Libertarians are NOT about rich corporations

Libertarians are mostly about small businesses. We want the government out of business affairs so that it's easier for small businesses to flourish.

Lefties always argue that "libertarians only care about the big corporations. without the government restricting them, they will monopolize and rule the world.". In fact it's the opposite. The big corporations love these restrictions because they are making it really hard for small businesses to even get off the ground, let alone compete with them.

Basically, libertarians want to make it easier for people to start their own businesses, and have less people relying on corporations for their salaries. More businesses means more competion, and a less crowded job market which makes it a lot harder companies to overwork and underpay their employees.

Blah blah blah idealist crap

>>2
care to provide a non-'idealist' perspective on the government's role in the economy? the class will wait while you prepare your notes.

The entire concept is so large that it's difficult to speak about it outside of ideals, there are too many factors involved. But even if the ideal outcome isn't the actual one, I think the Libertarian perspective is a sound and reasonable one.

>>3
you're going to have a hard time convincing these socialists comrades of ours that central planning doesnt work and the free market is the best system

http://www.google.ca/search?q=monopolization

Small businesses are the direct cause of most job loss and unemployment in this country. 

yeah, that's fine, but they fail to understand that "lol, alot of small businesses means competition durr durr" has negative sideeffects, also, economies of scale.

>>1

what makes you think that once the government steps aside for businesses that large corporations, who have a huge head start already, aren't gonna eat up the competition, and skimp and short-cut more than they are now? sounds like you're breaking down the dam to let the fish through.

Somehow I get the idea that someone just bumped this thread to make the point that he hasn't read SICP.

Libertarians are retarded.  Maybe their crazy idea would have worked 150 years ago, when there was still a public forum and consideration of common ideas.  As it is now, Fox News fundies would eat up the chance to have a toxic waste dump in their backyard just because it means 10 more jobs.

People are too dumb to realize the consequences of complicated, involved decisions.  That's why we have the FDA, EPA, FAA, etc...

Fuck idiot libertarians who want to dismantle those protections.

Libertarians are not FOR rich corporations, but the outcome of their policies ARE rich corporations. Hmmm...

>>11
if that were true the ruling party in the united states right now would be libertarian, no?

but rather, they are democrats and republicans.


"Hmmm..."

libertarianism is about NINJAS
KYAAAAAAAAAAA

I am a socialist an I enjoy licking brown buttons. Coincidence? I think not.

>>1

You're fucking retarded if you think the free market protects small businesses. Neoliberal Economic policies ALLOW monopolies to exist because the smaller businesses can't afford to outsource and undercut pricing.

Monopolies are the natural state of economics when dealing with Smithian models because it promotes more wealth for those who already have it and own the means of production.

Monopolies happen when Libertarian policy goes into effect, because the companies with the most money and resources will always out perform smaller businesses as long as customers continue to be the stupid shits they are shopping at Wal*Mart.

>>15

Another thing I'd like to add to this,

When have you seen a trade protectionist Libertarian? If they grieve so deeply about "Mom & Pop" stores so much, they'd advocate mercantilism instead of the neoliberal economic policies they do.

I've never seen Libertarians at an anti-WTO rally.

>>15
Monopolies are a natural period when new technology arises not the equilibrium. For a monopoly to exist it must control 1000s of firms with 10000s of employees aswell as cater to the whims of 100000s of retailers who have business relationships with 100s of managers and 10s of executives who may start their own rival business knowing they can gain a greater share and major shareholders who may call for a split. A monopoly is only possible when the corporation continually patents new products. They deserve the money for putting in the time and effort to advance technology and the monopoly lasts until the technology becomes widespread.

oh oh oh, so now someone DESERVES a monopoly? should the government just stay out of all those things and let the free market handle it?

>>12
There are interest groups that balance against the corporations to keep them from dominating politics. Granted they dont do enough, but there are such groups

>>18

Yes.
If a monopoly has arisen without government intervention (i.e. by its own means in a near-totally free market economy), it is due to it being the supplier of the products most desirable to the largest number of people; presumably because those products are the best or most suited for said number of people.
In other words, a monopoly that arises in a free market will be the best alternative for the majority, and those that have other demands form a niche that other companies can fill.
A monopoly is not inherently evil, contrary to most people's beliefs, but they can become evil if they have governtment suppoort and thus become unaffected by the self-regulating nature of a free market.

But, then again, I'm on a Ayn Rand-spree right now, so maybe I'm biased. Go think about it for yourselves.

>>17

ITT we make shit up

>>20

when get sufficiently large, they gain so much power they are able to affect the economy, and thus they most likely get government support, or they will have the funds to lobby themselves to whatever they want.
Also, a monopoly is never the best alternative for the majority, no matter how it has become a monopoly. And i know monopolies aren't evil, but they're profit maximizing, just like everybody else, and when you're in a position where you are the sole provider of a type of product, that leaves everybody worse off (except for the company/organization that has the monopoly).

anyway, waht i was referring to was that a company got the rights to be the sole provider of say, a drug, for x number of years when they invented it, because they deserve to get the money back they invested. Now, this may be economically sensible, since it should increase the will to invest, but is it very free market'y? it certainly doesn't mean that the general population will get the product the cheapest.

>>22
Sure, the creation of a monopoly benefits the most people, because it could only be created through fierce competition. However, once the monopoly is in place, it will crush all opposition, while simultaneously inflating prices beyond what would be possible otherwise. Corporate monopolies on necessities, rather than luxuries, creates a dire living situation for the working class.

With or without government support, sustained monopolies never benefit the people. Since the role of a government should pretty much be limited to protecting people, government regulation of corporations should be enforced. It not only protects the people from economic peril, but can also preserve our environment, and even give small companies a small advantage over large ones, if worded properly.

The government's responsibility for protecting it's people from corporations is really the only place I disagree with Libertarianism.

>>20
"If a monopoly has arisen without government intervention (i.e. by its own means in a near-totally free market economy), it is due to it being the supplier of the products most desirable to the largest number of people; presumably because those products are the best or most suited for said number of people."

then how do you explain Microsoft making deals with major PC retailers to bundle their software with their PC's, basically force feeding their product to the masses whether or not it's the best for them, or even good? A monopoly can form through profit incentive by collaborating with other businesses to force consumers into a specific choice!

If more PC retailers bundled redhat with their systems, more software would be developed for linux and, in turn, more people would have a use for that OS because of product compatibility.

so what if a monopoly is formed purely on the basis they developed a good product? what if it was medicinal, or oil based? as soon as any threat of lesser competition is gone or easily dealt with, they can do whatever they want with their product. In the case of insulin or gasoline, they could charge whatever they want, and do whatever they want to the product and there wont be anything anyone can do about it because everyone NEEDS that item and there's no easily available alternative. Competition is what drives better products for an economy because it ideally forces companies to one up each other in product quality, as opposed to a single conglomerate churning out whatever they feel like.

#23 -- Laissez-faire capitalism does NOT mean that corporations are allowed to lie, cheat and steal. That IS a proper role of government.  Separating church and state doesn't mean that we won't prosecute priests who molest boys, just like separating the state and economics doesn't mean that we won't prosecute fraudulent corporate hacks.

>>25

where did anyone say that corporations lie, cheat and steal? they simply excert their power.

Corporations good, government bad.  End of discussion.

Government bad, corporations worse.

>>28
Small government bad, corporations worse, big government worse, corporations regulated by government worse, total state control utter disaster.*

fix'd

Oh no, business is bad; I better run off to my wonderful utopia of communism!

unregulated corporations and no government, fucking horrible utter disaster of do0m.

>>31
Welcome to 2007.

>>30
Oh no, government is bad; I better run off to my wonderful utopia of anarcho-capitalism!

I vote Feudalism

>>12
if that were true the ruling party in the united states right now would be libertarian, no?

You fail at set theory or implication. Just because libertarian policies will probably lead to that doesn't mean their policies are the only ones that lead to that.

I can't decide if it's more sad that you don't understand elementary propositional logic, or that nobody else picked up on the glaringly obvious yet.

>>34

I vote Jewdalism. Oh wait...

>>36
We're already living in a Jewdalism.

>>35
He fails at set theory AND implication; you fail at boolean logic.

>>38
And you fail at a priori synthetic judgements and aristotlean metaphysical dialectics. Maybe if you 2 work together you can overcome your flaws!

The leading problems for small businesses aren't big corporations, but taxes and red tape.  Libertarians would lower taxes and remove as much red tape as possible.  Being for small business doesn't mean you have to dismantle large corporations.

>>40

the leading problems for small businesses are that the people who start them are retarded and don't know how to run a business.

>>41
So you admit that corporations are hyper efficient and necessary components of the US?

>>40
GTFO! Taxes?! Give me a fucking break. The USA is one of the least taxed nations in the fucking world. You have so many opportunities but choose to squander them. Then again, your health system is pretty fucking rooted due to low tax income...

>>40

So explain to me why a small business can compete with a MNC that has the ability to direct its labor to pennies a day when the small business is something like a small steel production firm or etc.

Farmers are even harder pressed.

>>39

LOL u fails at dialectical materialism

>>43
There is still pointless taxes though like social security.

>>44
You fail at materialistical dialecticism.

>>40
No but dismantling large corporations helps, and is always fun.

>>45

Yeah, Social Security is pretty pointless for people who already own a complete set of silverware; those without the oh-so-fine life of privilege it has a lot of worth and merit.

>>46
That would damage the economy. Let the invisible hand take care of corporations.

>>47
If immigration (especially with mexico) is banned the wages of unskilled labourers will increase due to increased competition amongst companies for labour. This is better than social security as Mexico is guilty of the crime of not keeping their populations under control.

>>47
People would still be free to save money for retirement even without social security, and it would give better returns.

>>44
Large Corporations are far better suited for heavy industries, like steel, than a small business, due to the huge amount of capital investment required before turning a profit; this is also true of some very high-tech industries as well.  Libertarianism doesn't seek to remove corporations from sectors where small business would be woefully inefficient, it does, however, seek to remove unfair advantages that corporations exploit to shut down small business in areas where they could thrive and threaten the corporations.  MNCs do use cheap foreign labor to their advantage, but small business would be just as able to make contracts with foreign businesses to accomplish the same thing; assuming that free trade is allowed.  Free trade would actually make it easier for small businesses to compete since trade restrictions are much more difficult for them to cope with than an MNC.

>>48
Firstly, libertarians knows as much about economy as christians about astronomy. They think they do, all their books sais they do, yet their is a huge gap between reality and their so called science (which is as much a science as scientology).
Secondly, wtf double standards? If the invisble hand can be trusted to dismantle large corporations through competition should  it not be equally able to lower the income level and therefore standard of living in th US so that mexicans no longer has a need to migrate? Is this not the libertarian way to solve this problem? Banning shit doesnt seem so libertarian to me, nor declaring other states inaction a crime.

That would damage the economy. Let the invisible hand take care of the people!

And by the invisible hand, the libertarians mean NO HAND. HAHAHAHAHHAA HAHHAHA HAHAHAHA.

>>50
Most people don't see mto grasp that libertarianism is not anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism, like all religions derived from their prophet Marx, are unrealistic utopias which don't actually work. Libertarianism is about preserving liberty through justice. It is unjust and very suspicious that so many Mexicans want to migrate to America, do you think it is right for the US to cater for the world's huddled masses forever? What about the huddled masses in America? Why do you hate them and want them to be subjected to the same oppression and poverty the corrupt inferior culture of Mexico forces it's people to live in? Do you hate african americans or something? I don't get your unbased hatred at all.

>>52
So there is exceptions where govermental intervention is better than the invisible hand? Or is it just blatant nationalism that makes you feel this?
Why is it unjust for mexicans wanting to migrate to america? Is all migration unjust or just when people want to migrate to the US? Is there a limit where one nation can say "no thanks, no more"? What would happen if all nations who are migration targets (no its not only the us) sais this? Mr Scientist ever thought about the consequences and precedences of his clever little armchair policies?

>>53
Libertarianism is about preserving liberty through justice. If immigration (especially with mexico) is banned the wages of unskilled labourers will increase due to increased competition amongst companies for labour. This is better than social security as Mexico is guilty of the crime of not keeping their populations under control.

>>53
Why is it unjust for Americans to have an immigration policy? Why is it unjust for Americans to expect their laws to be followed? And why should the country with the third highest population in the world accept unlimited, uncontrolled, and unidentified immigration? Do you even realize the number of illeagal alliens is between 4 and 10% of the population?

>>55
because of the prerequisite of the free market that is free mobility of the workforce. now if you don't want a free market it's all all right to tell people they can't come in, but if you do it's not all right. so what are you? for or against the free market?

>>55

Yeah, they make for liquid labor to work with liquid capital.
Capital isn't something permanent anymore, it flows from state to state and geographical region to geographical region with ease.

Libertarians like this because they can keep people in impoverished conditions poor and they can jump ship/transfer money to make more money at a whim.

Case example -- Guatemala doesn't have any labor or environmental restrictions for their foreign businesses that decide to set up work camps or production facilities to lower costs. Labor decides its bad fucking business because they're not being treated humanely or as well as a worker in a developed state would be treated. So they opt to unionize and elect a Sandanista that will force hard regulations on foreign businesses. Foreign businesses take all of their money, all of their capital, leave Guatemala and head to Nicaragua and set up shop there because they don't have any laws and they can charge lower than the Guatemalans.

This trend continues on, it's a global race to the bottom.

What happens when the economy of some state is screwed up from the IMF or World Bank/WTO (Groups Libertarians love) because they forced them into debt from loans like Mexico, it causes the workers to go scurry around finding the newest jobs the foreign producers have set up and this is why Illegal immigrants go to the United States, because they can participate in their laissez fare labor at Wal*Mart or the many large farming corps.

This is why some Libertarians like illegal immigrants, it reaffirms their position of fucking around with labor and capital to where its liquid and doesn't have any recognized state boarders at all. This means that there are no states anymore, there are only guilds and $.

>>56
I am for a free market within my borders and with countries which agree to do the same. Mexico is not one of these countries.

>>57
There is no libertarian government in the world, so how can libertarianism be responsible for these things? I can only see how the adoption of even the most simple libertarian principles would allow both a ban on forced labour, a steady realistic increase in worker's wages as the economy develops, a continuation of the free market and all this without any form of overly despotic authoritarian rule. Countless non-western undevelopped nations have followed this path since the 50s by simply choosing the path to democracy and openness over ideals completely abstract from good fair governance like communism and islam.

>>58

that's not free market, that's protectionism with uni/bi/multi-lateral trade agreements.

>>57 was making examples of how when SOME libertarian 'ideas' are implemented they royally fuck over a majority of the people in countries with less economic force than the USA. It doesn't work unless you turn the entire world libertarian at the same time, as with communism, EVERYBODY has to agree for it to work, and that just isn't going to happen.

"I can only see..." you cannot see very far.

>>59

It only takes money to buy policy makers to back the WTO for that to be a reality, it's even impacting American jobs as well.

GM is referenced a lot when it comes to being replaced.

Privatization is fine and dandy, but sometimes it exists for the sole purpose of escaping regulations and fucking people over.

>>59
It's not protectionism it is a response to protectionism by other countries. A libertarian government would offer other countries a free-trade agreement, if they refuse to lift tariffs we will maintain our tariffs on that country to compensate the tax we pay to their government. We would perpetually offer and discuss the free-trade agreement with them to make it clear it's their choice not to engage in free trade.

>>57s argument was flawed. For a start >>57 said itself that the reason businesses would want to set up there was because of the low cost of labour, thus if labour was that cheap to begin with they cannot be blamed for the poor conditions. Also one of the major factors to end the civil war was to restore the economy and attract investment.

The invisible hand is taking care of Africa right now.

>>60
>>59 is wrong about how "EVERYBODY has to agree for it to work". Of course 2 countries have to agree to free trade in order to have free trade, that hardly qualifies as the amount of "cooperation" needed for communism to "work".

>>62
The invisible hand does not exist without the preservation of justice. There is not much preservation of justice in Africa.

>>63

what i wrote was that for an ideology like libertarianism to work everybody has to agree on it. free trade isn't exactly libertarianism. there is free trade between alot of the euro countries, are they libertarian?

>>61


So the libertarian country should have taxes and tariffs because all the other countries have them, and when all the other countries removed theirs, then the libertarian country would remove it too? game theory, do you do it?

so what you're saying is, that if country A has no real government, it is a "country" run by alot of tribes, it has alot of curroption and no real economy, but you can get away with paying the people there 10 cent an hour to work hard manual labour, you should indeed do so, because you as a company has no responsibility to the people you employ or to human rights in general (since they don't apply in that country to begin with). Sounds great.

and yeah, economic pressure is great for restoring peace or settling things between different parts, we see that in politics every day, but the problem is when alot of companies have placed manual production in a country because that country has very cheap labour. That country then starts getting a better and better economy, that's great too, more and more people get educations and job training, and the wages in general increase. Now another country has the lowest wage pay, and the first country has the choice between keeping the wages artificially down(ie. a third world country subsidizing major corporations), or have their economy collapse as all the companies on which their economy is built on moves out.

Too many yuppies in America exist in a fog of delusion about what a real economy looks like.  They've fellated corporations for so long that they have ZERO understanding about the function of small business.  Hence, Libertarianism makes little sense to them.  What fills that void of understanding and acceptance instead, is a strong desire for a Corporatist State.

All through this thread one thing has been missing.

Why? Why acumulate so much that you could never, ever distribute it all before even your Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grand kids could?

Seems absolutely pointless and more to the point, suicidal for society.

>>66
Elitist much?

For all the great things you say Libertarianism is capable of, there has been not a single working modern Libertarian nation.

>>54
You seem fairly inept at economics. Let me lay it down to you. If you deport all mexican aliens (to whom you seem to harbour a special dislike) and build a israeli wall along the rio grande you will accomplish these things.
1) The jobs the mexicans took either increase their wage or are not filled, ie the company goes out of business. This is also true if the work done is to harsh for poor americans to endure.
2) Increased wages mean increased prices for the consumer, in this case most likely produce prices. Higher prices mean inflation which are NOT good for the economy.
3) Companies who earlier could do business due to low wages and now have no profitability any longer fires all their remaing employees, and all along the distribution chain this effect is noticed (less cargo to haul means less jobs for truck drivers etc). This is also bad for the economy.

Neoliberal economists have long said that an unemployment rate around 10% is healhty for an economy (since it supress wages and therefore prices and therefore inflation). I think that is bullshit but since im a communist i dont need to worry my pretty little head about it, they are not theachers i listen too. But you are a libertarian...   

>>68
The libertarian party's policies are only slightly different from the republicans or democrats. Are you saying if the libertarian party is elected in a state and they permit abortion for fetus' that cannot survive outside the womb, ban conscription and reduce gun laws the world will explode?

>>69
Only a few businesses would go bankrupt, the rest would use their land for something else or invest in machinery and skilled labourers who do the work of 10 manual labourers for the cost of 5. The result would be an economy where they average person has a better standard of living. Population doesn't matter, the US is about the pursuit of happiness not the pursuit of the biggest war economy possible.

The communist utopia is much like medieval feudalism, no technology, just a collective farm full of people working 12 hours a day in the state's fields frequented by the occasional inquisitor to persecute a few of the peasants for being evil capitali$t spies and keep them in fear. How wonderful.

machinery and skilled laborers can effectively replace the "unskilled" laborers =D

>>70
That the standard of living will increase is not necessarily true. Higher prices and inflation are detrimental to standard of living. And, why does not skilled resturant chefs work at mcdonalds. This is the same reason why the companies who presently employ the aliens have not instead invested in machinery and skilled labor. Do you think mcdonalds can replace their unskilled labor with high class resturant level labor without any other effect? Well, then you will get the economic naivité badge of honor!

And Mir space station and the T34 disagrees with you.

>>71

Heeeeh HEEEeeeh Heeeeh and we can get robot suits from JAPAN! LOL TECHNOLOGY!

Too many yuppies in America exist in a fog of delusion about what a real economy looks like.  They've fellated corporations for so long that they have ZERO understanding about the function of small business.  Hence, Libertarianism makes little sense to them.  What fills that void of understanding and acceptance instead, is a strong desire for a Corporatist State.

>>72
Your mind is fucked with a retarded marxist version of economics and you fail to understand the simple mathematics of ensuring high GDP per capita. In order to increase GDP per capita you need to balance the amount of resources per person with the amount of people needed to add value to those resources. You can have 1000 serfs for every lord, this will make the plutocrat rich but overall the gdp per capita is lower because $1000000/1001 = $999 per person per year. If you instead have 50 mechanics and technicians utilising machinery and cattle to work the same plot of land the total profit may well reduce to $500000, but the gdp per capita increases to $10000 per year per person and that's what matters.

That 5% of the population working illegally for less than the minmum wage count as much as part of the population as the democrat politicians who are paid off by fruit farms. Under a libertarian government illegals would be freed for the sake of justice and the borders shut for the sake of justice. The madness will end and America can get back to the pursuit of happiness without caterring for Mexico's overpopulation problem.

>>72
Just for the sake of clarity.

If you instead have 1 crazy dude who bought tons of land but even with tons of machinery and cattle doesn't have enough time to use it properly, lots of things go wrong and his gdp per capita is only $5000. This is underpopulation. The US is not underpopulated since fruit arms are a miniscule proportion of it's economy and it would be hardly a blip to increase their wages to minimum wage or otherwise.

Wow, where to begin?! So many fallacies, so little time.

I guess I’ll address the main issue raised by the OP.

Libertarianism is flawed only because it has no underlying philosophy. It's a hodge podge of mixed ideas and premises off a vague notion of "liberty." It's yet to define what’s the basis of Liberty, why we need it and why it works.

With that, I’m not a libertarian, but I argue for 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism. What I mean by that term is that the government's only purpose is to protect individual rights by protecting individuals from the initiation of the use of force. The government hold a monopoly on force, for the given nation in question, and it only uses it retaliatory.

This limits the proper functions of government to police/firemen, the court system and the military. These functions are used only to protect your rights, nothing more and nothing less. This would make a proper moral government. However, some countries are close to this ideal then others, which means they are more capitalist then others.

The misconception here is that capitalism and business are the same thing. Capitalism and business are not the same thing. Capitalism is about freedom for the individual, which means freedom from force -- whether by another citizen or their own government. Business functions better under capitalism because people are free to start, maintain and grow their businesses to the best of their own ability.

The State and Economy are separated like the State and the Church would be. So think of it as a wall there, and the government doesn't cross that wall unless someone’s rights are violated. Someone else already pointed this out on this thread by saying that people who commit crimes would still be punished. The wall stands there to protect you, like it would protect you from a religious group that wanted to use the government to force you to do whatever.

I'm briefly explaining my position and the concept of capitalism to make some further points about where corporations fit into all of this.

Corporations are nothing more then legal structures for businesses. It helps them function better, obviously. But something that seems lost on a lot of people is the fact that corporations start out as small businesses. They grow into corporations because they are successful at what they do. This goes back to the whole freedom then, people are free to make a product and people are free to buy that product. No is forcing anyone to do anything in this case. If I make a choice to sell you milk and you buy the milk, this transaction was voluntary and benefited both of us. I make a profit and earn a living, and you get the milk that you want or need.

This is a basic economic concept and applies just as much to small businesses as well as large "MNCs"

But what if I want to sell you a gallon of milk for 4 dollars and someone else wants to sell if for 1 dollar? Would it be unfair for you to choose the cheaper gallon? After all, it's your hard earned money, and you’re free to spend it as you want. The less you spend on milk, then the more you can spend on other things, or save it, or invest it. It would make alot of sense to choose the cheaper gallon. It's within your rational self-interest to do so.

But what about poor old me here, who wants you to pay 3 additional dollars for the milk? This says a lot about people, it also illustrates the concept of supply and demand. I want you to pay me more, you want to pay me less. We both reach an agreement or we take our business elsewhere. I, the milk seller, have options in this case. I can lower my price or I can find people who will be willing to buy at the price I’m selling. As I’ve state before, we are free to do business with each other or not.

Building from that, why can the other guy charge a lower price? Doesn't he make less profit if he charges lower? Is he doing it just to spite me and drive me out of business?

The usual answer to low prices, are low costs. People can charge lower prices because they can PRODUCE for less cost. This gives them an advantage when it comes to dealing with other firms in the same business. All costs are passed on to the consumer in some way. The if the produce can make milk for 70 cents and charge for a dollar then he makes 30 cents profit for every gallon of milk. If his competitor can only make milk for 3.70 a gallon and has to charge 4 dollars to make up for the costs, he will still make the same amount of profit per gallon, however, because his price is so high, people will buy the cheaper product and he will end up losing money and going out of business if he doesn't find a way to lower his price, ie lowering his costs. The guy charging 4 dollars might use what profits he's save up to produce on the scale of the new guy who found a way to charge only one dollar. The guy charging one dollar might use his profits to do the same and lower his price even further. He'll sell it for as MUCH as he can while still making a profit, however, he can make more by charging less because more people will be able to buy his product. This ultimately drives the standard of living up, because now more people can afford more milk.

How does this apply to large corporations? Because the corporations usually have gotten so large because they are the ones who find ways to produce at lower costs then everyone esle. Contrary to the opinions in this thread, this does not hurt you in anyway. In fact it's helpful, it raises your standard of living because you can now have more for less and this ulimately makes you wealthier and better off.

The reason people are driven out of business buy competing firms is because they are not as good as those firms. They haven't found a way to provide better products for you. It's even better for those people who lost their jobs, because as consumers, they now pass less for the products they buy...

As I’ve said before, corporations are not above the law, and they never should be. They are not their own separate entities, they are only the individuals that make them up. If those individuals violate your rights then they should be punished. Fraud violates your rights because it uses force against you through deception. Businesses can't lie about what the sell.

However, they can charge whatever price they want to for their products. Economics will keep the prices at equilibrium between supply and demand. But it's wrong to FORCE someone to change their price because you feel it should be different. If you don't like the price, don't buy the product. Don't make the government step in and jail people for it. Would you like it if the government told you that you are making too much money so you need to give it to them or go to jail? I don't think any rational person would. You should be free to make as little or as much money as you think your abilities will allow. Just don't harm anyone else while doing it.

That's what all this talk about dismantling corporations is about. It's about someone at the ballot box or a government office deciding that they have or want the power to dictate your life and force you to comply if you don't agree with it.

>The government hold a monopoly on force

O Rly? Last I heard some dude can get in a fist fight with someone else down the block

>>78


You don't understand the concept then. They hold the monopoly on retalitory force. It's used as a vechile for self-defense. Some dude can get in a fist fight with someone esle down the block, but the person he hits (uses force against) can use the government(police and court system) to deal with that person.

No, they aren't going to be there all the time, in that situation you need to defend yourself as best you can. Even if you get the shit beaten out of you, you have the power to go to the cops and have the thug arrested for violating your rights (normally it's called "breaking the law" because normally it's a crime to beat the crap out of someone if it's not in self-defense).

Holding a monopoly on force would definitely mean that no one could hurt anyone else except the government. Once someone else even can "sell" force then it ceases to be a monopoly.

>>80
Educate your stupid ass before posting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_monopoly

>>81
Youre going by THAT article? HAHAHA ITS NEUTRALITY IS DESPUTED! ITS WORTHLESS!

>>80

Monopoly of force is part of the standard definition of a state within political science.

It basically means that no one can perform violence without authorisation of the state, or face retaliation from it.

Monopoly doesn't mean that it's impossible for anyone else to do it. If a large cooperation has a monopoly on selling rubber ducks, it doesn't mean that I won't be able to walk out on the street and sell a rubber duck to some guy.

There are different concepts of monopoly as well, political and economic ones as well.

It's not just force -- it's RETALITORY force. Meaning, if someone robs your house while you are away you go to the cops and have him arrested and tried in a court of laws.

The state acts in your self-defense; you don't hunt the guy down and ruthlessly slaughter him and rape his mother.

That's how it works in a free society. Well, for right now we can say semi-free society because no society on earth is 100% right now. America is a good example of this. Your rights are violated by the government, but not as much to mark it as a dictatorship etc etc.

Now if someone robs your house while you are there and that person is putting your life in danger, you have a right to act in your self-defense and end that person as a threat, because in that case, the government can't be there to act in your behalf. It would be irrational to assume the police can magically pop up every time your in trouble. If your life is in danger and you know there is not enough of a chance to get help right then and there, then it's perfectly moral to end the threat to your life.

I'm saying this because I know someone is going to bring up the whole "If only police can act for you, what if you’re getting attacked?"

>>82


*sigh*


Perhaps you could actually read it and find out what it says. Imagine if someone walked up and said "Nazism is evil" ... would you reply "You don't sound very neutral on the subject! Why should I listen to you!?"

>>84
Yep, you are right about that. But it doesn't mean that the state has give up on it's monopoly, it's just authorised you to use it in the confines of your own house, and it can choose to take that right away again if it wishes. In a democracy it is of course ideally the people that make these decisions, but it's the state that carry them out none the less.

The monopoly IS on force, period. If you wanna exact force, you do it with the blessing of the state, or you get fucked over by it. The state holds supreme power over force within it's sovereign territory, and it and it alone chooses how people may use it. This is probably the main reason why we even have the state, it makes for a really efficient society when you are absolutely sure who is in power, so the violent struggles to achieve the power is limited to complete nutcases who can't see the impossibility in fighting the state.

>>82
Shit, you must be one of the stupidest idiots ever to graze this forum. How does it feel to be so ignorant? Are you aware of it? Or does your ignorance bless you with the unknowledge of your constant embarresment? Its sad really...

>>83

>Monopoly doesn't mean that it's impossible for anyone else to do it. If a large cooperation has a monopoly on selling rubber ducks, it doesn't mean that I won't be able to walk out on the street and sell a rubber duck to some guy.

No it wouldn't, but as soon as you sold them, then the large corporation would cease having a monopoly on rubber ducks.

>>77

You can use other means to drive competition out of business, then just having a better or cheaper product. Alot of it is marketing, and corporations have the resources to better market their product then a smaller business, so the small business would be screwed even if its product was better. So no, not all corporations got to where they are through better products (or atleast they're not still where they are they because of better products).

Libertarianism is the same as communism, its to far on one side of the political spectrum or whatever the fuck its called, and it will only lead to the absolute power of one or a group of individuals. What's supposed to stop businesses from bribing their way out of all their 'fines'? Someone mentioned that the police would be payed on how much their fines took in, that meens that they'd give out false fines to make more money. You have to have a neutral party regulating things or else everything goes to shit, that's why you don't see many successfull completely left or right governments.

Libertarianism is the same as communism, its to far on one side of the political spectrum or whatever the fuck its called
Bang! In theory, theory and reality work the same. In reality...

>>90
gtfo you communist.

>Libertarianism is the same as communism, its to [sic] far on one side of the political spectrum or whatever the fuck its called

Not quite, Libertarianism and Communism share one defining characteristic: an overly optimistic belief in the goodness of humanity.  Communists believe that humans value equality and sharing more than anything, and Libertarians think that humans are greedy, but can't imagine that humans might cheat to get what they want.  They both end up failing in praxis.

Which means that humans are innately evil creatures which wish for their own prosperity over the prosperity of others.

>>93
QFT.

Quoted for the... what?

Don't keep us in suspense here!

<p>You will need to do a  little bit of <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/">Prom Dresses</a>and visit some <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/">Cheap Prom Dress</a> to find out the important  information you are not familiar with buying <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/">Prom Dresses 2010</a>. It's always good to take  the <a href="hhttp://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/">Prom Dress</a> and check prices and see <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/wholesale-wedding-gowns_c1">Prom Dresses 2010</a> you can afford. Everybody has a <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/strapless-wedding-gowns_c2">Cheap Prom Dresses</a>  taking some time out to check your local <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/modest-wedding-gowns_c3">Plus Size Prom Dresses</a> can really help you with your  plan.Typically the type of  <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/plus-size-wedding-gowns_c4">Short Prom Dresses</a> ring depends on the preference of the <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/cheap-wedding-gowns_c5">Vintage Prom Dresses</a> if perhaps she's a  <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/sexy-wedding-gowns_c6">Sexy Prom Dresses</a> individuality and likes to make a major strong <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/simple-wedding-gowns_c7">Simple Prom Dresses</a> they a  big engagement <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/celebrity-wedding-gowns_c8">Designer Prom Dresses</a> will be alright. one <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/vintage-wedding-

>>93
>>94
It's physically impossible for humans to be pre-programmed with abstract thoughts.