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.