I think I get libertarian economics now

[dblack]

The problem is that what you're describing aren't "libertarian practices". Libertarians want a government that aggressively prosecutes fraud. This is not where the disagreement lies. What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control.

It is a nice ideal DBlack , unfortunately an ideal that doesn't match reallity.
Maybe if we can take the human corruption out of the equation it could be achieved. Right now the only alternative I see is : don't let any single company become too big to fail.

What are you saying is a "nice ideal"? You don't seem to be responding to my post as much as making general comments about something else.

DBlack: you said :
"What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control."
To which I answer that given the amount of corruption, skewed laws and the revolving door, what you libertarians seek is utopic. In order for that to work you would have to have the following changes as a minimum :
a) Ban any contributions for elections: make five debates and that would be the end of it ( and forget about superdelegates).
b) Forbid any person holding a key post in government to move to any large corporation ( this would mean Trump could not even dream to become a candidate).
c) Make every penny the government spends accountable.
d) Forbid any act of war which is not UN sanctioned.
e) Publish any trade agreement and have it debated on congress one year before aproval ( say goodbye to TTP ).

Now , that would just leave out the social aspects of large corporations. It doesn't address the cyclical crashes due to asset bubbles and private debt bubbles and increasing inequality due to network effect, all of which are built into capitalism.

You may discuss at any length , the moral merits or libertarians but the above two factors are enough to paint a bleak future for such a society : greatly unequal, plagued with cyclical crisis and long stages of stagnation.

You're presuming quite a lot. I was addressing the particular premise that wealth is inherently coercive. I'd be interested to hear your take on that. You're jumping ahead to what you believe is the inevitable outcome of rejecting that notion, without really examining it in the first place.

I'm open to discussing the merits of corporations (personally, I think the standard corporate charter is indefensible), or how to deal with state corruption vis-a-vis wealthy influence. But I think it's important to understand where we're coming from. The premise of your position could give us common ground, or it could make common ground impossible. That's what I'm try to get to here. It's not a trick question.

Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).

I don't think wealth is inherently coercive. But it can become coercive under certain circumstances. So here we go:
A) Monopolies - Monopolies are inherently coercive since they can set prices
B) Cartels - Since they can agree on price levels.
C) Large Estates - Specially in urban areas... which is really a variant of A.
E) Dumping - Yes, it happens : foreign company A exports products with subsidy to a country to obliterate the competition. Once it has achieved near monopolic power it rises its prices.

So wealth is ONLY coercive when competition decreases. Now Austrians argue that monopolies and cartels don't last but even assuming that is correct sometimes what happens is that one monopoly / cartel is replaced by another... not big help there.

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

 

[CultureCitizen]

It is a nice ideal DBlack , unfortunately an ideal that doesn't match reallity.
Maybe if we can take the human corruption out of the equation it could be achieved. Right now the only alternative I see is : don't let any single company become too big to fail.

What are you saying is a "nice ideal"? You don't seem to be responding to my post as much as making general comments about something else.

DBlack: you said :
"What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control."
To which I answer that given the amount of corruption, skewed laws and the revolving door, what you libertarians seek is utopic. In order for that to work you would have to have the following changes as a minimum :
a) Ban any contributions for elections: make five debates and that would be the end of it ( and forget about superdelegates).
b) Forbid any person holding a key post in government to move to any large corporation ( this would mean Trump could not even dream to become a candidate).
c) Make every penny the government spends accountable.
d) Forbid any act of war which is not UN sanctioned.
e) Publish any trade agreement and have it debated on congress one year before aproval ( say goodbye to TTP ).

Now , that would just leave out the social aspects of large corporations. It doesn't address the cyclical crashes due to asset bubbles and private debt bubbles and increasing inequality due to network effect, all of which are built into capitalism.

You may discuss at any length , the moral merits or libertarians but the above two factors are enough to paint a bleak future for such a society : greatly unequal, plagued with cyclical crisis and long stages of stagnation.

You're presuming quite a lot. I was addressing the particular premise that wealth is inherently coercive. I'd be interested to hear your take on that. You're jumping ahead to what you believe is the inevitable outcome of rejecting that notion, without really examining it in the first place.

I'm open to discussing the merits of corporations (personally, I think the standard corporate charter is indefensible), or how to deal with state corruption vis-a-vis wealthy influence. But I think it's important to understand where we're coming from. The premise of your position could give us common ground, or it could make common ground impossible. That's what I'm try to get to here. It's not a trick question.

Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).

I don't think wealth is inherently coercive. But it can become coercive under certain circumstances. So here we go:
A) Monopolies - Monopolies are inherently coercive since they can set prices
B) Cartels - Since they can agree on price levels.
C) Large Estates - Specially in urban areas... which is really a variant of A.
E) Dumping - Yes, it happens : foreign company A exports products with subsidy to a country to obliterate the competition. Once it has achieved near monopolic power it rises its prices.

So wealth is ONLY coercive when competition decreases. Now Austrians argue that monopolies and cartels don't last but even assuming that is correct sometimes what happens is that one monopoly / cartel is replaced by another... not big help there.

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

Ok, for the sake of discussion let's assume I own a company which owns all the arable land , hence you have only two choices :
a) buy food from me.
b) starve to death.
I am not directly threatening you with a punishment but the threat is implicit in the fact that the alternative is death.
So from my viewpoint every monopoly for a basic need (food, water, health, shelter) is implicitly coercive, the punishment (death ) is implicit.

 

[CultureCitizen]

It is a nice ideal DBlack , unfortunately an ideal that doesn't match reallity.
Maybe if we can take the human corruption out of the equation it could be achieved. Right now the only alternative I see is : don't let any single company become too big to fail.

What are you saying is a "nice ideal"? You don't seem to be responding to my post as much as making general comments about something else.

DBlack: you said :
"What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control."
To which I answer that given the amount of corruption, skewed laws and the revolving door, what you libertarians seek is utopic. In order for that to work you would have to have the following changes as a minimum :
a) Ban any contributions for elections: make five debates and that would be the end of it ( and forget about superdelegates).
b) Forbid any person holding a key post in government to move to any large corporation ( this would mean Trump could not even dream to become a candidate).
c) Make every penny the government spends accountable.
d) Forbid any act of war which is not UN sanctioned.
e) Publish any trade agreement and have it debated on congress one year before aproval ( say goodbye to TTP ).

Now , that would just leave out the social aspects of large corporations. It doesn't address the cyclical crashes due to asset bubbles and private debt bubbles and increasing inequality due to network effect, all of which are built into capitalism.

You may discuss at any length , the moral merits or libertarians but the above two factors are enough to paint a bleak future for such a society : greatly unequal, plagued with cyclical crisis and long stages of stagnation.

You're presuming quite a lot. I was addressing the particular premise that wealth is inherently coercive. I'd be interested to hear your take on that. You're jumping ahead to what you believe is the inevitable outcome of rejecting that notion, without really examining it in the first place.

I'm open to discussing the merits of corporations (personally, I think the standard corporate charter is indefensible), or how to deal with state corruption vis-a-vis wealthy influence. But I think it's important to understand where we're coming from. The premise of your position could give us common ground, or it could make common ground impossible. That's what I'm try to get to here. It's not a trick question.

Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).

I don't think wealth is inherently coercive. But it can become coercive under certain circumstances. So here we go:
A) Monopolies - Monopolies are inherently coercive since they can set prices
B) Cartels - Since they can agree on price levels.
C) Large Estates - Specially in urban areas... which is really a variant of A.
E) Dumping - Yes, it happens : foreign company A exports products with subsidy to a country to obliterate the competition. Once it has achieved near monopolic power it rises its prices.

So wealth is ONLY coercive when competition decreases. Now Austrians argue that monopolies and cartels don't last but even assuming that is correct sometimes what happens is that one monopoly / cartel is replaced by another... not big help there.

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

Do yo consider a speeding ticket coercive?
In this case there is an economic punishment ( an economic punishment ) .
What about VAT tax ( as a customer ) ?

 

[dblack]

What are you saying is a "nice ideal"? You don't seem to be responding to my post as much as making general comments about something else.

DBlack: you said :
"What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control."
To which I answer that given the amount of corruption, skewed laws and the revolving door, what you libertarians seek is utopic. In order for that to work you would have to have the following changes as a minimum :
a) Ban any contributions for elections: make five debates and that would be the end of it ( and forget about superdelegates).
b) Forbid any person holding a key post in government to move to any large corporation ( this would mean Trump could not even dream to become a candidate).
c) Make every penny the government spends accountable.
d) Forbid any act of war which is not UN sanctioned.
e) Publish any trade agreement and have it debated on congress one year before aproval ( say goodbye to TTP ).

Now , that would just leave out the social aspects of large corporations. It doesn't address the cyclical crashes due to asset bubbles and private debt bubbles and increasing inequality due to network effect, all of which are built into capitalism.

You may discuss at any length , the moral merits or libertarians but the above two factors are enough to paint a bleak future for such a society : greatly unequal, plagued with cyclical crisis and long stages of stagnation.

You're presuming quite a lot. I was addressing the particular premise that wealth is inherently coercive. I'd be interested to hear your take on that. You're jumping ahead to what you believe is the inevitable outcome of rejecting that notion, without really examining it in the first place.

I'm open to discussing the merits of corporations (personally, I think the standard corporate charter is indefensible), or how to deal with state corruption vis-a-vis wealthy influence. But I think it's important to understand where we're coming from. The premise of your position could give us common ground, or it could make common ground impossible. That's what I'm try to get to here. It's not a trick question.

Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).

I don't think wealth is inherently coercive. But it can become coercive under certain circumstances. So here we go:
A) Monopolies - Monopolies are inherently coercive since they can set prices
B) Cartels - Since they can agree on price levels.
C) Large Estates - Specially in urban areas... which is really a variant of A.
E) Dumping - Yes, it happens : foreign company A exports products with subsidy to a country to obliterate the competition. Once it has achieved near monopolic power it rises its prices.

So wealth is ONLY coercive when competition decreases. Now Austrians argue that monopolies and cartels don't last but even assuming that is correct sometimes what happens is that one monopoly / cartel is replaced by another... not big help there.

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

Do yo consider a speeding ticket coercive?
In this case there is an economic punishment ( an economic punishment ) .
What about VAT tax ( as a customer ) ?

All laws are coercive. That's what makes them different from suggestions.

 

[CultureCitizen]

DBlack: you said :
"What we reject is the modern liberal conviction that wealth (economic power) is inherently coercive and something government should control."
To which I answer that given the amount of corruption, skewed laws and the revolving door, what you libertarians seek is utopic. In order for that to work you would have to have the following changes as a minimum :
a) Ban any contributions for elections: make five debates and that would be the end of it ( and forget about superdelegates).
b) Forbid any person holding a key post in government to move to any large corporation ( this would mean Trump could not even dream to become a candidate).
c) Make every penny the government spends accountable.
d) Forbid any act of war which is not UN sanctioned.
e) Publish any trade agreement and have it debated on congress one year before aproval ( say goodbye to TTP ).

Now , that would just leave out the social aspects of large corporations. It doesn't address the cyclical crashes due to asset bubbles and private debt bubbles and increasing inequality due to network effect, all of which are built into capitalism.

You may discuss at any length , the moral merits or libertarians but the above two factors are enough to paint a bleak future for such a society : greatly unequal, plagued with cyclical crisis and long stages of stagnation.

You're presuming quite a lot. I was addressing the particular premise that wealth is inherently coercive. I'd be interested to hear your take on that. You're jumping ahead to what you believe is the inevitable outcome of rejecting that notion, without really examining it in the first place.

I'm open to discussing the merits of corporations (personally, I think the standard corporate charter is indefensible), or how to deal with state corruption vis-a-vis wealthy influence. But I think it's important to understand where we're coming from. The premise of your position could give us common ground, or it could make common ground impossible. That's what I'm try to get to here. It's not a trick question.

Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).

I don't think wealth is inherently coercive. But it can become coercive under certain circumstances. So here we go:
A) Monopolies - Monopolies are inherently coercive since they can set prices
B) Cartels - Since they can agree on price levels.
C) Large Estates - Specially in urban areas... which is really a variant of A.
E) Dumping - Yes, it happens : foreign company A exports products with subsidy to a country to obliterate the competition. Once it has achieved near monopolic power it rises its prices.

So wealth is ONLY coercive when competition decreases. Now Austrians argue that monopolies and cartels don't last but even assuming that is correct sometimes what happens is that one monopoly / cartel is replaced by another... not big help there.

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

Do yo consider a speeding ticket coercive?
In this case there is an economic punishment ( an economic punishment ) .
What about VAT tax ( as a customer ) ?

All laws are coercive. That's what makes them different from suggestions.

Well , suppose you live in a country where the oil industry is owned by the government, and prices are set by the government.
You would be paying taxes with each consumption . How is that price not coercive? And how does that change if the monopoly changes into a private one?
IMHO - Both instances are coercive since there is only one choice. Yes, you can still walk or use the bike, but good luck trying that with a 30 mille commute.

 

[dblack]

You're presuming quite a lot. I was addressing the particular premise that wealth is inherently coercive. I'd be interested to hear your take on that. You're jumping ahead to what you believe is the inevitable outcome of rejecting that notion, without really examining it in the first place.

I'm open to discussing the merits of corporations (personally, I think the standard corporate charter is indefensible), or how to deal with state corruption vis-a-vis wealthy influence. But I think it's important to understand where we're coming from. The premise of your position could give us common ground, or it could make common ground impossible. That's what I'm try to get to here. It's not a trick question.

Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).

I don't think wealth is inherently coercive. But it can become coercive under certain circumstances. So here we go:
A) Monopolies - Monopolies are inherently coercive since they can set prices
B) Cartels - Since they can agree on price levels.
C) Large Estates - Specially in urban areas... which is really a variant of A.
E) Dumping - Yes, it happens : foreign company A exports products with subsidy to a country to obliterate the competition. Once it has achieved near monopolic power it rises its prices.

So wealth is ONLY coercive when competition decreases. Now Austrians argue that monopolies and cartels don't last but even assuming that is correct sometimes what happens is that one monopoly / cartel is replaced by another... not big help there.

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

Do yo consider a speeding ticket coercive?
In this case there is an economic punishment ( an economic punishment ) .
What about VAT tax ( as a customer ) ?

All laws are coercive. That's what makes them different from suggestions.

Well , suppose you live in a country where the oil industry is owned by the government, and prices are set by the government.
You would be paying taxes with each consumption . How is that price not coercive?

In that circumstance, it would most certainly be coercive.

And how does that change if the monopoly changes into a private one?

Because private companies don't have the power to coerce us. They can't tax us. They can't force us to buy their products. And they can't prohibit others from competing with them. Only government has this power.

 

[gipper]

Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).

I don't think wealth is inherently coercive. But it can become coercive under certain circumstances. So here we go:
A) Monopolies - Monopolies are inherently coercive since they can set prices
B) Cartels - Since they can agree on price levels.
C) Large Estates - Specially in urban areas... which is really a variant of A.
E) Dumping - Yes, it happens : foreign company A exports products with subsidy to a country to obliterate the competition. Once it has achieved near monopolic power it rises its prices.

So wealth is ONLY coercive when competition decreases. Now Austrians argue that monopolies and cartels don't last but even assuming that is correct sometimes what happens is that one monopoly / cartel is replaced by another... not big help there.

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

Do yo consider a speeding ticket coercive?
In this case there is an economic punishment ( an economic punishment ) .
What about VAT tax ( as a customer ) ?

All laws are coercive. That's what makes them different from suggestions.

Well , suppose you live in a country where the oil industry is owned by the government, and prices are set by the government.
You would be paying taxes with each consumption . How is that price not coercive?

In that circumstance, it would most certainly be coercive.

And how does that change if the monopoly changes into a private one?

Because private companies don't have the power to coerce us. They can't tax us. They can't force us to buy their products. And they can't prohibit others from competing with them. Only government has this power.

Agreed on all counts.

Government power is coercive. The power used by big corps and the extreme wealthy is not coercive, but can be very damaging...and when accompanied with government support, is coercive.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ok for the sake of discussion I'll be disregarding all the power transfers between government and corporations ( which doesn't mean I don't consider them a serious issue , specially when it is related to war).

I don't think wealth is inherently coercive. But it can become coercive under certain circumstances. So here we go:
A) Monopolies - Monopolies are inherently coercive since they can set prices
B) Cartels - Since they can agree on price levels.
C) Large Estates - Specially in urban areas... which is really a variant of A.
E) Dumping - Yes, it happens : foreign company A exports products with subsidy to a country to obliterate the competition. Once it has achieved near monopolic power it rises its prices.

So wealth is ONLY coercive when competition decreases. Now Austrians argue that monopolies and cartels don't last but even assuming that is correct sometimes what happens is that one monopoly / cartel is replaced by another... not big help there.

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

Do yo consider a speeding ticket coercive?
In this case there is an economic punishment ( an economic punishment ) .
What about VAT tax ( as a customer ) ?

All laws are coercive. That's what makes them different from suggestions.

Well , suppose you live in a country where the oil industry is owned by the government, and prices are set by the government.
You would be paying taxes with each consumption . How is that price not coercive?

In that circumstance, it would most certainly be coercive.

And how does that change if the monopoly changes into a private one?

Because private companies don't have the power to coerce us. They can't tax us. They can't force us to buy their products. And they can't prohibit others from competing with them. Only government has this power.

And here lies the difference in our viewpoints :
I think corcion is implicit when you hav no choice. Specially in basic needs. The punishment is implicit : loss of health or death is the only choice. Your point of view seems to be different : only the government has coercive power because he is backed by the rule of law and the police and army to enforce it.
I think that is trivial : as a customer you can't avoid VAT or the overpirced products of a private monopoly. The only advantage is that private monopolies are rare and tend to be short lived. And while private monopolies can't avoid competition it is often the case they adquire their competitors.
For practical purposes the differences are small and akin to philosophical. I can respect that as a moral stand point, but not as a pragmatic one.

 

[dblack]

My understanding of coercion is that it rests on a threat of force, and i'm not really seeing that in these examples. I'm not seeing any legal ways that economic power can translate into coercion. That only happens when government intervenes on behalf of special interests, and I'm in agreement with you (I think) that it should not be tolerated.

Do yo consider a speeding ticket coercive?
In this case there is an economic punishment ( an economic punishment ) .
What about VAT tax ( as a customer ) ?

All laws are coercive. That's what makes them different from suggestions.

Well , suppose you live in a country where the oil industry is owned by the government, and prices are set by the government.
You would be paying taxes with each consumption . How is that price not coercive?

In that circumstance, it would most certainly be coercive.

And how does that change if the monopoly changes into a private one?

Because private companies don't have the power to coerce us. They can't tax us. They can't force us to buy their products. And they can't prohibit others from competing with them. Only government has this power.

And here lies the difference in our viewpoints :
I think corcion is implicit when you hav no choice. Specially in basic needs. The punishment is implicit : loss of health or death is the only choice. Your point of view seems to be different : only the government has coercive power because he is backed by the rule of law and the police and army to enforce it.
I think that is trivial : as a customer you can't avoid VAT or the overpirced products of a private monopoly. The only advantage is that private monopolies are rare and tend to be short lived. And while private monopolies can't avoid competition it is often the case they adquire their competitors.
For practical purposes the differences are small and akin to philosophical. I can respect that as a moral stand point, but not as a pragmatic one.

Hmmm.... while I can certainly imagine scenarios where coercion may be implied, I suspect you're talking about something else. I don't see how having "no choice" amounts to coercion. Can you offer a concrete example?

 

[Picaro]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

The ideal libertarian society is Somalia, but for some reason they aren't rushing over there ...

Just keep in mind the Libertarian Party went bankrupt because they couldn't find a member who could balance a checkbook. That's all you really need to know about the cranks.

 

[dblack]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

The ideal libertarian society is Somalia, but for some reason they aren't rushing over there ...

Just keep in mind the Libertarian Party went bankrupt because they couldn't find a member who could balance a checkbook. That's all you really need to know about the cranks.

Somalia!!!!!

 

[CultureCitizen]

Do yo consider a speeding ticket coercive?
In this case there is an economic punishment ( an economic punishment ) .
What about VAT tax ( as a customer ) ?

All laws are coercive. That's what makes them different from suggestions.

Well , suppose you live in a country where the oil industry is owned by the government, and prices are set by the government.
You would be paying taxes with each consumption . How is that price not coercive?

In that circumstance, it would most certainly be coercive.

And how does that change if the monopoly changes into a private one?

Because private companies don't have the power to coerce us. They can't tax us. They can't force us to buy their products. And they can't prohibit others from competing with them. Only government has this power.

And here lies the difference in our viewpoints :
I think corcion is implicit when you hav no choice. Specially in basic needs. The punishment is implicit : loss of health or death is the only choice. Your point of view seems to be different : only the government has coercive power because he is backed by the rule of law and the police and army to enforce it.
I think that is trivial : as a customer you can't avoid VAT or the overpirced products of a private monopoly. The only advantage is that private monopolies are rare and tend to be short lived. And while private monopolies can't avoid competition it is often the case they adquire their competitors.
For practical purposes the differences are small and akin to philosophical. I can respect that as a moral stand point, but not as a pragmatic one.

Hmmm.... while I can certainly imagine scenarios where coercion may be implied, I suspect you're talking about something else. I don't see how having "no choice" amounts to coercion. Can you offer a concrete example?

The fact is that from the practial viewpoint the result is the same :
A mobster might threat your life if you don't give him the money : you comply , because the choice is death.
A company ownling all the rights to water distribution asks you for your money in exchange for the service : you comply , because the choice is death.

It might not be coercion in the strict sense, but for practical matters the behaviour is the same.
One could argue that you have more freedom while speeding on a road, because the threat is not death.

From my viewpoint private monopolies or colluded oligopolies are coercive for practical matters.

Coercion or not : A choice is not free if it is the only choice. That's why I said that from a philosophical point I could agree with you , but not from a pragmatic one.

 

[dblack]

All laws are coercive. That's what makes them different from suggestions.

Well , suppose you live in a country where the oil industry is owned by the government, and prices are set by the government.
You would be paying taxes with each consumption . How is that price not coercive?

In that circumstance, it would most certainly be coercive.

And how does that change if the monopoly changes into a private one?

Because private companies don't have the power to coerce us. They can't tax us. They can't force us to buy their products. And they can't prohibit others from competing with them. Only government has this power.

And here lies the difference in our viewpoints :
I think corcion is implicit when you hav no choice. Specially in basic needs. The punishment is implicit : loss of health or death is the only choice. Your point of view seems to be different : only the government has coercive power because he is backed by the rule of law and the police and army to enforce it.
I think that is trivial : as a customer you can't avoid VAT or the overpirced products of a private monopoly. The only advantage is that private monopolies are rare and tend to be short lived. And while private monopolies can't avoid competition it is often the case they adquire their competitors.
For practical purposes the differences are small and akin to philosophical. I can respect that as a moral stand point, but not as a pragmatic one.

Hmmm.... while I can certainly imagine scenarios where coercion may be implied, I suspect you're talking about something else. I don't see how having "no choice" amounts to coercion. Can you offer a concrete example?

The fact is that from the practial viewpoint the result is the same :
A mobster might threat your life if you don't give him the money : you comply , because the choice is death.
A company ownling all the rights to water distribution asks you for your money in exchange for the service : you comply , because the choice is death.

It might not be coercion in the strict sense, but for practical matters the behaviour is the same.
One could argue that you have more freedom while speeding on a road, because the threat is not death.

From my viewpoint private monopolies or colluded oligopolies are coercive for practical matters.

Coercion or not : A choice is not free if it is the only choice. That's why I said that from a philosophical point I could agree with you , but not from a pragmatic one.

I'm with you on the preference for focusing on pragmatic matters. And, in practice, I've never heard of anyone owning all the water. Or air. Or arable land. So, I'm wondering if you have a real-world example of "implied coercion"?

 

[gipper]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

The ideal libertarian society is Somalia, but for some reason they aren't rushing over there ...

Just keep in mind the Libertarian Party went bankrupt because they couldn't find a member who could balance a checkbook. That's all you really need to know about the cranks.

Absurd, but taken directly from the statist propaganda machine...and amazingly believed.

 

[Picaro]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

The ideal libertarian society is Somalia, but for some reason they aren't rushing over there ...

Just keep in mind the Libertarian Party went bankrupt because they couldn't find a member who could balance a checkbook. That's all you really need to know about the cranks.

Absurd, but taken directly from the statist propaganda machine...and amazingly believed.

What's amazing is how anybody falls for what is just simplistic, pseudo-intellectual, ideological fashion-ware written up to appeal to self-indulgent Burb Brats suffering from affluenza.

 

[gipper]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

The ideal libertarian society is Somalia, but for some reason they aren't rushing over there ...

Just keep in mind the Libertarian Party went bankrupt because they couldn't find a member who could balance a checkbook. That's all you really need to know about the cranks.

Absurd, but taken directly from the statist propaganda machine...and amazingly believed.

What's amazing is how anybody falls for what is just simplistic, pseudo-intellectual, ideological fashion-ware written up to appeal to self-indulgent Burb Brats suffering from affluenza.

To think Somalia is a libertarian paradise, as leftists and statists often proclaim, is to admit not knowing anything about liberatarianism.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well , suppose you live in a country where the oil industry is owned by the government, and prices are set by the government.
You would be paying taxes with each consumption . How is that price not coercive?

In that circumstance, it would most certainly be coercive.

And how does that change if the monopoly changes into a private one?

Because private companies don't have the power to coerce us. They can't tax us. They can't force us to buy their products. And they can't prohibit others from competing with them. Only government has this power.

And here lies the difference in our viewpoints :
I think corcion is implicit when you hav no choice. Specially in basic needs. The punishment is implicit : loss of health or death is the only choice. Your point of view seems to be different : only the government has coercive power because he is backed by the rule of law and the police and army to enforce it.
I think that is trivial : as a customer you can't avoid VAT or the overpirced products of a private monopoly. The only advantage is that private monopolies are rare and tend to be short lived. And while private monopolies can't avoid competition it is often the case they adquire their competitors.
For practical purposes the differences are small and akin to philosophical. I can respect that as a moral stand point, but not as a pragmatic one.

Hmmm.... while I can certainly imagine scenarios where coercion may be implied, I suspect you're talking about something else. I don't see how having "no choice" amounts to coercion. Can you offer a concrete example?

The fact is that from the practial viewpoint the result is the same :
A mobster might threat your life if you don't give him the money : you comply , because the choice is death.
A company ownling all the rights to water distribution asks you for your money in exchange for the service : you comply , because the choice is death.

It might not be coercion in the strict sense, but for practical matters the behaviour is the same.
One could argue that you have more freedom while speeding on a road, because the threat is not death.

From my viewpoint private monopolies or colluded oligopolies are coercive for practical matters.

Coercion or not : A choice is not free if it is the only choice. That's why I said that from a philosophical point I could agree with you , but not from a pragmatic one.

I'm with you on the preference for focusing on pragmatic matters. And, in practice, I've never heard of anyone owning all the water. Or air. Or arable land. So, I'm wondering if you have a real-world example of "implied coercion"?

Oh, but you do. Do you remember the time in which it was legal to own people in the US ?
There are still some idiots who look at that time with nostalgia.
And of course , company stores are very close to that situation: mostly everything you could buy came from the company store.
Company store - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Food: I find Monsanto's patanted seeds disquieting. To say the least.

I have no problems with corporations as long as they have competition and they don't have a revolving door .

 

[Picaro]

Businesses' natural instinct and drive is to eliminate competition, especially when there are no legal barriers to monopolies and trusts; it's better to let the 'winners' have their monopolies, duopolies, trusts, etc, and regulate and tax them on their privileges instead of trying to artificially impose some ersatz fig leaf of 'competition' that will never really exist in real life. When John D. Rockefeller said 'Competition is a sin' he wasn't talking just about Christian morality, he was talking about inevitable real life business trends. How is one going to handle patent law if competition is forced by legislation, for instance? Patents are protected 'monopolies', are they not?

And, in order to coerce 'competition' on a global corporation like a Monsanto requires a government(s) large and powerful enough to coerce it in the first place, not to mention throwing out patent laws altogether.

 

[Rshermr]

Businesses' natural instinct and drive is to eliminate competition, especially when there are no legal barriers to monopolies and trusts; it's better to let the 'winners' have their monopolies, duopolies, trusts, etc, and regulate and tax them on their privileges instead of trying to artificially impose some ersatz fig leaf of 'competition' that will never really exist in real life. When John D. Rockefeller said 'Competition is a sin' he wasn't talking just about Christian morality, he was talking about inevitable real life business trends. How is one going to handle patent law if competition is forced by legislation, for instance? Patents are protected 'monopolies', are they not?

And, in order to coerce 'competition' on a global corporation like a Monsanto requires a government(s) large and powerful enough to coerce it in the first place, not to mention throwing out patent laws altogether.

That's what antitrust laws were for, before congress (read conservatives) neutered them. Look, monopoly power is what corporations want. Mergers and acquisitions result in more and more monopoly power, and toward the libertarian ideal.
So today the corporations and their paid toadies - politicians and their "think tanks" and con web sites and paid opinion writers - all push libertarian agendas. But the leaders of the toadies know they will not get there. But it does not matter, in the long run. The closer they get, the richer and more powerful they get. The path TOWARD libertarianism is their heaven.
Funny thing is, when asked, these self professed libertarian toadies are in love with a social and economic system that has NEVER worked. And NEVER existed. The closer an economy gets to libertarianism, the closer it gets to it's inevitable collapse. And the poor dupes just continue to believe in a thing that never has and never will exist. These clowns almost deserve our pity. Almost.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Businesses' natural instinct and drive is to eliminate competition,.

of course that's totally absurd and illiterate. A businesses natural instinct is to beat the competition and the competitions natural instinct is to not let it happen.