So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 11 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Aw, damn, Sig, I feel bad.
You asked nice, SHORT, valid hypothetical questions. And all you got out of Geezer was dismissal and an attack on your perceived starting bias. And from Six, anger and hostility.
No.
I provided answers to SignyM's questions, based on my understanding of how a Libertarian system would work. She either ignores them completely, ignores the effect that a large libertarian-minded population would have on society, or comes up with hypotheticals that are so outlandish they're similar to "What would your pitiful Libertarian society do if the Sun exploded?"
Looking back at the threads Frem found, we went through the same thing five years ago.
If SignyM wants to stick to her belief that private property, individualism, and the free market will inevitably screw things up, and ignore any suggestion that there might be a way out of that, That's fine.
I've shown several ways that a Libertarian society could defeat her "Water Baron" scenario that seem reasonable to me. I'd be glad to discuss them with you, if you will agree to have an open mind.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I was thinking about pioneering the other day, American wilderness style. In 1776, if you were broke, you could get a wagon, move westward over the mountains, find yourself a piece of land and make a fresh start, libertarian or anarchist style. Cut down the trees, build yourself a cabin, plant and grow animals and crops to feed yourself and family. Wouldn't have been EASY, would have been RISKY, but you could get away from society and do it all with your bare hands, or just a little help from your very few neighbors. .
Right, apart from the fact that the land was owned/managed by the Indigenous people in the area, who would have a high chance of being pissed off by you moving in. And when things start to get rough with them, the idea of living free from the rule of no other man would start to wear thing, and next thing you know you're asking for the protection of the military (to whom you don't fund - but they come anyway) to sort out these savages who keep attacking you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And again.
Let's look more at this "Ownership of property, individualism, and a free market lead inevitably to monopoly" thing.
This explains why I can only get a hamburger at McDonalds.
Wait a minute.
I can buty a burger at McDucks.
I can also buy one at Burger King.
And Sonic.
And Hardees.
And 5 Guys.
Not to mention local places like BGR the Burger Joint, and Ray's Hell Burger, that cater to the folks who want a high end burger.
If I travel a bit I can have Krystal, Steak and Shake, or White Castle.
Going to the West Coast, I can get Carl Jrs, In and Out, Fatburger, etc.
More locally, I can go to the Greek pizza place up the street and get a burger.
And I've probably left out a few thousand places where I can get a burger.
Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, you didn't.
I provided answers to SignyM's questions, based on my understanding of how a Libertarian system would work.
Quote:What would libertarianism do SPECIFICALLY if there were individuals bent on using market forces to achieve power? That is the heart of the question. Since I can point to driven individuals in ANY economic system on any continent throughout history, I think it's a fair assumption that there will be such individuals under libertarianism as well.
She either ignores them completely, ignores the effect that a large libertarian-minded population would have on society, or comes up with hypotheticals that are so outlandish they're similar to "What would your pitiful Libertarian society do if the Sun exploded?"
So, what's the answer? What ethic, procedure, or contract would either prevent or respond to such a circumstance? All I ever got... and all I ever get... is That would never happen under libertarianism.
Why not? I happened under monarchism and fuedalism and imperialism and capitalism and socialism, so why not under libertarianism?
So, that's not an answer, that's wishful thinking.
As far as having a bias... or course, I have a bias. So do you. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about my "solutions"
... or what you think my solutions are. Right up front, I'll say that I don't think that I have "the" answer or even "an" answer. But if we discuss this together, with you in the role of the skeptic, maybe an idea will be developed.
Also, I quoted "property is theft" because it represents to me the essence of anarchism. I'm not an anarchist, so maybe I got it wrong.
Quote:Small things that can be made and used locally aren't necessarily subject to monopolism. But things that require large capital investments- large manufacturing concerns, "infrastructure", and what are now considered "public utilities", communications systems (exactly the things MY monopolist targeted) are subject to monopoly forces because the cost of entry is so high. Also, most of the stuff you originally thought were small- like Ben & Jerry's, and Burt's Bees... turned out all to have been bought out by larger concerns. Been there and done that with you before. Most of what you think you know about "market forces", economies, and people is mostly wishful thinking, IMHO.
Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not quite true, Magons - okay yes, the pissing off part, maybe a little, but here's a little bit from american early history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watauga_Association
Quote:
In May 1772, the Watauga and Nolichucky settlers negotiated a 10-year lease directly with the Cherokee, and being outside the claims of any colony, established the Watauga Association to provide basic government functions. The lease and the subsequent purchase of these lands in 1775 were considered illegal by the British Crown, and were vehemently opposed by a growing faction of the Cherokee led by the young chief Dragging Canoe.
That's why the scene with Ten Bears in The Outlaw Josey Wales strikes a chord with me, cause the Wataugans, my ancestors, preferred to negotiate rather than use force.
Now mind you, despite giving lip service to the crown, and later to the colonies, the Wataugans were prettymuch Anarchists, or as close to such a thing as politics allowed back then, mainly cause no one much bothered them except Dragging Canoe and his flunkies, and that was kind of an ongoing spat where each side would shoot a couple of the other, call it a win, and leave it be for a while, which had less to do with Cherokee versus Europeans as much as it did with the fact that Dragging Canoe was kind of a dick, and John Sevier was kind of a dick, and crazy to boot.
Interesting note to that is again, Wataugans preferred not to fight, and even that whole mess over the failed attempt to create their own state (state of Franklin) when it came to shooting they mostly shot at each others cover (referred locally as shooting fenceposts) as bluster and threat of the I-COULD-have-shot-you-there stripe, at least when fighting amongst themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin
The one noteable exception to this was that asshole Ferguson, who made the very dire mistake of saying, essentially "Hand over your guns, OR ELSE!" to the damn Wataugans...
That was probably the stupidest thing Ferguson EVER did, and as a direct result, one of the last.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain
After which they mostly went home and got drunk, though some few went and fought for the colonials, see - they were sympathetic to the colonials, moreso than the british, but mostly they just wanted to be left the hell alone, at least till Sevier and others got politically ambitious, which didn't last even then.
Anyways, they didn't go that route, being far more of a leave alone get left alone attitude, than the manifest destiny sense of entitlement which came later.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No worries, mate. I'm high on painkillers right now, so the time will pass quickly!
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mags,
of course. Or you could, maybe, buy the land from the Indians, as the Dutch did Manhattan. Or they might give it to you, as with William Penn. Or trade with 'em, as the French fur trappers did. Or you might steal it, and piss them off, especially if the piece you stole was special to them. Or they might not care. That's parts of what made it risky. Could get you killed. and you might do something that made you commit the non-libertarian act of asking the government for help.
But my main point was in the next paragraphs, where I was agreeing with Frem, wasn't I?-- You can't even do that in 2013. Somebody else will already claim ownership of the land, private citizen, corporation or government, and you'll have to buy it, and be bound by their laws and regulations. Which means you can't even get the chance to do it on your own without a bunch of oney.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?
And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.
And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RAPPY-
Quote:Well, that explains why you didn't write much- at least you didn't puff up your one-word thought (if you can call it that) into a multi-page bloviation.
Look at you. Wanting more and more answers, to be told what to think and how to live. And sure as hell if i were to produce any sort of manifesto, you'd call me CRAZY for trying to impose my rules on your lifestyle- rapppy
And look at you. Wanting to avoid answers more and more! I don't want to be told what to think and how to live. I just wanted to know what you think. Is that such a problem?-signy
I've already told you. -rappy
6IX
Quote:Jack, I don't know who the heck you're talking to, or what you're saying. I didn't vote for Obama, so why the heck do you keep going on.... and on... and on... about shit that even isn't part of the discussion?
Pardon my french, Signy, but here's Libertarianism in TWO WORDS...
FUCK YOU
EDITED TO ADD:
Figured that wasn't sufficient.....
I'd like to elaborate.....
I own my own house and pay my taxes and the gumment wants in for any reason.....
FUCK YOU...
In the mean time, I'm glad that you were able to not have to go to the ghetto for weed and I could provide. Now that the government owns my house, not only do I apologize that you have to ask shady "niggers" in the ghetto for what after being covered in hair spray and MACE was weed, but you have to live with 3 feet of unkempt lawn across the street since I'm too busy being raped in prison to worry about mowing our lawns.
Bottom line Signy.......
Dems are even afraid of weed, although both sides allow it now (especially in corrupt IL) for money. Illinois decision will not alleviate illegal drug trade by a MICROCOSM because they will TAX IT SO HARRRRRDDDDDDDDDD.
That's the only reason the Pimps in IL allowed it.
Ahem... OBAMA.....
ILLINOIS IS EVIL$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Don't ask me....
you voted him in, assholes.....
Talk to his half-human hand
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What would libertarianism do SPECIFICALLY if there were individuals bent on using market forces to achieve power? That is the heart of the question. Since I can point to driven individuals in ANY economic system on any continent throughout history, I think it's a fair assumption that there will be such individuals under libertarianism as well.
So, what's the answer? What ethic, procedure, or contract would either prevent or respond to such a circumstance? All I ever got... and all I ever get... is That would never happen under libertarianism.
Oh, come on. I've answered this.
I've given several reasons why your "water baron" scenario would not work in a Libertarian society, and you ignore them all. All I get from you is "Oh. Private property, Individualism, and Free market lead inevitably to Monopoly". I've even shown that this is bogus, just using hamburgers.
Quote:
As far as having a bias... or course, I have a bias. So do you. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about my "solutions"
Fine. You have put forward no solutions to this point. Define them and we'll have a go.
Quote:
Small things that can be made and used locally aren't necessarily subject to monopolism. But things that require large capital investments- large manufacturing concerns, "infrastructure", and what are now considered "public utilities", communications systems (exactly the things MY monopolist targeted) are subject to monopoly forces because the cost of entry is so high.
Okay. So monopoly is not inevitable, depending on conditions. Strange you didn't mention this until now.
Quote:
Also, most of the stuff you originally thought were small- like Ben & Jerry's, and Burt's Bees... turned out all to have been bought out by larger concerns. Been there and done that with you before. Most of what you think you know about "market forces", economies, and people is mostly wishful thinking, IMHO.
I'd note that there are still a lot of independent ice cream and lip balm companies out there. Folks are starting up new ones every day.
Just for fun, name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone needs (that's not a government, or government sanctioned, monopoly).
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME