Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

This is gross ignorance as to the workings of a market economy.

 

[beagle9]

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?

If you have effectively shut down the competition thus becoming a monopoly, then how could someone (the average American dream chaser) just start up a business and compete with you ? Have you checked lately to see what franchises cost, and what you have to be worth according to them in order to own one (start up) ? Besides the government loves these days to deal more with large corporations for it's revenues/taxes collected and such, instead of having to manage millions of small businesses as it has had to do over the years. They like things to be nice and neatly packaged these days, and not all over the place. This however has become a huge problem for the concept of a strong and independent America, in which is becoming a more controlled and corporatized America instead.

 

[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?

If you have effectively shut down the competition thus becoming a monopoly, then how could someone (the average American dream chaser) just start up a business and compete with you ? Have you checked lately to see what franchises cost, and what you have to be worth according to them in order to own one (start up) ? Besides the government loves these days to deal more with large corporations for it's revenues/taxes collected and such, instead of having to manage millions of small businesses as it has had to do over the years. They like things to be nice and neatly packaged these days, and not all over the place. This however has become a huge problem for the concept of a strong and independent America, in which is becoming a more controlled and corporatized America instead.

How do people start up a business any other time?

 

[dblack]

More people are libertarian.

 

[occupied]

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?

If you have effectively shut down the competition thus becoming a monopoly, then how could someone (the average American dream chaser) just start up a business and compete with you ? Have you checked lately to see what franchises cost, and what you have to be worth according to them in order to own one (start up) ? Besides the government loves these days to deal more with large corporations for it's revenues/taxes collected and such, instead of having to manage millions of small businesses as it has had to do over the years. They like things to be nice and neatly packaged these days, and not all over the place. This however has become a huge problem for the concept of a strong and independent America, in which is becoming a more controlled and corporatized America instead.

How do people start up a business any other time?

These days? Find an untapped niche and try to hold on until a big corporation buys you out for a profit if you are lucky enough to get some name recognition, otherwise you are confined to secondary markets until the big boys drive you out of business.

 

[uscitizen]

The mega corps can buy more representation in government. In any type of government.
93% of Romneys campaign money came from super pacs fed by the mega rich.
7% came from individual donors.

I expect Obama's figures were about the same.
And for congresspersons as well.

 

[occupied]

More people are libertarian.

No one is libertarian if someone else's freedom offends their sense of decency, then they are republican.

 

[uscitizen]

More people are libertarian.

More people than what?
More people may SAY they are libertarians with all the embaressed right wingers and all.
But almost all of them vote republican party line and do not walk the walk.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you have effectively shut down the competition thus becoming a monopoly, then how could someone (the average American dream chaser) just start up a business and compete with you ? Have you checked lately to see what franchises cost, and what you have to be worth according to them in order to own one (start up) ? Besides the government loves these days to deal more with large corporations for it's revenues/taxes collected and such, instead of having to manage millions of small businesses as it has had to do over the years. They like things to be nice and neatly packaged these days, and not all over the place. This however has become a huge problem for the concept of a strong and independent America, in which is becoming a more controlled and corporatized America instead.

How do people start up a business any other time?

These days? Find an untapped niche and try to hold on until a big corporation buys you out for a profit if you are lucky enough to get some name recognition, otherwise you are confined to secondary markets until the big boys drive you out of business.

Or until the government's regulations that the "big boys" helped write drive you out of business.

 

[occupied]

How do people start up a business any other time?

These days? Find an untapped niche and try to hold on until a big corporation buys you out for a profit if you are lucky enough to get some name recognition, otherwise you are confined to secondary markets until the big boys drive you out of business.

Or until the government's regulations that the "big boys" helped write drive you out of business.

There's some truth to that but the lack of regulation would also benefit the big hitters, so what are you suggesting we do? Break them all up and then strip all the regulation?

 

[uscitizen]

These days? Find an untapped niche and try to hold on until a big corporation buys you out for a profit if you are lucky enough to get some name recognition, otherwise you are confined to secondary markets until the big boys drive you out of business.

Or until the government's regulations that the "big boys" helped write drive you out of business.

There's some truth to that but the lack of regulation would also benefit the big hitters, so what are you suggesting we do? Break them all up and then strip all the regulation?

Ahh yes the quandry, breaking them up would require more regulation not less.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

These days? Find an untapped niche and try to hold on until a big corporation buys you out for a profit if you are lucky enough to get some name recognition, otherwise you are confined to secondary markets until the big boys drive you out of business.

Or until the government's regulations that the "big boys" helped write drive you out of business.

There's some truth to that but the lack of regulation would also benefit the big hitters, so what are you suggesting we do? Break them all up and then strip all the regulation?

It would benefit the big corporations, but it would also benefit the little guy as well. Might give them a chance. No, I don't want to see anybody broken up. Some companies are big because they deserve to be big, and breaking them up would just be more tampering with the market.

 

[occupied]

Or until the government's regulations that the "big boys" helped write drive you out of business.

There's some truth to that but the lack of regulation would also benefit the big hitters, so what are you suggesting we do? Break them all up and then strip all the regulation?

It would benefit the big corporations, but it would also benefit the little guy as well. Might give them a chance. No, I don't want to see anybody broken up. Some companies are big because they deserve to be big, and breaking them up would just be more tampering with the market.

Nothing short of drastically shortening the copyright terms of the intellectual property laws would have the effect of making our near immortal monopolies vulnerable to competition. We have been going in the opposite direction for quite some time with both parties willing to extend legal protection for patents far beyond what anyone thinks is prudent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's some truth to that but the lack of regulation would also benefit the big hitters, so what are you suggesting we do? Break them all up and then strip all the regulation?

It would benefit the big corporations, but it would also benefit the little guy as well. Might give them a chance. No, I don't want to see anybody broken up. Some companies are big because they deserve to be big, and breaking them up would just be more tampering with the market.

Nothing short of drastically shortening the copyright terms of the intellectual property laws would have the effect of making our near immortal monopolies vulnerable to competition. We have been going in the opposite direction for quite some time with both parties willing to extend legal protection for patents far beyond what anyone thinks is prudent.

Well I'd certainly be in favor of eliminating intellectual property laws all together.

 

[occupied]

It would benefit the big corporations, but it would also benefit the little guy as well. Might give them a chance. No, I don't want to see anybody broken up. Some companies are big because they deserve to be big, and breaking them up would just be more tampering with the market.

Nothing short of drastically shortening the copyright terms of the intellectual property laws would have the effect of making our near immortal monopolies vulnerable to competition. We have been going in the opposite direction for quite some time with both parties willing to extend legal protection for patents far beyond what anyone thinks is prudent.

Well I'd certainly be in favor of eliminating intellectual property laws all together.

You mean the only hope any small time innovator has of making the big time? We have most of those laws because of Thomas Edison who stole more inventions than he ever came up with himself, no I am suggesting that companies may not hold patents and copyrights for decades as they do now just because they managed to beat the original inventor out of them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nothing short of drastically shortening the copyright terms of the intellectual property laws would have the effect of making our near immortal monopolies vulnerable to competition. We have been going in the opposite direction for quite some time with both parties willing to extend legal protection for patents far beyond what anyone thinks is prudent.

Well I'd certainly be in favor of eliminating intellectual property laws all together.

You mean the only hope any small time innovator has of making the big time? We have most of those laws because of Thomas Edison who stole more inventions than he ever came up with himself, no I am suggesting that companies may not hold patents and copyrights for decades as they do now just because they managed to beat the original inventor out of them.

I'm not interested in allowing any monopolies. Intellectual property makes no sense, and confers a monopoly on an idea. Our economy would be better off if everybody was constantly having to innovate rather than being able to rest on their laurels.

 

[occupied]

Well I'd certainly be in favor of eliminating intellectual property laws all together.

You mean the only hope any small time innovator has of making the big time? We have most of those laws because of Thomas Edison who stole more inventions than he ever came up with himself, no I am suggesting that companies may not hold patents and copyrights for decades as they do now just because they managed to beat the original inventor out of them.

I'm not interested in allowing any monopolies. Intellectual property makes no sense, and confers a monopoly on an idea. Our economy would be better off if everybody was constantly having to innovate rather than being able to rest on their laurels.

We would be back at Edison's invention factory where the best spy network and the biggest pile of capital wins over the small guy every time. The best approach is to reform the copyright laws where they are really ironclad and long term for the actual inventor but not so much for the big company that buys those patents giving the far more common one-shot genius a chance to really profit from his brilliance.

All or nothing approaches rarely work as intended.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You mean the only hope any small time innovator has of making the big time? We have most of those laws because of Thomas Edison who stole more inventions than he ever came up with himself, no I am suggesting that companies may not hold patents and copyrights for decades as they do now just because they managed to beat the original inventor out of them.

I'm not interested in allowing any monopolies. Intellectual property makes no sense, and confers a monopoly on an idea. Our economy would be better off if everybody was constantly having to innovate rather than being able to rest on their laurels.

We would be back at Edison's invention factory where the best spy network and the biggest pile of capital wins over the small guy every time. The best approach is to reform the copyright laws where they are really ironclad and long term for the actual inventor but not so much for the big company that buys those patents giving the far more common one-shot genius a chance to really profit from his brilliance.

All or nothing approaches rarely work as intended.

Artificial government constructs never work at all, and that's exactly what intellectual property laws are.

 

[occupied]

I'm not interested in allowing any monopolies. Intellectual property makes no sense, and confers a monopoly on an idea. Our economy would be better off if everybody was constantly having to innovate rather than being able to rest on their laurels.

We would be back at Edison's invention factory where the best spy network and the biggest pile of capital wins over the small guy every time. The best approach is to reform the copyright laws where they are really ironclad and long term for the actual inventor but not so much for the big company that buys those patents giving the far more common one-shot genius a chance to really profit from his brilliance.

All or nothing approaches rarely work as intended.

Artificial government constructs never work at all, and that's exactly what intellectual property laws are.

Again with an absolute statement? We are kind of arguing the same side here, plans are in the works to make bootleggers equal to terrorists to international law enforcement, wars may be fought in the future to stop unlicensed manufacturers in various third world countries, it may become against the law to possess the 3D printers envisioned for twenty years down the road, things have gone too far in that direction but we must not forget why those laws were passed in the first place, to protect private innovation. They just need to be dialed back to sensible levels and geared to make it possible for anyone with a good idea to confidently market it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We would be back at Edison's invention factory where the best spy network and the biggest pile of capital wins over the small guy every time. The best approach is to reform the copyright laws where they are really ironclad and long term for the actual inventor but not so much for the big company that buys those patents giving the far more common one-shot genius a chance to really profit from his brilliance.

All or nothing approaches rarely work as intended.

Artificial government constructs never work at all, and that's exactly what intellectual property laws are.

Again with an absolute statement? We are kind of arguing the same side here, plans are in the works to make bootleggers equal to terrorists to international law enforcement, wars may be fought in the future to stop unlicensed manufacturers in various third world countries, it may become against the law to possess the 3D printers envisioned for twenty years down the road, things have gone too far in that direction but we must not forget why those laws were passed in the first place, to protect private innovation. They just need to be dialed back to sensible levels and geared to make it possible for anyone with a good idea to confidently market it.

I would merely disagree that they're required to protect private innovation, and that they cause more harm than good.