What is a libertarian?

[bripat9643]

Your empty theory didn't break up Ma Bell and launch the communications revolution.

Ma bell was a legal, government protected monopoly.

Pointless distinction.

That is the very distinction this entire discussion is about. There is no such thing as a natural monopoly.

 

[bripat9643]

Here, dumbass.

How does that explain the meaning of the term "cartel?"

I should always make a point of dumbing it down for you.

You wanted to know how the next marginal producer could not compete.

You are welcome.

Plenty of oil companies make billions drilling in deep water, so your chart proves no such thing.

You don't know squat about economics, do you?

Furthermore, a "producer" is a firm or some kind of legal entity. It's not a class of resource.

 

[bripat9643]

That is unadultrated horsepucky, by the way.

Wrong. That is historical fact.

You are the dumbass that argued there were no monopolies before 1890.

You mean I posted the historical fact that there were no natural monopolies before 1890?

Yes, I did say that. Have you produced an example of one yet?

 

[SniperFire]

Ma bell was a legal, government protected monopoly.

Pointless distinction.

That is the very distinction this entire discussion is about. There is no such thing as a natural monopoly.

You are spinning, but I will play.

Price fixing of dominate low-cost producers, for example, are good examples of 'natural monopolies' not supported by governments.

 

[SniperFire]

Wrong. That is historical fact.

You are the dumbass that argued there were no monopolies before 1890.

You mean I posted the historical fact that there were no natural monopolies before 1890?

Yes, I did say that. Have you produced an example of one yet?

If you insist on making an ass out of yourself....

Industries with a natural monopoly

Such a process happened in the water industry in nineteenth century Britain. Up until the mid-nineteenth century'

Natural monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Pointless distinction.

That is the very distinction this entire discussion is about. There is no such thing as a natural monopoly.

You are spinning, but I will play.

Price fixing of dominate low-cost producers, for example, are good examples of 'natural monopolies' not supported by governments.

When are you going to produce an actual example of such?

 

[SniperFire]

How does that explain the meaning of the term "cartel?"

I should always make a point of dumbing it down for you.

You wanted to know how the next marginal producer could not compete.

You are welcome.

Plenty of oil companies make billions drilling in deep water, so your chart proves no such thing.

The Arabs have a dramatic per barrel cost advantage of extracting oil vis-a-vis the competition. You are embarassing yourself.

 

[SniperFire]

That is the very distinction this entire discussion is about. There is no such thing as a natural monopoly.

You are spinning, but I will play.

Price fixing of dominate low-cost producers, for example, are good examples of 'natural monopolies' not supported by governments.

When are you going to produce an actual example of such?

Your post looks awfully foolish since I posted the example before yours.

Need some more, or is it time for you to log off yet?

 

[bripat9643]

You are the dumbass that argued there were no monopolies before 1890.

You mean I posted the historical fact that there were no natural monopolies before 1890?

Yes, I did say that. Have you produced an example of one yet?

If you insist on making an ass out of yourself....

Industries with a natural monopoly

Such a process happened in the water industry in nineteenth century Britain. Up until the mid-nineteenth century'

Natural monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An "industry with a natural monopoly?" Are you joking? Are you saying the auto industry has a natural monopoly on making cars? That's nonsensical. All it says is that the companies that make cars are the companies that make cars.

 

[SniperFire]

So Bripat.

Let us review to see what you have learned.

We shall begin here.

Were there natural monopolies before 1890?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is a libertarian?

They are essentially naïve reactionaries – they fantasize of an idealized American past that never existed to begin with.

The notion of the ‘sovereign individual’ is equally unrealistic and untenable.

Just seems like another form of GOP.

A: Someone who whines that both parties are foul yet votes Republican every single time.

Weird... I don't remember voting for John McCain in 2008.

True, you and three other libertarians.

 

[SniperFire]

An "industry with a natural monopoly?"

Are you tired of getting drilled yet?

The canal system of Brittian was another natural monopoly in the 18th century.

Now, this is were you attempt to narrow your argument once again.

 

[bripat9643]

You are the dumbass that argued there were no monopolies before 1890.

You mean I posted the historical fact that there were no natural monopolies before 1890?

Yes, I did say that. Have you produced an example of one yet?

If you insist on making an ass out of yourself....

Industries with a natural monopoly

Such a process happened in the water industry in nineteenth century Britain. Up until the mid-nineteenth century'

Natural monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll have to excuse me if I don't accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. Most of the history I've read in liberal sources turns out to be complete horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

An "industry with a natural monopoly?"

Are you tired of getting drilled yet?

The canal system of Brittian was another natural monopoly in the 18th century.

Now, this is were you attempt to narrow your argument once again.

Canals in Britain were highly competitive. Furthermore, they were soon made obsolete by the railroad, which was even more competitive.

Your definition of a monopoly seems to be this:

If I build a canal from London to Manchester, then I have a monopoly on the London to Manchester canal route. Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that the canal is an additional transportation option that previously didn't exist. The previous means of transportation still exist. It also doesn't stop competitors from entering the fray with their own means of transportation, like railroads.

The so-called "monopoly" exists only for a brief instant of time, and during that time it provides a great boon to the people who use it.

How is this a problem?

 

[SniperFire]

You mean I posted the historical fact that there were no natural monopolies before 1890?

Yes, I did say that. Have you produced an example of one yet?

If you insist on making an ass out of yourself....

Industries with a natural monopoly

Such a process happened in the water industry in nineteenth century Britain. Up until the mid-nineteenth century'

Natural monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll have to excuse me if I don't accept Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Is it your contention, then, that there was no canal and water industry natural monopolies in Britain in the 18th century?

Did Egypt have a monopoly on corn in Joseph's day?

 

[SniperFire]

Finding all sort of 'natural monopolies' before 1890.

Glasglow coal monopoly - several hundred years

 

[SniperFire]

But lets move on, Bripat.

Would you say that every nation on earth has laws protecting their citizens against monopolies?

Have Libertariantards figured out something that the entirety of world history and civilization has missed?

 

[Londoner]

A libertarian doesn't want big brother's greasy moral hands inside the wombs of women.

A libertarian doesn't want big brother to determine the content of marriage for consenting adults. He doesn't want Washington to be big enough and powerful enough to determine sacred things like the love between two people. Let free individuals be judged by God not bureaucrats.

A libertarian doesn't want Washington to save the Arab people because he doesn't think Washington has the competence. A libertarian doesn't think Washington can create a perfect world of total freedom and total safety. A libertarian doesn't think that Washington can defeat evil. A libertarian thinks that if you give Washington the money and power to save the planet, they will only make things worse (... a Republican, on the other hand, trusts Washington to save the world and defeat evil and give us amniotic safety. ONLY A Republican would create the largest, most expensive, most secretive, most centralized, most incompetent, most invasive bureaucracy in the history of the country. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...ticles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/ . ONLY a Republican would create the Department of Homeland Security. ONLY a Republican would create a bureaucracy that large.

(The Tea Party - in the end - is a reflex of movement conservatism not freedom. They act like Libertarians in some of their machinations, but they don't seem to understand the theoretical side of the Libertarianism. They are to be pitied. They will disappear the minute Romney gets elected; they will get re-absorbed into the same old Conservative base which gets their information from Talk Radio)

A libertarian wouldn't build a massive surveillance state because of some vaguely defined war on something that isn't even a nation but a tactic. A Libertarian wouldn't write laws which allow Washington bureaucrats to invade the privacy of free citizens . . . which allow bureaucrats to listen to phone calls and track internet use and library records and credit card purchases of free American citizens all BECAUSE OF a .0000001 percent chance of terrorist attack. A libertarian would not give Washington these expanded powers because government power is the biggest risk of all. A libertarian would not trade privacy and freedom for the utopian myth of total safety.

(ONLY a Republican could create a big government surveillance state, and only a weak Democrat could keep it going after that Republican left office)

The chance that an American citizen will die in a terrorist attack is shockingly less than his chances of being struck by lightening. Only a Republican would give Washington MASSIVE & CONCENTRATED powers to prevent something with such a low probability. Libertarians understand this, AND THEY WOULDN'T GROW GOVERNMENT POWER in order to prevent something with a lower probability of happening than having a piece of a satellite land on your son's tricycle. (Why make government bigger and more powerful for something that is not only unlikely to occur, but cannot be prevented by Washington. Again, Republicans don't understand this because they trust in Washington's power. They always have.)

Libertarians understand that we are in the Middle East for the oil - for its strategic value inside the global economy. Republicans think we are there because freedom is on the march. Why do Republicans believe this? Because they are the target of misinformation. You see, my dear readers, all governments lie to the woman and children back on the homeland. Only the real men can know of the dangers and moral compromises that happen in the outlying colonies.

There are no real Libertarians on the Right. Most of the Republicans who claim to be Libertarians are too influenced by GOP information sources to be Libertarians. Secondly, they don't understand Libertarianism. They've been raised by Sean Hannity. They can't explain why true Libertarians were opposed to the Cold War. Too many rightwing voters are too historically illiterate to explain how and why the anti-conservative Republican leadership strategically used anti-communism to move the party from small government isolationism to big-government globalism. [They don't get how much the Right grew Washington's power during the Cold War; they are talk radio slaves]

INDEED, Reagan didn't want a Washington that was simply big enough to control the 50 states, he wanted a Government big enough to manage the entire globe. This is why he put bases all over the planet and created a military budget that would choke future generations.

Morons on the Right don't get it: running and defending and stabilizing the global economy requires a MASSIVE AND POWERFUL government to intervene GLOBALLY whenever and wherever necessary. (Turn off talk radio and go to a fucking library - and study how much power was given to government so that it could stabilize the middle east)

The CATO institute created a brilliant lecture series that showed how the Cold War - especially the part played by Reagan - made WASHINGTON larger and more powerful than anything ever dreamed by LBJ. Fact is, the Right doesn't understand any of this because they are so tightly controlled by Big Government Conservatism. (These fucking people get their history from Rush Limbaugh. God help us)

DO YOU KNOW what happened to the Libertarians that opposed the Iraq War? They got isolated by propoganda factories like FOX News and Rush Limbaugh. The Rightwing message machine is a fucking idiot factory. . . and many of their brightest pupils post here daily.

(God help us)

 

[SniperFire]

Republicans simply have a different view of the world and what is at risk than you do, Londoner.

WW2 and the advent of the nuclear age changed everything. You of course don't believe that.

 

[bripat9643]

I should always make a point of dumbing it down for you.

You wanted to know how the next marginal producer could not compete.

You are welcome.

Plenty of oil companies make billions drilling in deep water, so your chart proves no such thing.

The Arabs have a dramatic per barrel cost advantage of extracting oil vis-a-vis the competition. You are embarassing yourself.

Yet, other producers still manage to compete with them and make a profit. The fact that some producers have lower costs than others doesn't prove they are a cartel or a monopoly. Is Saudi Arabia the only oil producer in the world?