So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 13 of 21
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."
Do you think western democracy is the only point of all democratic development in this entire history of the human race? Really?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And again.
Let's look more at this "Ownership of property, individualism, and a free market lead inevitably to monopoly" thing.
This explains why I can only get a hamburger at McDonalds.
Wait a minute.
I can buty a burger at McDucks.
I can also buy one at Burger King.
And Sonic.
And Hardees.
And 5 Guys.
Not to mention local places like BGR the Burger Joint, and Ray's Hell Burger, that cater to the folks who want a high end burger.
If I travel a bit I can have Krystal, Steak and Shake, or White Castle.
Going to the West Coast, I can get Carl Jrs, In and Out, Fatburger, etc.
More locally, I can go to the Greek pizza place up the street and get a burger.
And I've probably left out a few thousand places where I can get a burger.
Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.
This says more about the nature of the obesity problem in the US, than the nature of libertarianism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Mags,
of course. Or you could, maybe, buy the land from the Indians, as the Dutch did Manhattan. Or they might give it to you, as with William Penn. Or trade with 'em, as the French fur trappers did. Or you might steal it, and piss them off, especially if the piece you stole was special to them. Or they might not care. That's parts of what made it risky. Could get you killed. and you might do something that made you commit the non-libertarian act of asking the government for help.
But my main point was in the next paragraphs, where I was agreeing with Frem, wasn't I?-- You can't even do that in 2013. Somebody else will already claim ownership of the land, private citizen, corporation or government, and you'll have to buy it, and be bound by their laws and regulations. Which means you can't even get the chance to do it on your own without a bunch of oney.
Seems that to find the truth about how successful trades/purchases were from Native American, you have to ask yourself where are those thriving nations that existed pre white settlement?
Might have been beads for land, but the end result was displacement and cultural distruction.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
E-T-A:
Aw, gee. I'm responding chronologically, and between the original post and this response, you already made most of these points. Feel free to ignore most of this post. ANd I worked so hard to get it down to almost one screen.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Economic power, especially the monopoly power over vital resources, is a power itself, without government. And you're free to own all the doodads and gizmos you want.
then Geezer wrote:
Quote:
Next, when you talk about killing people by purposely withholding services, don't you think that's initiation of force?
Aha! That's where this discussion started breaking down. No, that's not initiation of force. Withholding your own services, that's a voluntary, individual choice of action, or non action. The motivation behind it might be undesirable, but nobody outside the actor gets to dictate, or judge, that motivation. Force is, well, force-- guns, knives, clubs, fists, mobs vandalizing things. That's FORCE.
Using economic power, the power of property, for individual benefit, is a common, nay, universal, phenomenon. That's what ALL commerce is about. Except that Geezer seems to be saying that, under libertarianism, that would never happen. But libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom of action. Use it in a manner that Geezer disapproves of, it gets re-defined as "use of force", and "use of force" gets redefined as that.
Now, a left-wing, collectivist, socialist, Commie might define individual use of economic power against the group, "the masses" as that. Not exactly clear on what differentiates the Geez from the commie on that one.
And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here. And you can tell how they feel about it from Six's post.
Yeesh, I've spent literally hours online here, revising and editing this little post. And there's a lot more I have comments on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Firstly, what does 'land' mean? Does it mean that if you own it, you are able to do what you want with it entirely? Do you own it from the top down to the earth's core? The first hundred metres? Do you own the air above it, the airspace above it, the water that runs through it?
I'm catching up from a couple of days back here. If this has already been answered,feel free to ignore.
Theoretically yes, you own all those things. You can exploit or contract out, or sell, just those rights on your piece of ground. Oil rights, water rights, mineral rights, any or all may be in the legal title to your property. You may or may not have bought them when you bought the land. Pre-existing contracts may determine whether or not you can use, dam up, or even drink, the water that flows across the surface of your land.
I have read of situations where privately owned airports had to lease the air space in their approach or departure landing patterns, they paid so that no land owner could erect a radio tower or sky scraper to endanger planes operating there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?
So we all have to shop at Wal-Mart because its the only store left. Right?
Quote:
And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.
I seem to recall passing an Apple store in the mall the other day. How could that be?
And Betamax lost out because it was awkward. I'd note that you can get movies and video streaming, on Netflix, by download, and various other ways instead of DVD. This is a monopoly?Quote:
And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?
Korea and other Asian producers subsidized by their governments. That's the way governments play the game. You okay with that?
1. I didn't say WalMart succeeded at it yet. But you could ask K-Nart, Sears, Wards, and local grocery chains how they feel about it.
2. Apple Stores sell phones now, maybe SMART phones; and maybe music players, but not general purpose computers, a market they dominated and innovated in before the IBM PC and the Windows box came along.
3. I remember Betamax as technically superior, better fidelity, longer playing time, several virtues. VHS only virtue was cheaper. That's how I remember it.
4.Subsidized by some other government or not, dumped steel was one factor driving American steel mills out of business. They got OUR government to step in on their side. Didn't help much, most of them are still gone.
All examples of somebody taking a short term loss to sell CHEAP, undercutting existing competition until in the long term that competition was gone from that market place, or reduced.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:
1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.
Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.
In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony
Ah, damn. Spot on, and written better, more concisely, than I ever could have. Maybe a perspective I've never had, too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!
name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds
Oh, come on. You said that pretty much any society would eventually end up with monopolies and the very few running everything, and now you want to quibble about size.
And you complain about biased questions? Please.
But okay. Name an existing total monopoly in the U.S. over an area 100 miles from wherever the central water (or whatever) plant is (100 mile diameter), as you described earlier. Just to be fair (sorry) let's say in an area of pretty good population density, not wher there's 10 folks per square mile. And once again, no government, or government supported, monopoly.
Possibly, maybe probably, we would have those monopolies here in the USA under a libertarian government. The US certainly had those tendencies between the Civil War and 1929. Maybe we don't have them because government regulation prevented them. Maybe not having them is proof that the existing system WORKS.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.
ah, a critical monopoly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME