not, not even one, in all of american history, none.

Which is why Anarchists don't make too great a distinction between the two, cause from our perspective, it is immaterial.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 10:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
'Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem'

Those are names I've not heard for a long time ...

That sounds like it goes years back ... ??? If so, that would be some digging.


I am not doing anything else for a little while (save getting slightly drunk) and maybe remember enough to go dig them out, I will see what I can do.
SergeantX left in disgust at the rightwingnut sockpuppet horde some time ago, and AnthonyT bailed out in revulsion at the abject and blatant hypocrisy of supposedly "liberal" folk who really just wanna change which hand is holding the leash, so yer left with me, and I am not fond of discussing it cause of the endless strawmanning and rhetorical games which ignore what I am saying in favor of manufactured setpieces to be conveniently dismissed...

Frankly, HKCavalier does a better job of explaining it than I do, so I will see if I can't pull a couple of his posts in relation as well.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Necrodredging FTW!

Libertarian Vs. Minarchy Vs. Anarchy
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=35023

Sadly, parts I and IV return a 404, but here is part II and III

The Libertarian and Anarchist Society- Part II
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32312

Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part III
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32384

Yay me, I found the "Story of Burt" post - Siggy no doubt remembers THAT one!
A story and a question.
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32089

Here's a shorter thread which seems useful.
For those thumbing through the brochures..
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=33044

Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&p=1

Smallish thread, more spiritual perspectives.
What do I as an individual owe to society and/or mankind?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=37006&mid=6
78918


Ah, and one of the be-all-end-all arguments, a five pager, right to travel vs right to protest.
Stop the Traffic
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=43940

That'll keep ya busy for a while, I think.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:53 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?


RAPPY- Waving the word "freedom" like a flag isn't an explanation. Is it possible that you could come up with an answer to this question, and more?



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,

Oh, but we already HAVE such a plan to go by, more or less. A pretty darn good outline.

Can ya guess what that might be ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Frem

That was quite some digging!

I have them racked up tab by tab and will peruse them shortly.

THANKS!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:05 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh, and even a handy TL;DR video version for them that want a capsule overview instead of dredging pages of hostile discussions and endless blatant strawmanning....



Yep, that'll do.
Remember tho, imma ANARCHIST, not a libertarian, and those are different things, but the key differences are discussed in detail in those threads.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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


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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:18 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I've already told you.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Necrodredging FTW!

Libertarian Vs. Minarchy Vs. Anarchy
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=35023

Sadly, parts I and IV return a 404, but here is part II and III

The Libertarian and Anarchist Society- Part II
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32312

Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part III
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32384

Yay me, I found the "Story of Burt" post - Siggy no doubt remembers THAT one!
A story and a question.
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32089

Here's a shorter thread which seems useful.
For those thumbing through the brochures..
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=33044

Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&p=1

Smallish thread, more spiritual perspectives.
What do I as an individual owe to society and/or mankind?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=37006&mid=6
78918


Ah, and one of the be-all-end-all arguments, a five pager, right to travel vs right to protest.
Stop the Traffic
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=43940

That'll keep ya busy for a while, I think.

-Frem



Read most of this that'll still come up.

Made me sad at the number of folks we've lost, and at the loss of civility in even pretty heated discussions.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I've already told you.
Yeah. "Liberty." Me too. But the liberty that I imagine isn't like the one that you imagine. Imagine that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Made me sad at the number of folks we've lost, and at the loss of civility in even pretty heated discussions.
Well, there was a lot less rappy-and-PN-and Zit-posting.

You're right- the boards were better then!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 12:01 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Made me sad at the number of folks we've lost, and at the loss of civility in even pretty heated discussions.
Well, there was a lot less rappy-and-PN-and Zit-posting.

You're right- the boards were better then!



Sure. Life is great when everyone agrees with you.

Those pesky counter views can be such a bother, huh?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:07 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


In a strange serendipity, there's an article about current libertarians in the Washington Post today. Since the Post has gone 'pay-per-view', I'll post the whole thing.

Quote:


Way back in 1975, a Republican agitator named Ronald Reagan had this to say about an esoteric young movement that was roiling politics: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”


Neither the GOP old guard nor the rowdy libertarians ever quite bought that argument.

They both lay claim to the same conservative economic philosophy. But libertarians are more isolationist and antiwar than Republican orthodoxy allows on foreign policy and more permissive on social issues.

Still, in the nearly four decades since Reagan made those comments, the two have managed — at least most of the time — to maintain an uneasy marriage of expedience.

Libertarianism once again appears to be on the rise, particularly among the young. But its alliance with the Republican establishment is fraying, as demonstrated by the increasingly personal war of words between two leading potential 2016 presidential contenders.

The sparring began last week, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) posited: “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.”

After Christie made it clear that he was referring to Rand Paul, the Senate’s leading critic of the National Security Agency and its surveillance programs, the Kentucky Republican fired back on his Twitter account: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”

Their feud — which is being watched closely as a possible warmup round for 2016 — has continued, expanded and spilled over into other issues.

On Tuesday, Christie chided: “If Senator Paul wants to start looking at where he’s going to cut spending to afford defense, maybe he should start cutting the pork-barrel spending that he brings home to Kentucky.” After which Paul told CNN that the plus-size governor was “the king of bacon talking about bacon.”

This kind of rancor is pretty much the last thing the Republican Party needs right now as it struggles to broaden its appeal and find its footing in the wake of two successive presidential defeats.

For their part, libertarians are thrilled. They say it is a sign they truly have arrived as a force to be dealt with, rather than dismissed as a fringe element.

“There are a lot of people within establishment Republican Party politics who have controlled the process for the last 10 or 20 years who fear that their grip on the party is slipping away,” said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), whose amendment to restrict the NSA’s ability to collect telephone records came surprisingly close to passing in the House last week.

In an interview, Amash argued that despite opposition from House GOP leaders, his point of view represents an advancing wave among House Republicans. He cited an analysis by Bloomberg News showing that while House Republicans who have served more than five years opposed his amendment by more than 2 to 1, it won a slim majority among those who have arrived there more recently.


The amendment, which was co-authored by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), a liberal stalwart who is a half-century older than Amash, also won more than 100 Democratic votes.

Libertarianism tends to rise as a backlash to government expansiveness and incompetence, said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, who has written extensively about the movement’s history.

He said the modern movement began to flower in the late 1960s and early 1970s in reaction to the Vietnam War, disenchantment with the growth of social programs during the Great Society era, stagflation and the Watergate scandal.

Libertarianism also took on an intellectual sheen after proponents Friedrich August von Hayek and Milton Friedman won Nobel Memorial Prizes in economics in 1974 and 1976, respectively, and Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s defense of it, titled “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” won the National Book Award in 1975.

Politically, “libertarianism with a small L was very skeptical of Republicanism with a capital R,” but they were bound by their mutual abhorrence of communism and the welfare state, Boaz said.

After the Soviet Union fell apart, their relationship became more tenuous.

In the 1992 election, for example, a Cato Institute analysis found that the 13 percent or so of voters who were libertarian-minded — those who told pollsters they wanted smaller government but tolerant social policies — split almost evenly among Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and third-party candidate Ross Perot.

The movement these days has been galvanized in part by the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns of former representative Ron Paul (R-Tex.), father of the Kentucky senator, which drew a vocal following among young people.

When libertarian Clark Ruper was a University of Michigan student from 2004 to 2007, he recalled, “there were, like, five of us on campus, and we all knew each other.”

Now vice president of a rapidly growing organization called Students for Liberty, Ruper says of the dust-up between Christie and Paul: “I think it’s fantastic. When guys like Chris Christie are attacking us, we must be doing something right.”

Ruper, for one, rejects Reagan’s depiction of conservatism and libertarianism as being one and the same.

“We are not a branch of conservatism,” largely because of social issues like same-sex marriage and drug legalization, Rupar said. “Those are real deal-breakers where we can’t get along with conservatives. We find our allies there on the left.”

Nor was Reagan himself comfortable with all the tenets of libertarianism.

“I think that, like in any political movement, there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy,” Reagan said in that same 1975 interview with the libertarian magazine Reason.

Libertarians also have pronounced differences with many on the right when it comes to foreign policy.

Jeff Frazee, executive director of a more politically oriented libertarian organization called Young Americans for Liberty, said that young people today are skeptical of intrusive government at home and want to see an end to mililtary intervention overseas.

“Many of the members in our group were not even 10 years old when 9/11 happened,” Frazee said. “They’ve grown up with war, and they are war-weary.”

Libertarians still count relatively few elected officials as their own.

Rand Paul comes the closest. Libertarians have cheered his stance on surveillance and his 13-hour filibuster in March to protest the Obama administration’s use of unmanned drones.

That filibuster brought withering commentary from the conservative establishment.

“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms,” the Wall Street Journal wrote. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Paul and his Senate allies “wacko birds.”

Yet even Paul draws some skepticism from libertarian purists. They are leery, for instance, of his recent overtures to the Christian right, a constituency he cannot afford to alienate if he hopes to win his party’s presidential nomination.

For now, however, libertarian activists seem to believe that their best shot at advancing their ideas is in changing the Republican Party from the inside.

“Where else are you going to go?” asks Brian Doherty, senior editor at Reason. “Given the shape of the culture and the ideology of American politics, the Republican Party is at least willing to pay lip service to libertarian values. It is the existing space that a libertarian can move into and sort of fit in.”



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/libertarians-flex-their-muscle-
in-the-gop/2013/07/31/dbc4dd40-f9ea-11e2-8752-b41d7ed1f685_story.html



"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


And apropos of nothing...

I was talking to Madame Geezer last night about the fact that so many of the anti-libertarians here seemed to think that without government, even folks steeped in libertarian philosophy would turn into ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts. She noted that this seemed to be like the cohort of Muslims who believe that you have to cover a woman's body from head to toe, lest a good man see some bare flesh and fall to his lustful urges.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 4:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Made me sad at the number of folks we've lost, and at the loss of civility in even pretty heated discussions.
Well, there was a lot less rappy-and-PN-and Zit-posting.

You're right- the boards were better then!



BTW, I posted a basic definition of what the heck libertarianism is (cribbed from Wiki but close enough for a start), and defined where in the libertarian spectrum I stand (Propertarian, Minarchist).

I've also expressed opinions on a couple of hypothetical situations.

Frem has kindly provided a path to previous discussions.

So.

Any comments?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:15 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

In a strange serendipity, there's an article about current libertarians in the Washington Post today. Since the Post has gone 'pay-per-view', I'll post the whole thing.





How perfectly libertarian of them. Maybe they're not as liberal/socialist/Commie as I thought they were, them bein' on the left-wing of the left-wing MSM, and all. After all, how does it benefit them to give their stuff away?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
After all, how does it benefit them to give their stuff away?



The internet business model has it that folks who want to advertise on their site will pay them for the privilege, and that will pay for the costs of producing the site. Maybe that's not working for them.

All I know is that if you don't have a subscription to the ink-and-paper Washington Post, you have to (or will soon have to) pay to access most of it on-line.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 2:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

BTW, I posted a basic definition of what the heck libertarianism is (cribbed from Wiki but close enough for a start), and defined where in the libertarian spectrum I stand (Propertarian, Minarchist).
I've also expressed opinions on a couple of hypothetical situations.
Frem has kindly provided a path to previous discussions.
So.
Any comments?

I'm trying to work my way thru them, but I've been busy and the little time I have away from work I've been plagued by a set of muscle spasms in my back, neck, shoulder and arm. Makes it painful to stand, sit at a desk, or even lie down for that matter. I took off from work bc between the pain and the painkillers (which only made me sleepy but didn't do jack for the spasms) I wasn't getting much done. Won't do much here, either, for now.

Quote:

I was talking to Madame Geezer last night about the fact that so many of the anti-libertarians here seemed to think that without government, even folks steeped in libertarian philosophy would turn into ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts. She noted that this seemed to be like the cohort of Muslims who believe that you have to cover a woman's body from head to toe, lest a good man see some bare flesh and fall to his lustful urges.
I don't know who you else you misunderstand, but you cretainly misunderstand me. My view of societies has always tended more towards systems analysis.

Let me give you an example: even today, under rampant and heavily reinforced corporatism, MOST people don't behave like corporatists. They go to work, they tend to their families, they care about their neighborhoods or their friends, they do little things. Yet DESPITE the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people are rather usually decent folk- not ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts, and productive (if given a job) the system does not reflect THEM or their concerns. It's not set up for them ie. us. The reality is that about 700 people own half of the world's assets, that's such a tiny fraction of the world's population that you have to wonder (or at least I do) how an entire system can be set up for the benefit 0.00001% of the population.

In my thinking, even if you managed to convince the vast majority that they SHOULD be libertarians, and assuming they successfully managed the mental and emotional transformation, there is NOTHING in the libertarian philosophy (nor in primitive anarchism) that could prevent or erode such a concentration of power. There are other forces at work besides "how people feel" which drive economies: economies of scale, division of labor, the creation and ownership of "money", the desire for highly technological goods and the far-fling trade required to make it heppn- that nearly all economic activity would occur out of sight of nearly everyone.

I find the idea you can change society by changing people's minds to be very narrow-scoped thinking. Libertarianism, as far as I've read, doesn't address system-wide interactions. But I'll keep reading.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 4:51 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

BTW, I posted a basic definition of what the heck libertarianism is (cribbed from Wiki but close enough for a start), and defined where in the libertarian spectrum I stand (Propertarian, Minarchist).
I've also expressed opinions on a couple of hypothetical situations.
Frem has kindly provided a path to previous discussions.
So.
Any comments?

I'm trying to work my way thru them, but I've been busy and the little time I have away from work I've been plagued by a set of muscle spasms in my back, neck, shoulder and arm. Makes it painful to stand, sit at a desk, or even lie down for that matter. I took off from work bc between the pain and the painkillers (which only made me sleepy but didn't do jack for the spasms) I wasn't getting much done. Won't do much here, either, for now.



Sorry to hear you are having such problems. Truly hope that you can find a solution to them. I've had a lesser experience with joint pain, but nsaids seem to have controlled it pretty well. Hope you can find such an easy resolution.

Quote:

Quote:

I was talking to Madame Geezer last night about the fact that so many of the anti-libertarians here seemed to think that without government, even folks steeped in libertarian philosophy would turn into ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts. She noted that this seemed to be like the cohort of Muslims who believe that you have to cover a woman's body from head to toe, lest a good man see some bare flesh and fall to his lustful urges.
I don't know who you else you misunderstand, but you cretainly misunderstand me. My view of societies has always tended more towards systems analysis.



This was not aimed at you. I just saw a lot of this in the previous threads that Frem cited. I'd guess you could find some such by other folks earlier in this thread.

Quote:

Let me give you an example: even today, under rampant and heavily reinforced corporatism, MOST people don't behave like corporatists. They go to work, they tend to their families, they care about their neighborhoods or their friends, they do little things. Yet DESPITE the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people are rather usually decent folk- not ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts, and productive (if given a job) the system does not reflect THEM or their concerns. It's not set up for them ie. us. The reality is that about 700 people own half of the world's assets, that's such a tiny fraction of the world's population that you have to wonder (or at least I do) how an entire system can be set up for the benefit 0.00001% of the population.


Seems to me, on a brief reading of both systems, that you're conflating corporatism with fascism. Seems to me that the folks currently making lots of money are often doing so in collusion with whatever government they're under. Frem might note (and I have no argument) the role of the U.S. government in strikebreaking and anti-union actions in the last century or so, for example.

Quote:

In my thinking, even if you managed to convince the vast majority that they SHOULD be libertarians, and assuming they successfully managed the mental and emotional transformation, there is NOTHING in the libertarian philosophy (nor in primitive anarchism) that could prevent or erode such a concentration of power.


Not sure I agree. If a good majority of folks believed that they were sovereign individuals who had complete control of themselves and their property, and that any aggression - be it physical, financial, etc. - against themselves or their property could be responded to with force (legal or physical) then any concentration of power would have to play by the libertarian rules or be subject to retribution.

Now, in my libertarian world, claiming the Propertarian and Minarchist philosophies, there would be just enough government to provide a judicial system to adjudicate based on the Non-aggression Principle, and have the power to enforce it. The fact that the large majority of the population would believe in, and be willing to enforce, the Non-aggression Principle would be a check on the government.

Quote:

There are other forces at work besides "how people feel" which drive economies: economies of scale, division of labor, the creation and ownership of "money", the desire for highly technological goods and the far-fling trade required to make it heppn- that nearly all economic activity would occur out of sight of nearly everyone.

I find the idea you can change society by changing people's minds to be very narrow-scoped thinking. Libertarianism, as far as I've read, doesn't address system-wide interactions. But I'll keep reading.



But I'd note that economies of scale, division of labor, etc., have existed in pretty much all forms of government, from monarchies, to dictatorships, to democracies. The way they interact with society depends, it seems to me, on "how people feel" at that time.

There was trade, technological development, division of labor, a financial system, etc. during the Golden age of Greece, the Roman Republic, the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the Feudal Age, the Monarchies of the 15th-18th centuries, the Democracies of the 19th through 21st centuries, the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century, etc.

Seems to me that if a substantial majority of folks believed that they had sovereign rights to themselves and their property, and that the Non-aggression Principle applied, and that the limited government existed mostly to support that belief, that a lot of the things you fear mignt not come about.

Now this assumes that a lot of folks would prefer to be individuals who were responsible for themselves, rather than wards of the government, with a government that would support their individual rights. I'd like to think that folks would choose to be such individuals. Sorry if I prefer to be optimistic.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This is going to be short, but....

Quote:

economies of scale, division of labor, etc., have existed in pretty much all forms of government, from monarchies, to dictatorships, to democracies. The way they interact with society depends, it seems to me, on "how people feel" at that time.


The fact that they have existed throughout a number of kinds of governments indicates to me that they are primary drivers and that the governments which sit on top of them are secondary. There is what seems to be a universal drive at work: larger numbers of people are collectivized, technology accumulates, division of labor becomes finer and finer, the amount of energy utilized per capita increases, economies of scale dictate the largest-possible centralized production, and the economic hierarchy becomes very tall.

Quote:

Seems to me that if a substantial majority of folks believed that they had sovereign rights to themselves and their property
But that's the thing: We DON'T "own" our property. Oh sure, I may own an Android or a Blackberry, but I don't own the lithium mine that produces the lithium to make the batteries. Our "ownership" of items is so fragmented and intertwined as to be trivial, meaningless.
Quote:

that the limited government existed mostly to support that belief, that a lot of the things you fear might not come about.
What I fear is centralization/ monopolization, extreme disparity of wealth, and loss of control of our individual and collective futures to the will of the vanishingly tiny minority.

And of course they'll come about. It already has. It has throughout history, and will continue. Even if you assume "good fortune" to be totally random, with (for example) stock market winners and losers distributed by chance, each time you spin the dial there will be some winners and some losers. For most people, it kind of averages out, but SOME people quite by chance become phenominally wealthy. And that's just by chance.

That's not counting that some people are quite deliberate in their acquisition of power, and that monopolies just happen to be more efficient (more profitable, more capital available for further acqusitions) than small competing companies, and that the capitalism of small competing businesses is an unstable state. It has never existed for long anywhere, under ANY system, once roads and money made trade possible. The most stable state of production is centralized monopolism. Some people are just extremely efficient at riding the trend. (The only thing that I've seen that breaks up these trends is natural disaster or invasion.)

to continue...
Quote:

If a good majority of folks believed that they were sovereign individuals who had complete control of themselves and their property, and that any aggression - be it physical, financial, etc. - against themselves or their property could be responded to with force (legal or physical) then any concentration of power would have to play by the libertarian rules or be subject to retribution.
As I've said, my reading of world economic history is that all economies tend towards monopolies and centralization. It's possible that a monopoly could develop, entirely without aggression, which legitimately owned everything of value in an area- water, land, roads, etc. This monopoly could simply make it impossible for dissenters to exist, in a passive way, simply by refusing to trade for water and transportation (for example). What then? What is your recourse, since aggression isn't an issue?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In my thinking, even if you managed to convince the vast majority that they SHOULD be libertarians, and assuming they successfully managed the mental and emotional transformation, there is NOTHING in the libertarian philosophy (nor in primitive anarchism) that could prevent or erode such a concentration of power.


Other than that, due to that mental/emotional transformation, otherwise known as being sane - even the attempt to create such a concentration would be viewed as a form of mental illness, thus resulting in a dearth of folk willing to advance that cause for em, cause without willing triggermen, your average would be tyrant is in fact less dangerous than your average mugger, since they prefer not to get their own hands dirty.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 3:02 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is going to be short, but....

Really? Looks like it's gonna keep me busy for a while. ;<) May answer in chunks.

Quote:

The fact that they (economies of scale, division of labor, etc.,) have existed throughout a number of kinds of governments indicates to me that they are primary drivers and that the governments which sit on top of them are secondary. There is what seems to be a universal drive at work: larger numbers of people are collectivized, technology accumulates, division of labor becomes finer and finer, the amount of energy utilized per capita increases, economies of scale dictate the largest-possible centralized production, and the economic hierarchy becomes very tall.

Even given this might be true (and I may have a stab at that later), and it's inevitable that all systems fall into such an economic hierarchy, it'd seem to me that a libertarian type government would be slower to fall, and perhaps not fall as far, as some others.

A lot of it still seems to me to go back to the philosophy of the people. Currently I see lots of folks with the "I'll get mine any way I can, screw everyone else, and if the government can help me - through sweetheart deals, laws that go my way, subsidies, etc., - even better." philosophy. I'd prefer a "I'll get mine, but not by screwing anyone else, or by begging/bribing/coercing the government to give it to me. And I expect everyone else to act the same way towards me." view. It'd seem to me that the majority of folks thinking this way would, at the very least, slow down what you consider the inevitable decline to the few mega-rich, in collusion with the government, running everything for their own benefit.

Quote:

But that's the thing: We DON'T "own" our property. Oh sure, I may own an Android or a Blackberry, but I don't own the lithium mine that produces the lithium to make the batteries. Our "ownership" of items is so fragmented and intertwined as to be trivial, meaningless.

Why should I have to own the lithium mine? Someone else, or a group of someone elses, owns it and sells their lithium to the component maker, who then owns it. He sells completed components with that lithium in it to a smartphone manufacturer, who now owns that bit of lithium. I buy the smartphone, and now the lithium is mine (Mine I tell you!!! Bwahhh Ha Ha!).
In Geezertopia, each owner in this chain understands that it's not a good idea, from both philosophical and business standpoints, to screw over the folks they deal with.



Quote:

What I fear is centralization/ monopolization, extreme disparity of wealth, and loss of control of our individual and collective futures to the will of the vanishingly tiny minority.


But it seems to me that this is pretty much what a libertarian government would be designed to resist.

First, most everyone would be very concerned about their individual rights, and the individual rights of everyone else.

Second, they would understand that aggression (physical, financial, whatever) against an individual was wrong, and would be willing to use force (in my Minarchist Geezertopia it'd probably be force of the limited government to enforce fair contracts and act against aggression) to stop it.

Third, folks feeling that way would act as a check on the government getting too big or powerful.

Quote:

And of course they'll come about. It already has. It has throughout history, and will continue.


And when we reach this point I have to ask, since you think it's all doomed to go down the road of monopoly and the few ultra-powerful running things, no matter what anyone does, why do you care whether the government during this period is Libertarian, Anarchist, democratic, a dictatorship, a commune, or what? Why the big animus against Libertarians as opposed to the others? Considering that most of the corporatist/fascist monopolies form in places where they can buddy up to a powerful government to get preferential treatment, seems you'd prefer a system where government was large enough to enforce contracts and non-aggression, but too small to force folks to accept preferential laws for a few.

It would really help me frame the discussion of you could tell me why you consider Libertarianism so much worse than any of the other existing systems or philosophies of government.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 4:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

...even the attempt to create such a concentration would be viewed as a form of mental illness
I guess that is where anarchism and libertarianism differ: The rules of the game. My reading of libertarianism (so far) is that as long as you gained your ownership of stuff "legitimately", it wouldn't matter whether you were a monopoly of vital resources or not. The point of libertarianism seems to be to protect "legitimate ownership", the point of anrachism seems to be to prevent very tall hierarchies. Correct?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 6:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The fact that they (economies of scale, division of labor, etc.,) have existed throughout a number of kinds of governments indicates to me that they are primary drivers and that the governments which sit on top of them are secondary. There is what seems to be a universal drive at work: larger numbers of people are collectivized, technology accumulates, division of labor becomes finer and finer, the amount of energy utilized per capita increases, economies of scale dictate the largest-possible centralized production, and the economic hierarchy becomes very tall.-Signy

Even given this might be true (and I may have a stab at that later), and it's inevitable that all systems fall into such an economic hierarchy, it'd seem to me that a libertarian type government would be slower to fall, and perhaps not fall as far, as some others... "I'll get mine, but not by screwing anyone else, or by begging/bribing/coercing the government to give it to me. And I expect everyone else to act the same way towards me." ... inevitable decline to the few mega-rich, in collusion with the government, running everything for their own benefit.-Geezer



Force, fraud, and government collusion aren't necessary for monopolies. For example: Let's say that I patent a great way to use graphene to purify water. I'm able to develop water cheaply from fracked aquifers, industrially-contaminated aquifers, or just plain regular aquifers or lakes or rivers. I buy up cheap sources that nobody else would touch with a ten-foot pole, install my system, start selling cheaper water, undercut all the other water systems in the area and drive them out of business. Make a few pennies more on the acre-foot. Buy up the adjoining water resources and so on, until I have a monopoly on every source of water within 100 miles.

So, what about that monopoply? According to libertarians, I legitimately own the resources, after all, I bought them up without force or fraud. I'm providing a service... cheaper clean water. My cheap water has marketplace merit, and therefore everything has worked according to the libertarian philosophy. And yet, I have a LOT of power. I can raise the rates. I can cut some people off. I can buy up the roads and communication services and anything else of near-universal value, without holding a gun to anyone's head or breaking anyone's knees. In real life, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Leonard Bosack and Sandy Lerner (Cisco), and Zuckerberg created monopolies w/o the government.

Of course, I could do the same thing with lithium. But rather than selling locally, my market is worldwide. Nobody knows, really, what's going on in my little corner of the world, and therefore the locals have no leverage. Not too surprisingly, the guy who owns all of the tantalum in Africa has managed to do the same, as well as the lady who own all of the chip fabs in Vietnam, and the plastic-maker owner in Japan, and the assembly-line owner in China. As a consumer of smart-phones, how am I going to track- much less respond to-all of the monopolies developing around that item?

What is the libertarian answer to such a situation?

Quote:

But that's the thing: We DON'T "own" our property. Oh sure, I may own an Android or a Blackberry, but I don't own the lithium mine that produces the lithium to make the batteries. Our "ownership" of items is so fragmented and intertwined as to be trivial, meaningless.-signy

Why should I have to own the lithium mine? ... In Geezertopia, each owner in this chain understands that it's not a good idea, from both philosophical and business standpoints, to screw over the folks they deal with.-geezer

It's not a good idea to screw people over, but only if there are consequences. And there are a LOT of ways to screw people over without force or fraud or government collusion. All you have to do is own everything of productive value someplace: water, land, roads, communication lines, factories... and you can kill anyone you want by withholding services. And the beauty is, all you have to to is make an example of just a few people; because everyone else will fall in line. 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:

What I fear is centralization/ monopolization, extreme disparity of wealth, and loss of control of our individual and collective futures to the will of the vanishingly tiny minority.

But it seems to me that this is pretty much what a libertarian government would be designed to resist. First, most everyone would be very concerned about their individual rights, and the individual rights of everyone else.

Second, they would understand that aggression (physical, financial, whatever) against an individual was wrong, and would be willing to use force (in my Minarchist Geezertopia it'd probably be force of the limited government to enforce fair contracts and act against aggression) to stop it.

Third, folks feeling that way would act as a check on the government getting too big or powerful.

Libertarianism doesn't seem to be "designed to resist" economic tyranny... unless there is something in your definition of "financial aggression" that I don't understand. A fair contract is a contract that someone enters into freely. There is nothing in there about extreme disparities of power on either side of that paper. As far as I can tell, there are a lot of ways of "legitimately" developing quite a lot of power (without guns or kneebreakers).

Quote:

And when we reach this point I have to ask, since you think it's all doomed to go down the road of monopoly and the few ultra-powerful running things, no matter what anyone does, why do you care whether the government during this period is Libertarian, Anarchist, democratic, a dictatorship, a commune, or what? Why the big animus against Libertarians? ...
I don't think I have more of an animus towards libertarians than I do towards democrats. You should hear the earful the fundraisers get when they call!

Quote:

It would really help me frame the discussion of you could tell me why you consider Libertarianism so much worse than any of the other existing systems or philosophies of government.
Well, not sure that I think libertarians are worse than most other philosophies. But, in general, ownership, individualism, and market forces are what got us into the fustercluck to begin with. As I look thru history, that seems to be the case most of the time (and add military suppression). Not sure that more of the same would help.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 6:17 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Aw, crap. NOBC's Rule just kicked in. "Once the posts in a thread start getting longer than one screen, it's time to abandon that thread."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 6:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Too wordy?

I'll try to make it shorter next time!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 8:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The northern colonies started out as libertarian as you can get. There WERE rich people USA, but the difference was maybe a factor of 500 (I owned 2 acres, you owned 1000), businesses were small, democracy was an established fact (for white men) ... an economy of politically-involved farmers and small businessmen with no slave-holdings. So what happened?


In my reading of American history, the northern colonies generally started as land grants from the Crown of vast swathes of territory to a few nobles and rich folks. They, or investment corporations, sent folks over to settle and develop their land. A good chunk of Maine, for example was granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason. William Penn received pretty much all of Pennsylvania and Delaware from Charles II in payment of a debt owed Penn's father.

Quote:

There are people who have gotten mega-rich without the government, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the couple who owned Cisco Systems, Zuckerberg for example. (None of these people actually developed what they sold, BTW.)

With no "If you build your new factory in our town/county/state we'll give you a chunk of municipal land and lower property tax rate"? No income tax breaks? I don't think so.

Anyway, I'd bet you can name lots more that did use government in a big way to get rich.

Quote:

Let me offer a theoretical example of a monopoly that develops without force, fraud, or government assistance: Let's say that I find a great way to use graphene to purify water. I'm able to develop water cheaply from fracked aquifers, industrially-contaminated aquifers, or just plain regular aquifers or lakes or rivers. I install my system, start selling cheap water, undercut all the other water systems in the area and drive them out of business. Make a few pennies more on the acre-foot. Buy up the adjoining water resources and so on, until I have a monopoly on every source of water within 100 miles.

So, what about that monopoply? According to libertarians, I legitimately own the resources, after all, I bought them up without force or fraud. I'm providing a service... cheaper clean water. My cheap water has marketplace merit, and therefore everything has worked according to the libertarian philosophy. And yet, I have a LOT of power. I can raise the rates. I can cut some people off. I can buy up the roads and communication services and anything else of near-universal value, without holding a gun to anyone's head or breaking anyone's knees.

Or worse, I do the same thing with lithium. But rather than selling locally, my market is worldwide. Nobody knows, really, what's going on in my little corner of the world, and therefore the locals have no pressure to bear. And, not too surprisingly, the guy who owns all of the tantalum in Africa has managed to do the same, as well as the lady who own all of the chip fabs in Vietnam, and the plastic-maker in Japan, and the assembly-line in China. As a consumer of smart-phones, how am I going to track- much less respond to-all of the monopolies developing around that item?

What is the libertarian answer to such a situation?



The most obvious answer would be that in a libertarian society, you wouldn't want to drive everyone else out of business so you could have power over the people who rely on your water. You'd be philosophically opposed to doing this.

I'd also point to the unlikelyhood of everyone in your 100 mile region - a region of folks who consider themselves sovereign, with rights to their own propeerty - either selling all their water rights to you, or changing to your system to save a few cents. Some might like their own well. Some might want to develop a different filtering technology and set up their own water system. Some folks may have societal or family ties to another water provider. Some might just do it for cussedness. You have no means to force folks to sell or buy.

Then again, as long as folks get water at a reasonable price from you, they won't really care if you have a local (100 mile) monopoly. if you start charging exorbitant prices, folks might decide to truck water in. They might drill wells on their own property, or set up rain catchment systems. Their mindset is to be independent, and they may pay more than you charge just to piss you off. Once you start threatening to deny people access to water, you ARE using force.


Quote:

It's not a good idea to screw people over, but only if there are consequences. And there are a LOT of ways to screw people over without force or fraud. All you have to do is own everything of productive value in an area: water, land, roads, communication lines, factories... and you can kill anyone you want by withholding services. And the beauty is, all you have to to is make an example of just a few people; because everyone else will fall in line. 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.


But there are consequences. First, and once again, I'm kind'a doubtful that a region of independent-minded, property-oriented folks would all sell out to, or buy from, you. Next, when you talk about killing people by purposely withholding services, don't you think that's initiation of force? About the only thing government is for in a Propertarian, Minarchist, Libertarian world would be to protect people from initiation of force. And I'd also note that in a Libertarian society, you need to have lots of libertarians, who belive strongly that their individual liberty, and the individual liberty of everyone else, is paramount, and will act to prevent infringement of that liberty. (and no, I'm not talking about your liberty to initiate aggression against others.)

Quote:

Libertarianism doesn't seem to be "designed to resist" economic tyranny... unless there is something in your definition of "financial aggression" that I don't understand.


Because, as far as I can tell, there are a lot of ways of "legitimately" developing quite a monopoly (ie without guns or kneebreakers) from which all kinds of power can be exerted.



Developing a monopoly is fine, although I have noted above that your proposals of how to do so seem far-fetched to the extreme in a Libertarian society. Exerting power, now, can easily get into initiating aggression, which, as noted, is the major thing a libertarian government is designed to prevent.

Quote:

Well, not sure that I think libertarians are worse than most other philosophies. But, in general, ownership, individualism, and market forces are what got us into the fustercluck to begin with. As I look thru history, that seems to be the case most of the time (and add military suppression). Not sure that more of the same would help.


Then again, trys at communial ownership, mass conformity, and controlled economies haven't always worked out too well either.

As I've noted several times, I think it's the philosophy of the people, rather than particular economic forces, that make a society what it is. You don't agree with this. Unfortunately, I see your solution as something worse than the problem. Maybe that's why I have hopes that people who very strongly care about their own, and everyone else's, independence can find a way out of the things you fear.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 8:37 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Too wordy?

I'll try to make it shorter next time!



Maybe not exactly a Rule, as such, more of a guideline. or even just MY personal prejudice. And not a criticism of you, or even Geez.

Maybe fewer points per post, and several posts.

"Brevity is the soul of wit." Benjamin Franklin ?

"Brevity is always appreciated, if only for its novelty." Darren Nichols, Slings and Arrows

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 8:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, I edited my post down but I see you answered the original. Thanks! I thought I was being too wordy, but I'm glad to see that you got thru it anyway.
Quote:

The most obvious answer would be that in a libertarian society, you wouldn't want to drive everyone else out of business so you could have power over the people who rely on your water. You'd be philosophically opposed to doing this.
The obvious answer to this is that just as there is a vanishingly small number of people with a thirst for power under ANY system, nonetheless there WILL be a small minority who is willing an able to do so in a libertarian system. It's inevitable, and demonstrated by history over and over. Unless your system is able to respond effectively to that situation- which WILL arise- the tall hierarchy will be created.
Quote:

Then again, as long as folks get water at a reasonable price from you, they won't really care if you have a local (100 mile) monopoly. if you start charging exorbitant prices, folks might decide to truck water in. They might drill wells on their own property, or set up rain catchment systems. Their mindset is to be independent, and they may pay more than you charge just to piss you off.
So, even if I were to set up a complete monopoly... as much as I am able, in any case... on water, roads, communication lines, etc... as long as I didn't charge "exhorbitant" prices you'd be OK with that?
Quote:

Once you start threatening to deny people access to water, you ARE using force.
AFA threatening to deny people service... isn't that my perogative, as a service provider? Why am I "required" to sell to someone? Isn't it my choice whether I enter into this contract, or not? Isn't that what Ayn Rand- a self-styled libertarian- suggests: That I can pick up my marbles and play elsewhere?

Also, didn't you also mention "shunning" as a form of enforcement? Isn't this a form of shunning?

Quote:

But there are consequences. First, and once again, I'm kind'a doubtful that a region of independent-minded, property-oriented folks would all sell out to, or buy from, you.
Why not? Let's assume I'm offering a service, and employment, at a "fair" price. In fact, thanks to economies of scale and superior technology, I'm offering a service that is not only cheaper than "do it yourself" (impossible anyway with communication technology, roads) but also cheaper than anyone else "outside" of my service area. Is there something in your philosophy which says that businesses have to be SMALL, or just that they have to be "fair"?

Quote:

Next, when you talk about killing people by purposely withholding services, don't you think that's initiation of force?
Why should I be forced to sell to someone? As a store owner, for example, do I not have the right to refuse service to an individual? The government would have to FORCE service provision. But isn't this the kind of "taking" that you object to?
Quote:

About the only thing government is for in a Propertarian, Minarchist, Libertarian world would be to protect people from initiation of force.
An extremely strong business can kill simply by withholding employment. What then? Is deliberate unemployment (either en masse or blacklisting) initiation of force?

Quote:

As I've noted several times, I think it's the philosophy of the people, rather than particular economic forces, that make a society what it is. You don't agree with this.
True.
Quote:

Unfortunately, I see your solution as something worse than the problem.
I'm not sure I've proposed a solution in this thread. Just maybe a lot of questions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 9:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I tried to make it short NOBC. Still working on my editorial skills!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 11:36 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Property rights is a problematic issue. Personally I think the idea of an individual owning land is a fundamentally flawed concept.

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?


Libertarians will say that you can do what you like on your property so long as it doesn't infringe on the right of others to enjoy their own property, but the truth is, unless you own a patch of land in the middle of the wilderness almost everything you do impacts upon someone else. I you build a five storey pink stucco mansion in the middle of the street of neat brick veneer bungalows, you'll impact in your neighbours. If you breed dogs, you'll impact. Start a band, you'll impact. Mine for copper in your backyard, and you'll impact.

In order for us to live together, which we do, we have to make agreements on how we live (some might call them laws) and we have to have arrangements for solving disputes (some might call them courts/legal processes). Now I'm not saying the current system is effective and not in need of some changes, but I have yet to see a libertarian explain how all this will actually work, without either describing a system that would be so incredibly costly, convoluted and frankly lacking any sniff of natural justice, or describing the current system that would somehow be funded without taxation and really boils down to 'nothing that would impede me from living out my right winged philosophy as making as much money as I can without any questioning of the ethics that I might use to do so'.

so many other flaws in this thinking, that they would require too long a post. But I would like to add about property ownership is this? Who says you have the right to own that property? Why did you get to own it? How was that land make the transition from being just part of the earth to being in your control? Were there other owners before you? Was the transaction of ownership ethical, or were people displaced?

I can tell you that our land was stolen from the Indigenous people, who had caretaker responsibilities for 10s of thousands of years. On the patch of land that I own, a group of people were prevented from using the land in their traditional manner, and were indeed, hunted and hounded and murdered in order that we can have our rights. and thus is the history of land ownership throughout the world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 2:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There's that too, Magons. I noticed the term "legitimate ownership" and that got me to thinking about the chain of possession of ANY item, including land and money. If, for example, you inherit great wealth, is that legitimate? If you own land because peoples were previously displaced, is that legitimate? Can you own water resources? Air? I got sidetracked from that point to the other one.

My point, which I believe I've demonstrated, is that without benefitting from guns or government or tripping over any libertarian ethical lines (as I understand them) I can amass and wield considerable... even "life and death"... power over others. All by using "market forces" in what seems to me to be an honest... or at least permissible... manner. Maybe there's more to libertarian ethics than I've been told so far. If so, I'd like to hear about it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 5:23 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
really boils down to 'nothing that would impede me from living out my right winged philosophy as making as much money as I can without any questioning of the ethics that I might use to do so'.




I was talking about this thread with Mrs. BC, telling her how much I was enjoying it. NOW, she's a hardcore old Leftie radical, hippie, peacenik, Cesar Chavez marcher and Women's Libber. She's farther out Left there than Niki.

She sniffed at me, then said, " Libertarianism is nothing more than a rich persons' rationalization of their own selfishness, greed and lust for tyranny." I don't think she's likely to join in this thread, or contribute much to understanding if she did.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 5:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA



That's one place it breaks down, see, in our world, and thanks to our outrageously asinine and downright insane legislation revolving around patent/trademark/whatever....

Everything, literally EVERYTHING, physical, mental or social, even fucking IDEAS, already has an "owner", ergo anyone born now has ZERO method of advancement in regard to a system based around said ownership, one could almost be said that they're born in servitude to those that have, and as said property passes at a familial level, you still have THAT heirarchy lacking any other, a class/caste system with an unbreachable barrier since without any property, there's nothing to trade but labor, and no leverage to force a decent price on it - which is effectively the system we have now once you strip all the bullshit off it, so then, THIS armor piercing question.

What exactly constitutes ownership ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 6:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


My basic view of libertarianism is that it is tightly focused on protecting and promoting the idea of ownership. As such, it was designed for, and benefits those who already own considerable property.

I was hoping to be dissuaded from that viewpoint, but nothing so far in this thread has changed my mind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2013 6:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What exactly constitutes ownership?

"Property is theft".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:03 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The obvious answer to this is that just as there is a vanishingly small number of people with a thirst for power under ANY system, nonetheless there WILL be a small minority who is willing an able to do so in a libertarian system. It's inevitable, and demonstrated by history over and over. Unless your system is able to respond effectively to that situation- which WILL arise- the tall hierarchy will be created.




Well, I can see that this is going in pretty much the same direction as it did in the old threads Frem cited.

1. You come up with some patently absurd scenario - "Since I'm the only clever person around, I'm gonna own all the Unobtainium in the world and have absolute power (evil laugh). How's your libertarians gonna stop this?"

2. You ignore any rational explaination as to why this is unlikely to occur in a Libertarian society by deciding that ALL the people there are driven to buy and sell EXCLUSIVELY based on the lowest cost, even though a quick look at the real world shows that not to be true. You also ignore that folks with a philosophy of independence would be LESS likely to all put themselves in a situation where one other person controls all of a resource vital to their life.

3. You take comments out of the whole context of what a Libertarian society would be, or use the radical extremes of libertarian thought (Ayn Rand? C'mon.) as the totality. For example:

"So, even if I were to set up a complete monopoly... as much as I am able, in any case... on water, roads, communication lines, etc... as long as I didn't charge "exhorbitant" prices you'd be OK with that?"

Since I've already pointed out how extremely unlikely it is that you'd be able to set up a complete monopoly, I made that comment for the sake of playing along with your argument. Of course, you ignore the extreme unlikelyhood of this happening, and assume that it certainly will.

4. you trot out the "Hierarchy is inevitable." slogan, and keep repeating it and ignoring any suggestions as to how it might be stopped or reduced.


So, overall, I'd say you're proposing specious arguments, ignoring any information that doesn't fit your interpretation of your scenario, and cherry-picking comments out of context to make your "point".

I suggest that you save us time and go back and read the same argument in the archives Frem provided. It's about a quarter down page 2 of this thread.

http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32384&p=2


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Oh. And...

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not sure I've proposed a solution in this thread. Just maybe a lot of questions.



Your solution is pretty obvious in your dislikes; private property, individualism, and free markets.

So I'd have to guess your solution is communal ownership of property, submission of the individual to the will of the State for the good of the State(or whatever you want to call it), and a controlled economy.

Close?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:30 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ive been tut-tutted at a few times about not knowing anything about libertarianism. Yet despite the fact that the topic has come up is several threads recently- the McDonald's war, where has libertarianism been tried in real life, are you a libertarian or wanna be, and the carbon dioxide thread... nobody has been able to provide a cogent explanation about libertarianism, and what it means TO THEM.

So, would someone... anyone, or preferably several someones... who claim to be libertarian please provide an explanation, and be prepared to answer specific direct questions about how it might work?

Until that explanation is provided, will you please refrain from tsking about a topic that you not yet explained?

0

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

I own my car and because your stupid state allowed cops the right to check every inch of your car front to back with no warrant for "click'it'n'tick'it"......

FUCK YOU

I would like to grow enough weed for myself and a few close elderly neighbors in a state that is probably decades from being as poor and desperate as Illinois was to allow Medical Marajuana.........

Well... I'll still provide it for them.....

And one day, I'll likely lose my house for being the trustworthy white boy down the street who knows how to make tomatoes and pot grow.

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



I don't fight that he's Kenyan. I HATE that you voted a numb-nuts junior Illinois crook (politician) in office.

Look at his head. He's not human. We only wish he was Kenyan.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:18 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

That's one place it breaks down, see, in our world, and thanks to our outrageously asinine and downright insane legislation revolving around patent/trademark/whatever....

Everything, literally EVERYTHING, physical, mental or social, even fucking IDEAS, already has an "owner", ergo anyone born now has ZERO method of advancement in regard to a system based around said ownership, one could almost be said that they're born in servitude to those that have, and as said property passes at a familial level, you still have THAT heirarchy lacking any other, a class/caste system with an unbreachable barrier since without any property, there's nothing to trade but labor, and no leverage to force a decent price on it - which is effectively the system we have now once you strip all the bullshit off it, so then, THIS armor piercing question.

What exactly constitutes ownership ?

-Frem



Damn, another bullseye, Frem.

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. .

There's still plenty of vacant (or at least unused) land here in the USA, some of it desirable, but you can't just go there and take it. It belongs to the government, or some person or corporation, you have to BUY it first. Then whatever you might build is regulated by some government, state, county, local, so you have to meet construction standards, which means that what you might choose to live in and could build yourself probably wouldn't pass. You might even be prevented from doing the work yourself. All of which means spending money, that you may not have.

So without cashy money, or going into debt, there ain't no way. And, of course, once you're in debt, you're wholly enslaved to the system. Probably Theodore Kaszinsky had to have money so he could build his Unabomber cabin up there in Montana.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Oh. Again.

Rereading the old threads Frem cited, I see I've forgotten the importance of contracts in Libertopia. Glad to be reminded, because it gives me another fork to stick in the already well-done "I'm gonna be the monopolistic water baron. Bwahh Ha Ha!" scenario.

-------------------------------------------------------

I run Geezer's Geysers, a water supplier in Libertopia. I'm a good Propertarian, Minarchist, Libertarian (like 80% of the folks in Libertopia), believing in private ownership of property, the Non-aggression principle, and that government exists mostly to enforce contracts and protect the NAP.

I notice that Signym's Aquanopoly has moved in and started selling water at prices I know are below cost. I've seen Rango on PPV, so I have an idea what's coming.

Now selling a commodity like water in a Libertarian society would require contracts that outline prices, contract term, etc. I know that SignyM's Aquanopoly can not sustain such losses over the long term, which is confirmed by the fact they're selling on short term contracts. (If they were selling on long-term (multi-year) contracts, they'd end up bankrupt at the prices they offer.)

I go to my customers and say...

Quote:

I suppose you've seen Aquanopoly advertising their low water rates on short-term contracts. You should know that those rates are below their profit margin, and unsustainable in the long term. I'll be glad to open my books so you can see my costs, and challange Aquanopoly to do the same."

Now if Aquanopoly wants to sell water at a loss, that's their business, and I won't question their motivation (wink, wink). I can't sell water like that. What I will do is contract with you, for as long as I provide you with water, to do so at a profit of X% of my costs. Once again, my books will be open for audit so you can verify my costs. This way I'll make a fair profit, and you'll know that six months - or six years - down the line I won't arbitrarily jack up the price.

If Aquanopoly wants to offer the same type of contract, we'll compete on who's most efficient in the long run.

Oh, and here's a free Rango DVD.



I'd think that most folks, especially Libertarians, would take guaranteed long-term pricing over a system that might jack up the price at the end of every short-term contract (especially after seeing Rango). So Aquanopoly would either have to charge enough on short-term contracts to stay in business, or offer long-term contracts that would effectively preclude them from jacking up the price later. And Aquanopoly, even if they managed to get a monopoly, couldn't violate their contracts without the government stepping in to force them to comply.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 7:08 AM

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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 7:20 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


There are so MANY assumptions built in to your fantasy they're hard to enumerate:

1) you don't have a corner on the only water supply available - you literally don't hold the power of life and death over your customers - they are free to make use of your service, or not

2) someone else had provided the infrastructure and it's freely available for all competitors to use

3) the start-up costs of a new business aren't so exorbitantly high that competition is limited to the very few able to absorb the costs

4) there is no collusion between businesses to limit competition

5) a) there is a government that provides a currency and b) that enforces your property ownership (though how any kind of enforcement can be done without coercion is uncertain)

6) there is a a) customer base capable of buying your product and b) a workforce base educated enough and capable enough of working for you (and remember a) the conundrum of profit - every turn of the cycle where you skim off the workers' wages to make a profit means they can buy that much less from you, and b) if you had to pay for the raising and education of your workforce instead of treating it like a socially provided 'freebie' you can make use of, your costs would be astronomical)

and most important

7) the idea that water - which nature provides for free - can be owned.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, March 27, 2024 07:58 - 6153 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL