So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 14 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.
If you want a Ford, you have to pay Ford.
Of course you could buy a Chevrolet from Chevrolet.
Or if you're looking for ED drugs, you could buy Cialis from Lilly, or Levitra or Staxyn from Bayer, or a dozen more.
"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 1kiki:
"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."
Do you think western democracy is the only point of all democratic development in this entire history of the human race? Really?
Did I say that? All I said was "democracy".
"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 Magonsdaughter:
This says more about the nature of the obesity problem in the US, than the nature of libertarianism.
Well, no. Actually it shows that Signym's "everything leads inevitably to monopoly" scenario is not true.
"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
OK, here's a new point in this discussion.
History. I have seen this theory written, can't cite exactly where. I propose it as a possible explanation, to be discussed; not because I believe it to be the Absolute truth.
THEORY-- The Declaration of Independence was a libertarian document, a statement justified on the level of individual rights, a reason for libertarian revolt. "inalienable rights"; "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"; "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
STILL THEORY- Thomas Jefferson, who wrote this, was a libbie.
NOW, FACT: This document was not LAW, never the basis of the government, but a statement of cause for Revolution.
MORE FACT: The Articles of Confederation were the document that set up the government for that Revolution. The national Congress could not do much, could not compel the states to do anything. The states were free to do as they pleased. This government was able to win the Revolution, barely, with lots of troubles caused by this government structure. Washington could not get the money from the states to operate the army, could not get enough men in his army. He bitched about it frequently. After the war, it was failing at regulating itself, commercially.
THEORY:The Articles were a libertarian document on the state level.
FACT: So the Convention set out to change the government, write the Constitution of the United States. Thomas Jefferson was not there-- he was ambassador in Paris.
THEORY. The Constitution was not a libertarian document. It was a social contract to unify, bind together, the states into a national whole. There's precious little about states rights, let alone individual rights, in the body of the Constitution. It's a pragmatic, practical, realist document. Explicit, detailed in a generalist way. "Congress shall consist of--"; "Congress shall pass no law--"; "first Tuesday after the first Monday"
FACT: The Convention approved the Constitution, a body representative of the people and governments of the colonies.
THEORY: The Bill of Rights had to be added to get the libertarians to ratify. It's a libertarian document, full of concern about things that no part of the government may do to an individual; abuses experienced under British rule that were now prevented.
NOBC's CONCLUSION. You can make the argument that the Articles of Confederation were an attempt at libertarian government, on a state level. They failed, ultimately, but not catastrophically. They had to be replaced by a unifying social contract that had some Libertarian features.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Using economic power, the power of property, for individual benefit, is a common, nay, universal, phenomenon. That's what ALL commerce is about. Except that Geezer seems to be saying that, under libertarianism, that would never happen. But libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom of action.
Once again ignoring that libertarians believe in the maximum freedom of action for everybody, not just themselves. And that freedom of action is limited to actions that don't initiate force against others. Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.
Quote:
And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?
Quote:
2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here.
You should read the threads Frem cited. Plenty of discussion from several folks about voluntary associations of folks in a Libertarian society to provide everything from fire services to medical care to charity.
Seems you're slipping back into the "Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost" trap that does not accuarately most Libertarian thinking at all.
"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:
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.
Could be, although government seems to support big businesses at least as much as it controls them.
BTW: It's SignyM saying that the current system, or any system based on private property, individualism, and the free market cannot possibly work.
"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
NOBC "ah, a critical monopoly"
Geezer "If you want a Ford, you have to pay Ford"
It's an example. The same is true of many medications, including life-sparing ones like Cialis. These meds were based on government-supported research into NO blood vessel dilation, and originally conceived and developed as blood pressure medications. But they had an interesting side effect on men and so the companies went with them as a blockbuster-'lifestyle' market rather than a lifesaving one. But Cialis is the ONLY treatment for primary pulmonary hypertension, aside from a double-lung transplant. Another example is humulin (genetically-derived human insulin) for diabetics who've become allergic to the pig insulin. Then there's EPO for kidney-disease based anemia. Latisse which grows eyelashes but also treats sleeping sickness - except it's priced far too high to be used on poor African lives. All of these are just select examples of vital monopolies, where you pay the price, or die. Literally.
I'm surprised you both didn't realize that. NOBC, I realize you're playing devil's advocate. But Geezer - you believe this stuff. You should know your monopolies better.
Also, price fixing by a few companies - gasoline, heating fuel, natural gas. They are definitely vital and there's no effective competition.
Interesting example if you're into details - this whole hullabaloo about 'peak oil' and 'the end of oil' only applies to sweet light crude - the kind nearly all refineries have been built around over the last 50 years and the only kind they are able to handle. But there's other kinds of crude - heavy sour crude (and tar-sands crude, which I mention for completeness, but that's not part of this story). There is a virtually unlimited supply of that, and it's much cheaper. ONE refinery named Valero did have SOME capacity to refine heavy sour crude. Almost two decades ago they decided to specialize in it. So they took some huge profit hits and rebuilt their refineries to handle the stuff - crack at higher temps, remove sulfur and other unwanted elements etc. With light sweet crude trading at about $90/bbl heavy sour crude trades at about $70/bbl and their capital costs recouped a long time ago, and operating costs about the same as other refineries (they recoup sulfur removal costs by selling sulfur) you'd THINK their gasoline would be far cheaper. It's all about competition reducing prices - right? But their gasoline is a marginal $0.05 per gallon cheaper at a base price of about $4.00/gal. Costs of production 25% cheaper. Prices at the pump 1.25% cheaper.
So, let's here it for free competition and no monopolies! Not.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?
Damn, can you read? DO you? Or do you just ignore stuff that isn't what you want to bitch about? You even quoted it right there.
"And Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider."
Of course they're opinions. I don't think they're based on nothing. They're an observation based on what I've read. I offered them for Sig to consider. You could Argue against them. Do you want to do that? Or just say that that's all been settled, somewhere else?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
1. I didn't say WalMart succeeded at it yet. But you could ask K-Nart, Sears, Wards, and local grocery chains how they feel about it.
Still got Sears around here. Or you might ask Target, or Costco.
Quote:
2. Apple Stores sell phones now, maybe SMART phones; and maybe music players, but not general purpose computers, a market they dominated and innovated in before the IBM PC and the Windows box came along.
The Apple Mac Mini I got hooked up to my TV is pretty recent, and I bought it at an Apple store. There were plenty of MacBook notebooks, iMacs, and Mac pros there for sale.
Quote:Never had much luck with Beta myself. Both are pretty much gone by now.
3. I remember Betamax as technically superior, better fidelity, longer playing time, several virtues. VHS only virtue was cheaper. That's how I remember it.
Quote:
4.Subsidized by some other government or not, dumped steel was one factor driving American steel mills out of business. They got OUR government to step in on their side. Didn't help much, most of them are still gone.
But without the government subsidies, the Asian steel makers couln't have stood the loss of profit, and certainly not for so long.
Quote:
All examples of somebody taking a short term loss to sell CHEAP, undercutting existing competition until in the long term that competition was gone from that market place, or reduced.
But where is the inevitible monopoly? Per SignyM's scenario, "There can be only one".
"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:
Damn, can you read? DO you? Or do you just ignore stuff that isn't what you want to bitch about? You even quoted it right there.
"And Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider."
Of course they're opinions. I don't think they're based on nothing. They're an observation based on what I've read. I offered them for Sig to consider. You could Argue against them. Do you want to do that? Or just say that that's all been settled, somewhere else?
You have opinions. You apparently base them on something you read. What is it you base them on?
I've listed what I think Libertarianism is, and backed it up with a cite that's pretty close to what I believe. If you have a different view, you should be able to cite the information that makes you believe that way. That's all I'm asking for.
I will note that I have mentioned that Libertarianism as I understand it, and as defined in several places, calls for every adherant to want the maximum of individual liberty for everybody, not just themselves, and to follow the Non-aggression Principle, which states no one has the right to initiate force against any ones else, but that force can be used in response to such aggression.
Given this, I'm not sure how you can continue to talk about "Social Darwinism" and leaving everyone but the rich behind.
Maybe if I know where you got your information about Libertarians, I can figure this out, and possibly show that it is not as reliable as you might think.
"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