Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[occupied]

Boring. Beck is a neocon, not a libertarian. He has nothing to do with libertarianism whatsoever. That you're trying to pass him off as the intellectual godfather of libertarianism is what makes you a charlatan.

Beck is the one who popularized his retarded views as libertarianism, he is the first one I ever noticed that lumped all the dictators on the left (Hitler AND Stalin LOL)therefore stating that the right is incapable of tyranny, it's dangerous bullshit and it is on display every day of the week here.

So what? Beck's warmongering nationalist hysteria has nothing to do with libertarianism, regardless of what he claims to be.

Pity there weren't more like you around when a bunch of ashamed republicans picked up his crap as the libertarian gospel.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Beck is the one who popularized his retarded views as libertarianism, he is the first one I ever noticed that lumped all the dictators on the left (Hitler AND Stalin LOL)therefore stating that the right is incapable of tyranny, it's dangerous bullshit and it is on display every day of the week here.

So what? Beck's warmongering nationalist hysteria has nothing to do with libertarianism, regardless of what he claims to be.

Pity there weren't more like you around when a bunch of ashamed republicans picked up his crap as the libertarian gospel.

So you weren't even criticizing libertarians at all, merely Republicans who tried to sound like libertarians while they were out of power. Why didn't you say so?

 

[occupied]

So far all I am seeing is people saying what libertarianism isn't, so what is it if not a gutting of various protections against the economically powerful? Where is the concern for the weak and exploited? How is it not cold social darwinism?

 

[AquaAthena]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

There are more of us than you think, and I feel the numbers are growing very fast with each passing day...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So far all I am seeing is people saying what libertarianism isn't, so what is it if not a gutting of various protections against the economically powerful? Where is the concern for the weak and exploited? How is it not cold social darwinism?

The government doesn't create protections against the economically powerful, they create protections for the economically powerful at the expense of everybody else.

As for the libertarian position on social darwinism, I'd recommend this article.

The free market is not, as the social Darwinists imagine, a struggle between rich and poor, strong and weak. It is the principal means by which human beings cooperate in order to live. If each of us had to produce all his food and shelter by himself, almost no one could survive. The existence of large-scale society depends absolutely on social cooperation through the division of labor.

"The fundamental social phenomenon is the division of labor and its counterpart human cooperation. Experience teaches man that cooperative action is more efficient and productive than isolated actions of self-sufficient individuals. The natural conditions determining man's life and effort are such that the division of labor increases output per unit of labor expended. (Human Action, p. 157)"

Social Darwinism and the Free Market - David Gordon - Mises Daily

 

[occupied]

So what? Beck's warmongering nationalist hysteria has nothing to do with libertarianism, regardless of what he claims to be.

Pity there weren't more like you around when a bunch of ashamed republicans picked up his crap as the libertarian gospel.

So you weren't even criticizing libertarians at all, merely Republicans who tried to sound like libertarians while they were out of power. Why didn't you say so?

What else do you have right now? Had Romney won 90% of the self-described libertarians on this board would be ultra-nationalists all the sudden. You are known by the company you keep and if libertarianism ever had a chance these people have ruined it for you, assuming of course you are being straight with me right now about being somehow separate from these other people who I never believed were real libertarians from the beginning.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Pity there weren't more like you around when a bunch of ashamed republicans picked up his crap as the libertarian gospel.

So you weren't even criticizing libertarians at all, merely Republicans who tried to sound like libertarians while they were out of power. Why didn't you say so?

What else do you have right now? Had Romney won 90% of the self-described libertarians on this board would be ultra-nationalists all the sudden. You are known by the company you keep and if libertarianism ever had a chance these people have ruined it for you, assuming of course you are being straight with me right now about being somehow separate from these other people who I never believed were real libertarians from the beginning.

Can you name names? After all, 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot, and I'd like a bit more to go on. Who all claims to be a libertarian on this board? There are very few on this board that I consider to be truly libertarian, whatever others may claim.

As for me, I don't think there are many on this board who would doubt I am exactly what I say I am.

 

[occupied]

So you weren't even criticizing libertarians at all, merely Republicans who tried to sound like libertarians while they were out of power. Why didn't you say so?

What else do you have right now? Had Romney won 90% of the self-described libertarians on this board would be ultra-nationalists all the sudden. You are known by the company you keep and if libertarianism ever had a chance these people have ruined it for you, assuming of course you are being straight with me right now about being somehow separate from these other people who I never believed were real libertarians from the beginning.

Can you name names? After all, 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot, and I'd like a bit more to go on. Who all claims to be a libertarian on this board? There are very few on this board that I consider to be truly libertarian, whatever others may claim.

As for me, I don't think there are many on this board who would doubt I am exactly what I say I am.

I doubt the existence of libertarians at all, in the real world humans live and die by the hierarchy, we do not have any idea how to live otherwise. Should a society ever decide to implement libertarian reforms they would only get as far as allowing the head honchos great freedom to feed on the the rabble without penalty. People rightly reject Marxism because it goes against human nature to live that way, similarly libertarianism is a Utopian pipe dream that would quickly break down as those in charge attempt to force society into their mold.

 

[konradv]

Not to mention, we adhere strictly to the idea of "our freedom ends where yours begins". So to claim we only care about our own freedom pretty much confirms the OP's suggestion you don't know what libertarians stand for.

The main problem is the difference between what they stand for and reality. It's a pipe dream not materially different from Marxism. In either case it would take a basic change in human nature to work.

 

[Samson]

Well I was going to say your analogy was flawed, but I suppose it's not. Your original premises were flawed. Standard Oil couldn't own everything in a free market. Only the state is capable of granting monopolies on that scale, or any scale really.

How do you know "only the state is capable of granting monopolies?"

Speaking of absurd assumptions.

An uncontrolled monopoly could buy the fucking state.

Because only the state has the power to restrict competition. McDonald's can't go shut down Burger King or vice versa, but the state could.

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do you know "only the state is capable of granting monopolies?"

Speaking of absurd assumptions.

An uncontrolled monopoly could buy the fucking state.

Because only the state has the power to restrict competition. McDonald's can't go shut down Burger King or vice versa, but the state could.

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

 

[occupied]

Because only the state has the power to restrict competition. McDonald's can't go shut down Burger King or vice versa, but the state could.

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

Ask yourself why no department store chain has been founded in thirty years.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

Ask yourself why no department store chain has been founded in thirty years.

Ask yourself if department store chains are the best business model in the year 2012.

 

[Samson]

Because only the state has the power to restrict competition. McDonald's can't go shut down Burger King or vice versa, but the state could.

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

You cannot possibly be this dense.

Tell you what, give it 48 hours to sink in, and if you're still this fucking confused about the definition and purpose of a monopoly, sign up for ECON 101 at the local community college.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

You cannot possibly be this dense.

Tell you what, give it 48 hours to sink in, and if you're still this fucking confused about the definition and purpose of a monopoly, sign up for ECON 101 at the local community college.

Can't answer the questions then?

 

[uscitizen]

Because only the state has the power to restrict competition. McDonald's can't go shut down Burger King or vice versa, but the state could.

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

Ohh this will haoppen the same way that pretty much all we have now is mega banks, grocery chains, retail chains, etc.
Krogers, Wal Mart, BOFA, etc.

 

[Samson]

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

You cannot possibly be this dense.

Tell you what, give it 48 hours to sink in, and if you're still this fucking confused about the definition and purpose of a monopoly, sign up for ECON 101 at the local community college.

Can't answer the questions then?

At some point, entertaining the stupid for free becomes boring.

 

[Samson]

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

Ohh this will haoppen the same way that pretty much all we have now is mega banks, grocery chains, retail chains, etc.
Krogers, Wal Mart, BOFA, etc.

But all this exists WITH government regulation: bankS, chainS (note the PLURALITY).

Libertarianism would allow ONE bank, ONE grocery chain, ONE retail chain; in fact ONE company could control the ALL.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Apparently the concept of "monopoly" is lost here.

Libertarianism supports monopolies: This means there is no state control over one company shutting down another, or doing whatever the hell it wants to gain a competitive edge.

Once the monopoly is established, everyone, including the Libertarian State, is at the mercy of the monopoly. Generally this mean raising prices. For example a refining monopoly could raise gasoline prices to maximize profits. At some point, a significant number of people will not be able to afford gasoline, and the price will need to decrease slightly: However, when this happens MANY people will STILL simply not be able to afford gas (including the military).

This makes no sense whatsoever. So this hypothetical gasoline company is going to run up prices, once it's somehow put all of its competition under of course, to the point where only a very select group of people will be able to purchase gasoline? How are they going to stay in business? Why won't somebody else just start to compete with them and drive down prices?

Ohh this will haoppen the same way that pretty much all we have now is mega banks, grocery chains, retail chains, etc.
Krogers, Wal Mart, BOFA, etc.

I believe Krogers and Wal-Mart compete with each other, don't they? And is Wal-Mart charging high "monopoly" prices? I was under the impression that the general complaint was that their prices were too low.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You cannot possibly be this dense.

Tell you what, give it 48 hours to sink in, and if you're still this fucking confused about the definition and purpose of a monopoly, sign up for ECON 101 at the local community college.

Can't answer the questions then?

At some point, entertaining the stupid for free becomes boring.

Tell me about it, but I was merely trying to have a discussion on what a monopoly is and isn't. The fact that you're unable to entertain differences of opinion the subject says nothing about my intelligence, however.