Libertarianism

Let's talk about the libertarianism!

Why would we want to prevent these "De-Facto monopolies" from taking over the market?  That's part of the game, buddy.  The strongest thrive.  And they can't set up their own government because the government will prevent that. 

My idea of Libertarianism doesn't define an entire system.  It's a reworking of the current system to increase privitization as much as possible.  Power grid?  Good thing.  Maybe a little on the collectivist side, but at least it's being managed by someone whose future depends on it's success.

Your argument is full of logical fallacies. Like, "IIf this isn't obvious to you, I don't think there's any point continuing this." or that assertion that I should immediately hate these "monopolies".   I can see I've pissed you off.

Monopolies are bad because they stifle competition and could eventualy bring down the market for that good.

As >>39 said, government is all about power and having a corporation that is more powerful than the government is bad.

Libertarianism doesn't say that monopolies are good. There are many different philosophies in libertarianism, some moderate, some extreme.

Why would we want to prevent these "De-Facto monopolies" from taking over the market?

Are you completely stupid? Think about it. Use the fucking wikipedia if you have to, since it seems to do all your thinking for you.

"IIf this isn't obvious to you, I don't think there's any point continuing this."

Of everything I've argued, that's the best you can come up with (ie, if you can't even agree on a fundamental premise, what's the point continuing)? Hey, wait, how's that a logical fallacy? Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?

I should immediately hate these "monopolies".

Where'd I say that?

And they can't set up their own government because the government will prevent that.

plz to be rereading:

If there's non-initiation of force, how do you plan to prevent de facto monopolies from taking over the market?

Oh, and you think US health care is bad?  Hah!  Waiting a fucking year for a clinical visit in canada is a GOOD thing?

Oh, and you think US health care is bad?  Hah!  Waiting a fucking year for a clinical visit in canada is a GOOD thing?  And doctors don't get paid anything on a government's salary.  All the good ones are fleeing south, no?

Libertarianism doesn't call for the government to have no power...  Libertarianism calls for the government to only have reactive power.  That's one of the biggest misconceptions of the day. If any entity started fucking things up, and started screwing aroudn with people, they would meet with consequences that would make using such power a bad idea in the first place, just like today.  Libertarianism doesn't just hand corporations the keys to the city and say "Go to town,"  get <I>that</I> through your head.  Government would have all the powers necessary to bring a corporation down. 

You're just crazy.  I don't know what you were talking about earlier with the systems increasing privitization up there earlier, but I haven't had any problems with the US power grid, or as >>46 said the medical system either as long as I pay my health insurance, it's a voluntary tax.  I'm probably paying as much for it as I would be in taxes, plus I get better medical service. 

And the issue of taxes, which I'll admit I haven't addressed yet.  Libertarianism considers all taxes theft, and while in many ways I agree, I also consider tax neccesary to keep the government running.  But when taxation is done not according to that limitation, but to hand out money in vote-buying schemes we have a problem.  I don't even think the government should pay for public schools.   I think there should be some sort of tuition grant from non-profit organizations to tell the truth.  If you can't afford the best schools, then you just don't go.  We don't need a million Da Vincis.  We do need some people to run our gas stations, wal-marts ETC... though.

Get madder.

If you can't afford the best schools, then you just don't go.
lol u tk him 2 da |!?

BTW, that guy misunderstanding the commons illustrates how you misunderstand libertarianism.  On the commons, there were all kinds of rules that people lived by, because they knew they couldn't do it any other way.  They probably learned by trial and error. 

That's the exact same as it would be in a libertarian society.  There would be laws that would be made, but the point would be to keep people from screwing with each other.

Rather than depicting the failures of Libertarianism, that guy pointed us to an example of almost perfect Libertarianism.

There would be laws that would be made, but the point would be to keep people from screwing with each other.
That is the basic philosophy of how laws are constructed right now (I think...)
The difference seems to be how much into the future and how much screwing is done to each other.

I haven't had any problems with the US power grid

What was that blackout of the eastern half of the US then? Or all the rolling blackouts California used to have?

Government would have all the powers necessary to bring a corporation down.

Explain how that fits in with non-initiation of force? It's not like a monopoly is going to build their own military and lead a revolution. No, they'll work within the system, much like they do now.

also consider tax neccesary to keep the government running.

It's mighty strange how your form of libertarianism is looking increasingly more like already-existing forms of government as this argument goes on.

>What was that blackout of the eastern half of the US then? Or >all the rolling blackouts California used to have?

Eh.  That was a temporary situation.  They were recovering from government control.  They instated an incompetent and inexperienced group to direct it.

The eastern blackout was an accident, plain and simple.  Had nothing to do with government control or not.  Some transformers overloaded, and the power grid backed up, blowing more transformers (I don't think they were transformers... They were called transmitters or something). 

You can be sure under a capitalist system, whoever was responsable for the accident would be cut from the system, immediately, and a restructuring would be imminent, people would be tested for competence ETC...  under government control, you couldn't be so sure.  The only way you could be sure something would be done is if there was sufficient public outrage. 

>Explain how that fits in with non-initiation of force? It's not >like a monopoly is going to build their own military and lead a >revolution. No, they'll work within the system, much like they >do now.

Still, infringing on other people's rights means initiation of force.  If they don't initiate force, there's no problem.  Think Wal-Mart.  People hate them, call them a monopoly, ETC.  But people buy their products because they want them.  If they say, start breaking the law, they will be brought out and beat to death in public.  Enron.

It's mighty strange how your form of libertarianism is looking > increasingly more like already-existing forms of government as > this argument goes on.

Duh.  The US is probably the most libertarian nation on earth.     I acknowlege that.  But the libertarian movement is still useful.  The government, over the years, has become bloated and incompetent. Libertarianism seeks to reverse that trend.

Europe is different. Employment quotas and nanny-state laws have destroyed overall productivity.  In Germany and France, they have passed laws to decrease the limit on hours per week an employee can work without being paid overtime, but has changed it in such a way that the employee's overall salary cannot be lowered either (they get paid the same amount to work fewer hours).  The idea is that they will hire more people, and decrease the overall unemployment rate.  What is a business supposed to do under such pressure?  The government basically has told them what they will pay for service and how much they will pay for.  Not only that, but most businesses now are reluctant to hire anyone at all, and the unemployment rate has not significantly fallen. 

Libertarianism (or more specifically, a Republican form of government) is admittedly flawed for our current society, but much less so than collectivism. 

>>47
You might want to do a little reading:
http//www.google.com.au/...
http//www.google.com.au/...

The US system generally stinks compared to most OECD countries in the majority of metrics. If you're too lazy to do the research, then at least read this (it's a nicely researched paper and everything, ya know?): http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/77

o shit... ＷＲＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹ！！！

>>52
Sorry, man, you lose again. The reason it crashed is because the privitization shaved off the safety margins. Why the hell do you think there was an overload?  This isn't news to anyone who was paying attention.

The very first link I got, shit: http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~johnc/attacks_and_accidents.pdf

Employment quotas and nanny-state laws have destroyed overall productivity.

More like having a fucked population pyramid, with several countries already below ZPG, and getting owned now that they're trying to reintegrate a bunch of former-communist states. Ever live in a communist state? Yeah, I can see why they're having problems.

Besides, there's more to life than working 24/7. Or are you at work surfing world4ch? Naughty...

Libertarianism (or more specifically, a Republican form of government) is admittedly flawed for our current society, but much less so than collectivism.

No shit. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that both extremes are idiotic. Moderatism and borrowing from both schemes is where it's at. At least Libertarians aren't as stupid as anarcho-capitalists. I have no idea what thosewhackos are thinking.

I'm starting this new political movement. Vegetarinism!

I'm arguing that one extreme should be used more liberally than the other.  Much more. 

Where are you from by the way?

You also show your ignorance by saying "there's more to life than working 24/7"

Ever hear of building a career?  40 hours a week really isn't that much in the long run.  For most people, it's a third of a day.  The other third is spent sleeping, and the last third is up to you.  That's the world.  Just because you don't feel like working is nobody else's problem.

And health dude...  That paper was full of "taiwan has not collected statistics... blah blah blah..."  They're saying themselves they're using their own numbers, in itallics at the bottom of the page.  I don't trust taiwan enough to not try to make themselves look good. 

Also, the united states has been the foremost country in creating new drugs.  Why?  Because there's incentive here.  I don't care about equitability of access, because I think people take too much, and take too expensive healthcare as it is, and that's the "Metrics" most of you guys are using.

And power rates have gone down here since deregulation.  I'm happy about that.  Everything causes some problems. 

Problems with privitization are most likely problems with the huge upheaval it causes for the industries in question, not the concept of private ownership itself.

You also show your ignorance by saying "there's more to life than working 24/7"

True laissez faire capitalism is a race to the bottom. You're working 40 hours a day now (but the market is regulated, how convenient!). You'd have to be pretty naive to think that'll remain if there are no government regulations, particularly if you don't even plan to control monopolization.

That paper was full of "taiwan has not collected statistics... blah blah blah..."

You're a rather selective reader, aren't you? Why don't you reread the entire thing, this time? And what about the numerous other studies on OECD countries and universal healthcare? Seriously, did you spend more than 30 seconds trying to find a useless retort?

And power rates have gone down here since deregulation.

As opposed to where I live, where they have gone sky-high since being deregulated (like 20x higher). Oh yeah, your favorite northern neighbour, Canada, has lower rates per kW than the US. It's also reliable.

united states has been the foremost country in creating new drugs.

Uh... good for the US? How do pharmaceutical companies doing well have any effect on the generally poor state of the US health-care system? They're not the same thing, you know?

I don't care about equitability of access, because I think people take too much

Studies indicate the opposite, actually. It costs more because people don't get minor ailments treated before they become major ailments. Also, your "don't care" bit is shortsited, considering that a lot of diseases are virulent.

Anyway, more reading for you: http://www.amsa.org/hp/myths.cfm

s/shortsited/shortsighted/

>>36

You have an odd view of government.  Ever heard of a democracy?

Whoops, didn't realize I wasn't looking at the whole thread.  Ignore the above post.

in >>8
"Look at the US today. Notice something?"

What's wrong with the US today?

Yeah, you compare the countries Canada and Western Europe to the US without giving any details...

>>62
I've heard of it, but never actually witnessed one. The most recent democracy ceased to exist several thousand years ago. Most modern nations are republics.

>>66

Stop being pretentiously correct.

>>65
Can you read?

>>66
Given the changing definition over the years of _republic_, it might be more accurate to say democratic republic.

DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA

This thread sux.

Anyway, you haven't really made clear what's so great about western europe either...

Europe also sucks. It just sucks less.

Less war mongering, less faggot patriotism, less looney bible-thumpers, less fat fucks (not for long though lol), less gun nuts, less sport moms in SUVs, less "we're no.1!" retards, less ill-mannered arrogant pricks, less uneducated idiots in general.

OTOH, they have Tony Blair.

Don't forget less black epople

>>72
lol

>>71

The grass is always greener.

>>74
if that's true, why am i happier here?

Ever been on the other side?

y yes i hav

ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>78

ANARCHY BURGER, HOLD THE GOVERNMENT

Blegh.  Problem is, that government has been perpetrator of some of the greatest evils of our time.  Soviet Russia, WWII, all problems cause be people becoming too dependent on the government, or looking to it to solve their problems.  The problems caused by big business over the past 200 years have amounted to minor problems in the long run.

If we start offering healthcare to everyone for free, then that makes people that much more dependent on government.  It erodes from there. People start looking to government to solve all their problems, and suddenly, fascism, totalitarianism and all their variants begin to pop up.

Government, while it may not seem like it, is a much more uncontrollable and dangerous force than any conceivable private endeavor.  That's why libertarianism is useful.

The report's title you gave on taiwan up there, turns out it was asking was healthcare "Affordable".  I did some of my own research, and it turns out that Taiwan is having it's own considerable share of problems, especially dealing with distribution of health care practicioners.  Canada is having problems paying for medical treatment for extreme situations, such as cancer, that an insurance company would have no problems paying for.  They're having to rely on public donations in some cases because the system just can't pay.  The answer is always MORE FUNDING. Canada's GNP is already 11% health-related, compared with 9% for america (OK, fine, The U.S. Foreign fags).   This comes about because when the cost to acquire a service is zero, then the demand skyrockets.  I don't buy the whole "Catching problems early causes the amount of medical services that must be rendered to go down" shit that many socialized medicine advocates claim.  It's full of problems, just like the U.S. Capitalistic system we have.  Only difference is, I don't have to pay. 

I also did some research on privitization of power grids ETC... and it turns out that while it hands services to individuals, it is not a true free market.  It's is a complex managed system with so many points of failure, it's surprising the thing hasn't collapsed.  They have bidding wars, where the one who supplies power at a lower cost gets to sell, which is OK in theory, but it's still a government mandated ogliarchy, full of regulation and price controls ETC...  In a natural monopoly (only way for it to not be would be to have multiple sets of powerlines strung to every house, and while it's possible, I don't want that many telephone poles in my yard), so I don't really have an answer with regards to the free market system for you there.  I only know that deregulation has worked for the most part, without any "significant increases or decreses in overall quality of service," To quote the article on Taiwan's healthcare system that you showed me.

I think you blow the problems of the US out of proportion while ignoring many of the problems of the countries you seem to have a boner for.