What is a libertarian?

[bripat9643]

But what if that entity becomes rich enough to buy off most and force the holdouts into bankruptcy by strong arming suppliers? See, Standard Oil. The reason it doesn't happen now is because of a strong government, not despite it.

Consumers will seek alternatives. The market will respond.

LOL.

More useless theory that flies in the face of the historical record.

No it doesn't.

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[LibertyForAll]

some of you do and some do not.
Just as some support using our military as a police force around the world and some do not.

You can't be an imperialist and a libertarian.

Libertarians are all over the board.

What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Neolibertarianism:

'Neolibertarians are fiscal libertarians who support a strong military, and believe that the U.S. government should use that military to overthrow dangerous and oppressive regimes. It is their emphasis on military intervention that distinguishes them from paleolibertarians (see below), and gives them reason to make common cause with neoconservatives.'

What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism



But, hey. It is just silly theory, afterall.

Does military interventionism affect the markets?

Could the government affect the price of commodities at any time simply by destabilizing a major producer of that commodity?

A "Fiscal Libertarian" should see that there can be no Free Trade when the government can pick winners and losers.

 

[bripat9643]

Example?

I claimed all the land. The second person is now my serf, because of my property rights.

konradv and I agree on nothing, eflat, but we both await your 'real world' Libertarian solution to this dilemma.

Since when is a fantasy a "dilemma?"

 

[bripat9643]

Yes.

Or, you could just be prick about it.

Deadwood is as close to an example as we have of Libertarian government in action.

And it ended badly. Communism fails thanks to human nature, and Libertarianism doesn't even get off the ground for the same reason.


Google it.

In short, you don't have any examples.

Thanks for playing!

 

[bripat9643]

I could educate you for hours, and you would still not have the foggiest idea what I am talking about. You are in the childlike naivety stage of your Libertarianism.

There are several threads on here where this has been discussed in detail. Do a search for Deadwood and they should pop up for you.

If you could educate us, you would be doing it. Instead you're spouting ad hominems because you haven't got any arrows in your quiver. You're a blowhard.

 

[SniperFire]

How could any capitalist organisation take such advantage without the support of the force of law?

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

No monopoly has ever existed without legal protection from the government.

Perhaps, but he was arguing that the absence of government regulation would make the mean old monopolies go away thanks to consumer choice. Which is of course, historically absurd, unless you are promoting pitchfork anarchy problem-solving of the peeps to storm the Bastille.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

No monopoly has ever existed without legal protection from the government.

Perhaps, but he was arguing that the absence of government regulation would make the mean old monopolies go away thanks to consumer choice. Which is of course, historically absurd, unless you are promoting pitchfork anarchy problem-solving of the peeps to storm the Bastille.

I just said that there have never been any monopolies except the kind that are legally enforced, so the absence of government regulation would make monopolies go away.

 

[MarcATL]

Deadwood was a failure, as was everything of/from the wild, wild, west days.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/228681-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-market.html

 

[dblack]

Deadwood was a failure, as was everything of/from the wild, wild, west days.

That tact has been tried. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Next...

 

[SniperFire]

No monopoly has ever existed without legal protection from the government.

Perhaps, but he was arguing that the absence of government regulation would make the mean old monopolies go away thanks to consumer choice. Which is of course, historically absurd, unless you are promoting pitchfork anarchy problem-solving of the peeps to storm the Bastille.

I just said that there have never been any monopolies except the kind that are legally enforced, so the absence of government regulation would make monopolies go away.

By your own definition that is purely theoretical as, as you say, we have never had a monopoly in existence in a society without laws.

 

[MarcATL]

Deadwood was a failure, as was everything of/from the wild, wild, west days.

That tact has been tried. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Next...

Yes it is.

You people want government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub.

Anarchist hack.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps, but he was arguing that the absence of government regulation would make the mean old monopolies go away thanks to consumer choice. Which is of course, historically absurd, unless you are promoting pitchfork anarchy problem-solving of the peeps to storm the Bastille.

I just said that there have never been any monopolies except the kind that are legally enforced, so the absence of government regulation would make monopolies go away.

By your own definition that is purely theoretical as, as you say, we have never had a monopoly in existence in a society without laws.

Who ever advocated a society without laws? However, we had no laws against "monopoly" until the Sherman Anti-Trust act was passed in 1890. We had no "natural monopolies" prior to that date.

 

[bripat9643]

Deadwood was a failure, as was everything of/from the wild, wild, west days.

That tact has been tried. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Next...

Yes it is.

You people want government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub.

Anarchist hack.

Actually, I would like to drown it in a bathtub. I'm one of those anarcho-capitalists people like you are always shrieking about.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Deadwood was a failure, as was everything of/from the wild, wild, west days.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/228681-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-market.html

There was no such thing as the "wild, wild west."

 

[SniperFire]

You can't be an imperialist and a libertarian.

Libertarians are all over the board.

What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Neolibertarianism:

'Neolibertarians are fiscal libertarians who support a strong military, and believe that the U.S. government should use that military to overthrow dangerous and oppressive regimes. It is their emphasis on military intervention that distinguishes them from paleolibertarians (see below), and gives them reason to make common cause with neoconservatives.'

What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism



But, hey. It is just silly theory, afterall.

Does military interventionism affect the markets?

Could the government affect the price of commodities at any time simply by destabilizing a major producer of that commodity?

A "Fiscal Libertarian" should see that there can be no Free Trade when the government can pick winners and losers.

I see you are abandoning your argument of what a 'libertarian' can and cannot be, and now are spinning in another direction.

 

[dblack]

Deadwood was a failure, as was everything of/from the wild, wild, west days.

That tact has been tried. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Next...

Yes it is.

Uh.... no it isn't?

Listen, if you're simply going to redefine words to suit your agenda then you win I guess.
Congrats.

 

[MarcATL]

That tact has been tried. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Next...

Yes it is.

You people want government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub.

Anarchist hack.

Actually, I would like to drown it in a bathtub. I'm one of those anarcho-capitalists people like you are always shrieking about.

I know.

 

[MarcATL]

That tact has been tried. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

Next...

Yes it is.

Uh.... no it isn't?

Listen, if you're simply going to redefine words to suit your agenda then you win I guess.
Congrats.

Thank you.

 

[SniperFire]

I just said that there have never been any monopolies except the kind that are legally enforced, so the absence of government regulation would make monopolies go away.

By your own definition that is purely theoretical as, as you say, we have never had a monopoly in existence in a society without laws.

Who ever advocated a society without laws? However, we had no laws against "monopoly" until the Sherman Anti-Trust act was passed in 1890. We had no "natural monopolies" prior to that date.

No monopolies ever existed in the world before 1890, then?

 

[LibertyForAll]

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

No monopoly has ever existed without legal protection from the government.

Perhaps, but he was arguing that the absence of government regulation would make the mean old monopolies go away thanks to consumer choice. Which is of course, historically absurd, unless you are promoting pitchfork anarchy problem-solving of the peeps to storm the Bastille.

This is an honest question. How could a monopoly be maintained in the real world without government supporting it? Take oil for example. Let's say I buy up every ounce of oil in the country. What do you think would happen if I charged 100 dollars a gallon for gasoline? Excessive greed would shrink my market. People would seek alternative fuels or transportation. I would be creating a demand for a product other than my own. This isn't a good business practice by any stretch.

If you tax the rich they stop investing and the economy shrinks.
If businesses charge to much their customers go elsewhere and their business shrinks.