Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Redstorm]
    #8677114 - 07/24/08 04:55 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Actually, libertarian foreign policy might clash a bit with her ideology.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Phred]
    #8677385 - 07/24/08 06:21 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

But their ideal that ultimately the 'rights of the individual' is of ultimate importance, when applied to specifically to economics, limits the vast majority of everybody else's 'individual' rights by increasing a small minority's rights based on how much wealth they possess.




Really? Allowing people to keep the money they earned through honest effort would result in the majority's rights being violated? How does that follow, exactly?

Please explain to the audience how a Libertarian government allowing Brad Pitt  to buy ten Ferraris would limit in any way shape or form your right to buy a Toyota or my right to buy an Integra. Please explain how if Brad Pitt were never to have existed you would obtain your Toyota with one hour's less effort. Please explain - precisely and specifically - which of your rights you believe would be violated by allowing Mr. Pitt to keep the money people paid him to act in their movies.



Phred




Phred, you can cloud the debate endlessly if you want to by citing 'specific' cases which have very little to do with the overall argument being made.  I choose to look at the whole rule and judge a rule based on any exceptions.  Libertarian economic policy is based on the embrace of free market capitalism through competition inherent in it, right?  Can we agree on that?  But what happens when the players in the economy gain so much wealth that they change the rules of the game to stifle the competition that capitalism, and the Libertarian economic model, has its foundation built upon?  Laissez faire capitalism in our current political reality, where more money=more rights, has lead to an imbalance in rights.  In the perfect 'Libertarian' world where the government completely stayed out of the economy and didn't pass laws to favor one industry, or group of companies, over others the Libertarian economic model might work.  I say it might work because nobody has yet to convince me that the right of one individual to amass as much wealth as possibly can be amassed somehow enhances everybody's rights.  Is the argument that because one person can amass it all it means everyone has the same opportunity?  Plus the GOP has fully embraced the laissez faire portion Libertarian economic model while not embracing the 'hands off' approach that Libertarians espouse.  So instead of a economy that fosters competition and increased rights for all we have one where laws are passed encouraging a monopolistic/anti-competitive marketplace...which I believe is in direct contradiction of the Libertarian model. So I am unconvinced that the Libertarian economic model is a sound one vis-a-vis ensuring the rights of every individual and meanwhile the same model is being co-opted then perverted by the GOP to further corporatist/plutocratic interests in the country which limit our freedoms.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8677415 - 07/24/08 06:34 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Just like there are laws which prevent individuals from taking the possessions of others unlawfully (i.e. theft etc.) or not taking another's life in a situation other than self defense there need to be regulations that limit corporations from acting unethically and anti-competitively also...which flies in the face of Libertarian economic theory.  We can't leave it to the Utopian Libertarian theory that each individual will show the responsibility for behaving in a moral way when individuals repeatedly are shown, when given the chance, that they can be completely immoral.  Industry needs to be/should be regulated.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8677509 - 07/24/08 07:16 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred, you can cloud the debate endlessly if you want to by citing 'specific' cases which have very little to do with the overall argument being made.




Translation: I (Libertine) cannot support my claim.

Quote:

Libertarian economic policy is based on the embrace of free market capitalism through competition inherent in it, right?  Can we agree on that?




Libertarian economic policy forbids the government to involve itself in transactions between consenting participants, true.

Quote:

But what happens when the players in the economy gain so much wealth that they change the rules of the game to stifle the competition that capitalism, and the Libertarian economic model, has its foundation built upon?




And this is where you crash and burn. In a Laissez-faire Capitalist/Minarchist/Libertarian system "they" (I presume you refer to wealthy individuals here)  cannot gain so much wealth they can change the rules of the game. The rules of the game remain the same for everyone regardless of their net worth.

Quote:

Laissez faire capitalism in our current political reality, where more money=more rights, has lead to an imbalance in rights.




First of all, our current political reality is far indeed from Laissez-faire Capitalism. Secondly, even the severely hobbled quasi-capitalist quasi-socialist system operating in the West today has not led to an imbalance in rights. I'd ask you again to give us specific examples of such imbalances, but we've seen already you'll ignore that request. Third, more money does not equal more rights. Your definition of "rights" needs work.

Quote:

In the perfect 'Libertarian' world where the government completely stayed out of the economy and didn't pass laws to favor one industry, or group of companies, over others the Libertarian economic model might work. I say it might work because nobody has yet to convince me that the right of one individual to amass as much wealth as possibly can be amassed somehow enhances everybody's rights.




Why need it enhance anybody's rights, let alone everybody's? As long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights, what's the problem?

Quote:

Is the argument that because one person can amass it all it means everyone has the same opportunity?




What is your argument for forcefully preventing Brad Pitt from charging three hundred million dollars for his next movie role? What is your argument for forcefully seizing any of that three hundred million (let alone half of it!) once it has been paid to him? Whose rights have been violated by Mr. Pitt having received that money? Whose rights have been curtailed by Mr. Pitt being allowed to keep the money?

Quote:

Plus the GOP has fully embraced the laissez faire portion Libertarian economic model while not embracing the 'hands off' approach that Libertarians espouse.




Bullshit. But that is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Quote:

So instead of a economy that fosters competition and increased rights for all we have one where laws are passed encouraging a monopolistic/anti-competitive marketplace...which I believe is in direct contradiction of the Libertarian model.




Who here has argued that the system in the place in the US today is a Libertarian one? Stay on topic.

Quote:

So I am unconvinced that the Libertarian economic model is a sound one vis-a-vis ensuring the rights of every individual and meanwhile the same model is being co-opted then perverted by the GOP to further corporatist/plutocratic interests in the country which limit our freedoms.




Do you not grasp the silliness of condemning a system based on the actions of those who subvert it? The way current US politicians act has nothing to do with the validity of Libertarianism. If you want to criticize Libertarianism, do so. Don't ramble off in all directions condemning US Republicans. What do modern Republicans have to do with Libertarianism?




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Phred]
    #8677682 - 07/24/08 08:10 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

What he is saying phred is that libertarianism is anti-regulation but monopoly's will result naturally in the economy without regulation. Even if there is no intellectual property right (I'm pretty sure libertarians do not oppose IP rights anyway) monopoly's will exist because of economies of scale. And anti-competative practices will maintain them if no regulatory bodies exist to stop them. This will have an adverse effect on innovation and discovery as the same lumbering dinosaurs will be fortified in their position with no need to fund innovation.

This is what I'm sure libertine means when he says that amassing enough wealth will change the rules of the game. Not that brad pit's net worth has anything to do with it unless he's using it to change the rules of the game. Some good examples can be Standard Oil, Microsoft, and a common problem nowadays of news media mergers. All of those examples lead to lower quality and/or higher prices in historical examples.
Quote:

I'd ask you again to give us specific examples of such imbalances,


So I hope this has cleared up what imbalances of rights result from monopoly's that develop from unregulated mergers, monopoly and anti-competitive behavior.

Take for instance your brad pit examples, they have no relation to anything we are arguing against. He is not engaged in any anti-competitive or monopolizing activity, there are many male actors even with similar physical characteristics and his price makes the use of others more economically competitive anyway. The ability to substitute the good "brad pit's acting" is pretty high and he is doing nothing to prevent anyone from doing so. Eddie Murphy is more like an anti-competitive actor, he plays so many people in his movies that he depresses the demand for other actors on his films, though arguably he is creating a context of humor to the film and he never plays all the parts so even there you'd be hard pressed to call it a monopoly or anti-competitive acting behavior.


Quote:

Translation: I (Libertine) cannot support my claim.




Funny I've been the only one putting examples, who are you to judge him? I just asked you to consider examples of when unregulated markets lead to greater consumer protection, but you didn't name any, do you think there even are any? I'd be surprised if there were and I'd like you to name at least 3 if you can. Given the examples I'd taken the time to have laid out in this thread (and explain) I hardly think it's an unreasonable thing to ask of any of you.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Phred]
    #8677689 - 07/24/08 08:11 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:

Translation: I (Libertine) cannot support my claim.




And Brad Pitt's personal situation is what your whole argument is based on?


Quote:

Phred said:
Libertarian economic policy forbids the government to involve itself in transactions between consenting participants, true.




Agreed then...


Quote:

Phred said:And this is where you crash and burn. In a Laissez-faire Capitalist/Minarchist/Libertarian system "they" (I presume you refer to wealthy individuals here)  cannot gain so much wealth they can change the rules of the game. The rules of the game remain the same for everyone regardless of their net worth.




I was referring to anti-competitive forces in the economy...and they for the most part do happen to be wealthy.  So Libertarians favor regulation of the economy?


Quote:

Phred said:First of all, our current political reality is far indeed from Laissez-faire Capitalism. Secondly, even the severely hobbled quasi-capitalist quasi-socialist system operating in the West today has not led to an imbalance in rights. I'd ask you again to give us specific examples of such imbalances, but we've seen already you'll ignore that request. Third, more money does not equal more rights. Your definition of "rights" needs work.




As far as more money equaling more rights please see the link, which I posted, to the Buckley v. Valeo decision rendered by the SCOTUS.  Money=Speech.  Can Wal-Mart workers unionize so they can collectively bargain for better wages or is Wal-Mart allowed to infringe on their rights?  Worker rights are being allowed to be crushed through threats of job loss and/or relocation of jobs overseas.   


Quote:

Phred said:Why need it enhance anybody's rights, let alone everybody's? As long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights, what's the problem?




Sloppy wording on my part.  Should have said protect everyone's rights...my bad, you're right on this one.


Quote:

Phred said:What is your argument for forcefully preventing Brad Pitt from charging three hundred million dollars for his next movie role? What is your argument for forcefully seizing any of that three hundred million (let alone half of it!) once it has been paid to him? Whose rights have been violated by Mr. Pitt having received that money? Whose rights have been curtailed by Mr. Pitt being allowed to keep the money?




I have no idea what your fixation is with Brad Pitt.  Brad Pitt's rights are not in question.  He has entered into a contract(s) for his employment and he is free to do anything with his money as he sees fit. Not all workers are allowed to have the 'bargaining' power Mr. Pitt enjoys and just because he has his bargaining rights doesn't mean everyone else has theirs.



Quote:

Phred said:Bullshit. But that is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.




Maybe or maybe not.  I wouldn't be happy either if my 'cause' was being twisted by partisan politicians I didn't agree with.


Quote:

Phred said:Who here has argued that the system in the place in the US today is a Libertarian one? Stay on topic.




If it isn't it is a conjoined twin.


Quote:

Phred said:Do you not grasp the silliness of condemning a system based on the actions of those who subvert it? The way current US politicians act has nothing to do with the validity of Libertarianism. If you want to criticize Libertarianism, do so. Don't ramble off in all directions condemning US Republicans. What do modern Republicans have to do with Libertarianism?




Well those who have subverted it have shown the weaknesses in it.  If you read my post correctly I did say that the Libertarian economic model might work even if I am unconvinced as of yet.  What do modern Republicans have to do with Libertarianism?  Ron Paul and Bob Barr spring to mind.  Ron Paul has a lot of nerve calling himself a 'Libertarian' when he puts a (R) after his name.  And is Bob Barr backing away from his socially conservative religiously inspired political agenda now that he is the LP's presidential candidate?  Will he really embrace protecting civil liberties?  I have a friend who is a member of the LP and a 'true believer', he is FUMING that Barr is their candidate.  You'll probably just tell me I am 'off topic' but reality can be a real bitch.  Maybe some Libertarians think they can accomplish more if they identify/caucus with the GOP but all I see is perversion of the Libertarian movement. 



Phred, you make a persuasive case but I still just remain a Civil Libertarian.  Too many of the economic positions are predicated on Utopian positions anticipating moral behavior in an immoral world.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8677727 - 07/24/08 08:22 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
This is what I'm sure libertine means when he says that amassing enough wealth will change the rules of the game.




Yes it was what I meant ScavengerType.  Without a certain amount of regulation of the economy the entities with the most money will always try to ensure the laws will favor their economic rights over everyone else's.  I still think it all stems from Buckley v. Valeo decision where the SCOTUS ruled the giving of money to politicians/political parties is afforded 1st amendment protection.  That means the more money possessed the more 'free speech' rights someone has.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8677757 - 07/24/08 08:29 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Phred, please tell me if you feel Buckley v. Valeo is a good ruling in a Libertarian sense.  Should people who have more money be afforded a higher level of speech rights than others?  Do you support McCain-Feingold?  Or do you think, like me, that there should be strict limits placed on the giving of money to politicians and political parties else the politicians will pass laws that benefit the biggest donors?

Just curious...


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8677924 - 07/24/08 09:05 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

What he is saying phred is that libertarianism is anti-regulation but monopoly's will result naturally in the economy without regulation.




This is the most persistent, yet the most stupid, objection of opponents of Libertarianism/Minarchism/Laissez-faire Capitalism - the myth of monopolies. It has been so thoroughly debunked so many times by so many people that I just assume everyone on this board is as familiar with its stupidity as I am. My bad. One more time --

Monopolies cannot arise or be maintained longer than - at most - the length of a patent, absent government interference in the economy. Since this is a Libertarian society we are discussing, monopolies are a null concept and need not be addressed.

Quote:

This is what I'm sure libertine means when he says that amassing enough wealth will change the rules of the game.




If that is what he means, than he's as wrong on that point as he has been on most of his others so far. Monopolies are creatures of government. No government, no monopolies.




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8678031 - 07/24/08 09:29 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I was referring to anti-competitive forces in the economy...and they for the most part do happen to be wealthy.




For Christ's sake --- give us some specifics, man! Don't keep blathering on about mythical chimeras, give us an example and demonstrate how it violates someone's rights. What the hell do you consider an "anti-competitive force" and how can it exist absent a government to do its bidding?

Quote:

As far as more money equaling more rights please see the link, which I posted, to the Buckley v. Valeo decision rendered by the SCOTUS.




Buckley v. Valeo is not an example of more money equating to more rights. Please try again.

Quote:

Can Wal-Mart workers unionize so they can collectively bargain for better wages...




In a Libertarian society? Of course.

Quote:

Worker rights are being allowed to be crushed through threats of job loss and/or relocation of jobs overseas. 




In which Libertarian country  is this occurring?

Quote:

Not all workers are allowed to have the 'bargaining' power Mr. Pitt enjoys...




Incorrect. In a Libertarian/Laissez-faire Capitalist/Minarchist society every worker is allowed to have the bargaining power Mr. Pitt enjoys.

Quote:

Well those who have subverted it have shown the weaknesses in it.




No they haven't. All they've done is demonstrated the obvious: if the citizenry of a country is too apathetic to remove from power those who would subvert the constitution they've sworn to uphold, that constitution will not long be upheld. This is true no matter what the country, no matter how many citizens it encompasses, no matter what the details of that constitution might be.

Your comment is as daft as saying women getting raped daily in the US indicates the weakness of making rape illegal.

Quote:

What do modern Republicans have to do with Libertarianism?  Ron Paul and Bob Barr spring to mind.  Ron Paul... blah blah blah irrelevancy followed by irrelevancy blah blah blah....




Please stay on topic. The topic is not Republican politicians posing as Libertarians.

Quote:

Too many of the economic positions are predicated on Utopian positions anticipating moral behavior in an immoral world.




Libertarianism is not Anarchism. Libertarians believe in courts and cops and prisons and punishment and an objective body of law. Those who violate the rights of others are dealt with by the justice system. Those who don't are left in peace. Why this bothers you so much remains a mystery to me.



Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8678057 - 07/24/08 09:34 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Without a certain amount of regulation of the economy the entities with the most money will always try to ensure the laws will favor their economic rights over everyone else's.







Try to maintain your focus here. What are we discussing? Why, we are discussing Libertarianism. What is the government of a Libertarian country specifically forbidden to do? Why, to inject itself into financial transactions between consenting parties, duh!

So just how are those with the most money going to get the government to change the laws to favor their economic rights over anyone else's?


*crickets chirping*




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: Phred]
    #8678083 - 07/24/08 09:42 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
So just how are those with the most money going to get the government to change the laws to favor their economic rights over anyone else's?


*crickets chirping*




Phred




This seems to be working quite well...

I hear crickets are quite tasty when covered in chocolate.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8678095 - 07/24/08 09:45 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
What he is saying phred is that libertarianism is anti-regulation but monopoly's will result naturally in the economy without regulation. Even if there is no intellectual property right (I'm pretty sure libertarians do not oppose IP rights anyway) monopoly's will exist because of economies of scale. And anti-competative practices will maintain them if no regulatory bodies exist to stop them. This will have an adverse effect on innovation and discovery as the same lumbering dinosaurs will be fortified in their position with no need to fund innovation.




How will monopolies result naturally?  I agree with phred- it makes no sense to presume this.


A monopoly that does no harm is fine.  A monopoly that harms is not.

Neither can prevail, however; it is the later tat people are concerned about.  Those that charge too much can be challenged through competition.  How could they not?

You buy all the steel plants and raise prices.  Why can't someone else simply open another plant?  There is no reason they cannot.  If the monopoly refuses to do buisness with a plant that won't sell exclusivly to him, then the competitor need only find his own source of materials to begin making steel, or convince the other supplier to sell to him.

You need only get investors to set up your company wit financing to get a viable competitor.  This shouldn't be hard to do in the abstract with inflated prices- there will be hoards of folks wishing to buy your product.

Quote:



This is what I'm sure libertine means when he says that amassing enough wealth will change the rules of the game. Not that brad pit's net worth has anything to do with it unless he's using it to change the rules of the game. Some good examples can be Standard Oil, Microsoft, and a common problem nowadays of news media mergers. All of those examples lead to lower quality and/or higher prices in historical examples.




Explain the Standard Oil example, and how they "changed the rules of the game" to the injustice of someone, and how this discredits libertarianism... I'm unsure of what your refering to.


As for Microsoft, do the same.  How are they hurting anyone's rights? 

They have several competitors.  While they do engage in anticompetitive actions with their suppliers and buisness partners, so what?

How does this hurt you?

While you may wish for microsoft to not, say, refuse to sell to people who won't sell computers without an OS installed, what right do you have to demand it?  Additionally, can you say that they are succesful in preventing consumer choice? 


Quote:


Quote:

Translation: I (Libertine) cannot support my claim.




Funny I've been the only one putting examples, who are you to judge him? I just asked you to consider examples of when unregulated markets lead to greater consumer protection, but you didn't name any, do you think there even are any? I'd be surprised if there were and I'd like you to name at least 3 if you can. Given the examples I'd taken the time to have laid out in this thread (and explain) I hardly think it's an unreasonable thing to ask of any of you.




I don't think Libertine supported his claims.


What is consumer protection anyways?

What unregulated markets even exist?  Nonetheless, competition always increases consumer protection.

Take any industry, the absence of burdensome regulations allows greater competition and choice.  The ability of midlevel healtcare providers to practice increases consumer benifit. 

The hands off approach to the supplement market, to some extent, by the FDA allows greater consumer benifits.

The ability of any doctor to preform any procedure allows greater consumer benifit (allowing doctors to practice in fields in which they haven't completed a residency).


All are examples of more choice leading to better outcomes, as is always the case.

Lawsuits correct the wrongs, when the legal system is allowed to function on equity and blind justice....

Regulators increase the wrongs by limiting the ability of companies to function and consumers to buy from whom they wish.



Edit: fixed quote

Edited by johnm214 (07/24/08 10:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: Libertine]
    #8678156 - 07/24/08 09:59 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

What is your obsession with the Supreme Court ruling? Please explain to us whose rights were violated by that ruling? Please explain to us what people could do before that ruling that they can no longer do. Be specific.

Your problem is that you have only the vaguest grasp of what rights are.



Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Phred]
    #8678185 - 07/24/08 10:12 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

What he is saying phred is that libertarianism is anti-regulation but monopoly's will result naturally in the economy without regulation.




This is the most persistent, yet the most stupid, objection of opponents of Libertarianism/Minarchism/Laissez-faire Capitalism - the myth of monopolies. It has been so thoroughly debunked so many times by so many people that I just assume everyone on this board is as familiar with its stupidity as I am. My bad. One more time --

Monopolies cannot arise or be maintained longer than - at most - the length of a patent, absent government interference in the economy. Since this is a Libertarian society we are discussing, monopolies are a null concept and need not be addressed.




So economies of scale do not exist in a libertarian society because libertarianism lives in a mid-evil vacuume that pre-dates industrialism? OR is it more likely that this idea of economies of scale, mergers and anti-competitive behavior conflicts with your world view so you choose to ignore it.

Frankly you've said multiple times that these forces don't exist and that their existence has been "debunked" so WTF is with Standard oil, Microsoft and Clearchannel? I'm afraid you're going to have to humor me since nobody I've ever read or heard of in the mainstream of economics denies that these forces exist.

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

I was referring to anti-competitive forces in the economy...and they for the most part do happen to be wealthy.




For Christ's sake --- give us some specifics, man! Don't keep blathering on about mythical chimeras, give us an example and demonstrate how it violates someone's rights. What the hell do you consider an "anti-competitive force" and how can it exist absent a government to do its bidding?




So do you mean like Walmart who moves into a town and destroys small businesses with low prices only to raise them after they have cornered the market in the town or locality? Or are you referring to examples like Lenard Asper's Global media who owns 70% of all media in Vancouver BC, setting a precedent even compared to the US for single owner media saturation in a city? Would the inability of journalists to express opinions that conflict with the Asper family for fear of an not being to find alternative journalistic work be adequately anti-competitive? How about, the reduction in sources for stories and staffing while the consumer is charged the same for the mediocre journalism? Is that a reduction in the quality of goods caused by monopoly? These are examples of the products of both a lack of consumer protection regulations in retail and a lack of enforcement of consumer protection regulations in journalism. Where's your examples?


Quote:

Your comment is as daft as saying women getting raped daily in the US indicates the weakness of making rape illegal.



Off topic but is this comment daft? Many future social workers have made a similar complaint and I don't see how it's invalid. If rape happens and goes unpunished while it is illegal then anti-rape legislation may not be entirely effective in treating the problem. I realy don't see what your point was here.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: Phred]
    #8678193 - 07/24/08 10:15 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
What is your obsession with the Supreme Court ruling? Please explain to us whose rights were violated by that ruling? Please explain to us what people could do before that ruling that they can no longer do. Be specific.

Your problem is that you have only the vaguest grasp of what rights are.



Phred




Why?  You don't see why?  Really?  You don't see the giving of money, and naturally the amount of money given, leading to certain people having more influence on laws enacted on their behalf by our government?  You don't see how that at its core that principle undermines the integrity of government?  You spoke of the government staying neutral in economic policy but you don't have a problem with people 'contributing' large sums of money to politicians/political parties trying to ensure that laws are passed for their personal financial gain?  Ummmmm...no contradiction there I guess.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: Libertine]
    #8678243 - 07/24/08 10:32 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Libertine said:
Quote:

Phred said:
What is your obsession with the Supreme Court ruling? Please explain to us whose rights were violated by that ruling? Please explain to us what people could do before that ruling that they can no longer do. Be specific.

Your problem is that you have only the vaguest grasp of what rights are.



Phred




Why?  You don't see why?  Really?  You don't see the giving of money, and naturally the amount of money given, leading to certain people having more influence on laws enacted on their behalf by our government?  You don't see how that at its core that principle undermines the integrity of government? 





Straw man.

Phred didn't say everybody had  or should have the same degree of influence in the legislature, so why are you disproving this?


Ditto for "undermines the integrity of government".


Quote:

You spoke of the government staying neutral in economic policy but you don't have a problem with people 'contributing' large sums of money to politicians/political parties trying to ensure that laws are passed for their personal financial gain?  Ummmmm...no contradiction there I guess.





Another straw man.

Where did he say he had no problem with.... what you say?  He didn't.


Nonetheless, so what?

I'm sure he opposes wrongful laws...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Good points... [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8678297 - 07/24/08 10:44 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:

So do you mean like Walmart who moves into a town and destroys small businesses with low prices only to raise them after they have cornered the market in the town or locality? Or are you referring to examples like Lenard Asper's Global media who owns 70% of all media in Vancouver BC, setting a precedent even compared to the US for single owner media saturation in a city? Would the inability of journalists to express opinions that conflict with the Asper family for fear of an not being to find alternative journalistic work be adequately anti-competitive? How about, the reduction in sources for stories and staffing while the consumer is charged the same for the mediocre journalism? Is that a reduction in the quality of goods caused by monopoly? These are examples of the products of both a lack of consumer protection regulations in retail and a lack of enforcement of consumer protection regulations in journalism. Where's your examples?




Ohhhh...how could I forget about media consolidation?  Of course fewer and fewer owners of media outlets in any given market leads to more competitive and better news coverage.  Of course they only lobbied the politicians they cover for a living so there is no need to worry about any conflicts of interest.  Right? :wink:

And as far as Wal-Mart and their 'always the lowest prices' goes.  Having one Wal-Mart in town, as opposed to a myriad of choices, of course leads more retail choices for the consumer.  Meanwhile the Wal-Marts get local tax breaks from the communities they are located in and their employees, because they are paid so miserably, having to go on state assistance we, when all is said and done, end up paying much more than we did before Wal-Mart came to town.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8678382 - 07/24/08 11:06 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:

Straw man.

Phred didn't say everybody had  or should have the same degree of influence in the legislature, so why are you disproving this?


Ditto for "undermines the integrity of government"






Phred stated;

Quote:

What is your obsession with the Supreme Court ruling? Please explain to us whose rights were violated by that ruling? Please explain to us what people could do before that ruling that they can no longer do. Be specific.




And I gave the example of how our rights are diminished when other people's rights are elevated.  I guess you and Phred can't see the causal link between elevating rights for some resulting in the diminution of the rights of others because the are 'no specific examples'. 

It isn't like sub prime predatory lenders are being bailed out while the preyed upon suffer financial ruin or the oil industry, while showing record profits, gets $18,000,000,000 in taxpayer subsidies while bridges over the Mississippi River collapse (killing people) because highway funds given to the states were slashed.  Of course it can't be the case because no causal link can be made between the two, right?  I take it we need 'smoking gun proof' that if the state of Minnesota had the money, which went to Big Oil, to maintain their infrastructure that bridge wouldn't have failed.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: Libertine]
    #8678701 - 07/25/08 12:16 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:



And I gave the example of how our rights are diminished when other people's rights are elevated.  I guess you and Phred can't see the causal link between elevating rights for some resulting in the diminution of the rights of others because the are 'no specific examples'.

It isn't like sub prime predatory lenders are being bailed out while the preyed upon suffer financial ruin or the oil industry, while showing record profits, gets $18,000,000,000 in taxpayer subsidies while bridges over the Mississippi River collapse (killing people) because highway funds given to the states were slashed.  Of course it can't be the case because no causal link can be made between the two, right?  I take it we need 'smoking gun proof' that if the state of Minnesota had the money, which went to Big Oil, to maintain their infrastructure that bridge wouldn't have failed.





I don't see how people's rights are elevated in your example.  Everyone has a right to their opinion and to their expressing of it.  Demonstrate how someone contributing money to a candidate infringes upon my rights? 

Would you limit me from spending so much on a billboard to strike down drug laws?  What's the difference in sending the money to a candidate instead?  Should the political party be likwise limited in endorsing their candidate and spending more than x number of dollars?  Or just me? 


I don't get your comparisons in the second portion though.  As a libertarian, I, and I presume most of us, don't support such shenanigans, so I have no idea how you think that harms my position.  Maybe you should read a bit about libertarian philosophy... they don't support corporatism or socialism- same evil, almost.  Or maybe I misunderstand your point, care to explain how these are evidence of libertarian failings?

No bailouts for bad decisions.  Let the week companies die and the strong will prosper- creating wealth instead of sucking it from the taxpayers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* A Libertarian's Message Phred 1,249 12 11/03/08 12:50 PM
by buckwheat
* Libertarians & War
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 3,539 25 10/13/04 01:21 AM
by hound
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 2,412 14 09/10/04 01:20 PM
by Ancalagon
* I cant stand Libertarians....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
vader34 8,901 160 12/27/12 11:49 AM
by Gilgamesh18
* Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge
( 1 2 3 4 all )
lonestar2004 6,184 68 08/12/08 10:48 PM
by MrSinister
* Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
46 and 2 5,783 96 11/19/12 07:48 PM
by 46 and 2
* Libertarian: Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )
Bridgeburner 3,905 32 11/29/07 12:37 AM
by pooppoop

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
14,597 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.