The three main goals of libertarianism

[kaz]

Well, not for nothing, kaz, but your'e the first libertarian leaning fellow I've heard who voted for Romney. I think dblack understands the differences between state and federal policy. I agree that Romney would NOT have repealed Obama Tax if he managed to get elected.

That's really not a democrat party talking point that I know of...

I voted from Romney and I regret it. I should have voted for Johnson.

I voted Johnson, without regret.

And as government continues to take over our healthcare system, you're going to start to regret it. As I've pointed out, that is fundamentally different than other programs other than Social Security/Medicare as it makes EVERY citizen dependent on government for their basic needs.

I'm tired of this argument though, had enough of them in the last election. Libertarians way too often see what they want to. Sadly the inability to tell the party that is useless and pathetic from the one that is a malignant cancer on our liberty just seems to go with that.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's gotta be the most absurd post of the day. So this company "kills" the competition by running at a loss "for as long as it takes" to kill the competition?

Can you provide an example of this that is absolutely free of any govt. involvement?

Wait..what?

That's pretty much what they do..with the exception of "taking" a loss.

One way or another..it comes out in the wash.

And your "government involvement" is pretty cynical. One a company gets big enough, with enough money..that company gets the government involved.

Provide an example where this is "pretty much what they do".

I'll help him out...

Microsoft giving away web browsers to kill browser competition. Microsoft giving away utilities, such as anti-virus software, to kill utilities companies. Corporations, such as Microsoft, IBM, GE, etc. overpaying to buy up competing corporations to remove competitive market pressure from their larger suites of more expensive products.

 

[RKMBrown]

I voted from Romney and I regret it. I should have voted for Johnson.

I voted Johnson, without regret.

And as government continues to take over our healthcare system, you're going to start to regret it. As I've pointed out, that is fundamentally different than other programs other than Social Security/Medicare as it makes EVERY citizen dependent on government for their basic needs.

I'm tired of this argument though, had enough of them in the last election. Libertarians way too often see what they want to. Sadly the inability to tell the party that is useless and pathetic from the one that is a malignant cancer on our liberty just seems to go with that.

No I wont. I don't think of time in 4year increments I think of time in lifetime increments. You want my vote? Easy fix, put up a constitutional conservative and you will have my vote. Keep putting up bigoted 70year old candidates who believe in compassionate conservatism aka socialist style authoritarian war hawk religious right conservatism. and you will never get my vote. Never, I have principles that I won't cross. So there it is, you have a choice, possibly win an election by putting up socialists like Cristie, or possibly win an election by putting up a constitutional conservative like Johnson, Reagan, Rubio, Rand Paul, etc.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wait..what?

That's pretty much what they do..with the exception of "taking" a loss.

One way or another..it comes out in the wash.

And your "government involvement" is pretty cynical. One a company gets big enough, with enough money..that company gets the government involved.

Provide an example where this is "pretty much what they do".

I'll help him out...

Microsoft giving away web browsers to kill browser competition. Microsoft giving away utilities, such as anti-virus software, to kill utilities companies. Corporations, such as Microsoft, IBM, GE, etc. overpaying to buy up competing corporations to remove competitive market pressure from their larger suites of more expensive products.

Well, microsoft web browser give outs didn't work at all. Thats a fairly benign example of "runnign at a loss for however long it takes to kill competition". They still have plenty of comeptition in browsers. I prefer google chrome. Which is also free. Or firefox, another free browser.

Same applies for utilities such as antivirus. There are tons of free and paid anti-virus protection and Microsoft isnt winning any competitors out by doing this.

Buying competing corps is absolutely not an example of killing the competition. No one is forcing the other corp. to sell out to the highest bidder. Thats a voluntary contract, it's not killing them out by lowering costs for as long as it takes running at a loss.

 

[JoeNormal]

I think large corporations have tools at their disposal that you might not have considered. Large corporations can undercut the competition for as long as it takes to drive the competition out of business even if it means selling at a loss. Japanese corporations were doing it to us in the 80's.

Joe, I hope you are normal and understand that REPUTATION is an asset.

So give me an example of a company that engaged in that type of behavior.

.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

I was starting to think that I had imagined putting this in a post but nope, there it is. And this is exactly what happened in the 80's. They sold at a loss until there was no competition left. It happened in other areas of microelectronics too.

 

[RKMBrown]

Provide an example where this is "pretty much what they do".

I'll help him out...

Microsoft giving away web browsers to kill browser competition. Microsoft giving away utilities, such as anti-virus software, to kill utilities companies. Corporations, such as Microsoft, IBM, GE, etc. overpaying to buy up competing corporations to remove competitive market pressure from their larger suites of more expensive products.

Well, microsoft web browser give outs didn't work at all. Thats a fairly benign example of "runnign at a loss for however long it takes to kill competition". They still have plenty of comeptition in browsers. I prefer google chrome. Which is also free. Or firefox, another free browser.

Same applies for utilities such as antivirus. There are tons of free and paid anti-virus protection and Microsoft isnt winning any competitors out by doing this.

Buying competing corps is absolutely not an example of killing the competition. No one is forcing the other corp. to sell out to the highest bidder. Thats a voluntary contract, it's not killing them out by lowering costs for as long as it takes running at a loss.

I see your perspective. But oddly your perspective appears to switch back and forth as needed to support your argument.

For example, in the case of Netscape, you call forever killing the sales of browsers benign because as the consumer you get it for free. But you fail to recognize the damage caused to Microsoft's competitors who were run out of business. Benign? Microsoft using their monopoly on OSes to selling a new version of an OS that includes a web browser to compete with a new technology is benign? Here you appear to make the argument from the POV of the consumer, certainly not the POV of the company that created the market for web browsing that Microsoft ran out of business with their OS monopoly.

As per utilities, you may not be aware of just how many companies Microsoft ran out of business by utilizing their monopoly on OSes to include their competitor's product in the OS to sell updated versions of the OS.

>> Buying competing corps is absolutely not an example of killing the competition.
Now you appear to switch from the perspective of the consumer and the competition to the perspective of the company that sold out. Again, in this case you are ignoring the perspective of the competitors that remain. Again, you are ignoring the monopolies that the larger corporations have over the sales of product. If a large company is competing with 9 other companies for a future market where the large company starts out with 10% share and buys out the top 3 competitors who previously held say 80 share, the bottom seven companies are left fighting for scraps of the 10% remaining share as the consumer looses all choice in the purchase. As the consumer moves to the new market they are left with little choice but to give their money to the monopoly. If the smaller companies do not sell the larger company will just buy out the two other companies and all of the smaller ones and still end up with a monopoly on the future market.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I think large corporations have tools at their disposal that you might not have considered. Large corporations can undercut the competition for as long as it takes to drive the competition out of business even if it means selling at a loss. Japanese corporations were doing it to us in the 80's.

Joe, I hope you are normal and understand that REPUTATION is an asset.

So give me an example of a company that engaged in that type of behavior.

.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

Joe, I hope you are normal and understand that REPUTATION is an asset.

So give me an example of a company that engaged in that type of behavior.

.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

"Undercut"? You mean providing a product at a fraction of the cost than competitors? That's not undercutting anyone, it's competition. FAIL.

Monsanto has these patents through govt. favoritism. FAIL.

And the East India Company was a govt. sanctioned corporation. Double fail.

Joe, I hope you are normal and understand that REPUTATION is an asset.

So give me an example of a company that engaged in that type of behavior.

.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

I was starting to think that I had imagined putting this in a post but nope, there it is. And this is exactly what happened in the 80's. They sold at a loss until there was no competition left.

OMG!! You mean the Japanese were more competitive in making things like flat screen TVs so they out performed the competition!!??? CALL THE FUCKIN' PRESS!

That's how competition works, Joe.

 

[RKMBrown]

Joe, I hope you are normal and understand that REPUTATION is an asset.

So give me an example of a company that engaged in that type of behavior.

.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

I was starting to think that I had imagined putting this in a post but nope, there it is. And this is exactly what happened in the 80's. They sold at a loss until there was no competition left. It happened in other areas of microelectronics too.

Ayup.. samsung is famous for chip dumping.

 

[RKMBrown]

Joe, I hope you are normal and understand that REPUTATION is an asset.

So give me an example of a company that engaged in that type of behavior.

.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

I was starting to think that I had imagined putting this in a post but nope, there it is. And this is exactly what happened in the 80's. They sold at a loss until there was no competition left.

OMG!! You mean the Japanese were more competitive in making things like flat screen TVs so they out performed the competition!!??? CALL THE FUCKIN' PRESS!

That's how competition works, Joe.

I assumed by your earlier post regarding government intervention, that you knew the Japanese government used government funds (borrowed from us) to help their electronics industry monopolize markets. Now I see this post, and wonder what you meant before.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'll help him out...

Microsoft giving away web browsers to kill browser competition. Microsoft giving away utilities, such as anti-virus software, to kill utilities companies. Corporations, such as Microsoft, IBM, GE, etc. overpaying to buy up competing corporations to remove competitive market pressure from their larger suites of more expensive products.

Well, microsoft web browser give outs didn't work at all. Thats a fairly benign example of "runnign at a loss for however long it takes to kill competition". They still have plenty of comeptition in browsers. I prefer google chrome. Which is also free. Or firefox, another free browser.

Same applies for utilities such as antivirus. There are tons of free and paid anti-virus protection and Microsoft isnt winning any competitors out by doing this.

Buying competing corps is absolutely not an example of killing the competition. No one is forcing the other corp. to sell out to the highest bidder. Thats a voluntary contract, it's not killing them out by lowering costs for as long as it takes running at a loss.

I see your perspective. But oddly your perspective appears to switch back and forth as needed to support your argument.

For example, in the case of Netscape, you call forever killing the sales of browsers benign because as the consumer you get it for free. But you fail to recognize the damage caused to Microsoft's competitors who were run out of business. Benign? Microsoft using their monopoly on OSes to selling a new version of an OS that includes a web browser to compete with a new technology is benign? Here you appear to make the argument from the POV of the consumer, certainly not the POV of the company that created the market for web browsing that Microsoft ran out of business with their OS monopoly.

As per utilities, you may not be aware of just how many companies Microsoft ran out of business by utilizing their monopoly on OSes to include their competitor's product in the OS to sell updated versions of the OS.

>> Buying competing corps is absolutely not an example of killing the competition.
Now you appear to switch from the perspective of the consumer and the competition to the perspective of the company that sold out. Again, in this case you are ignoring the perspective of the competitors that remain. Again, you are ignoring the monopolies that the larger corporations have over the sales of product. If a large company is competing with 9 other companies for a future market where the large company starts out with 10% share and buys out the top 3 competitors who previously held say 80 share, the bottom seven companies are left fighting for scraps of the 10% remaining share as the consumer looses all choice in the purchase. As the consumer moves to the new market they are left with little choice but to give their money to the monopoly. If the smaller companies do not sell the larger company will just buy out the two other companies and all of the smaller ones and still end up with a monopoly on the future market.

That's how competition works. if the other browser companies had more going for them than the browser, or if their browser was so good, they would have stayed competitive.

As for the other "example", it's not "killing" compeition for the compeition to sell out. Thats a voluntary contract. In your example, the reminaing 6 companies better start working on adding value to their product to win consumers over.

its' the same thing right now with phones such as android vs. Iphone. only it isnt down to two. Those are just the top competitors.

EDIT TO ADD: There is also nothing stopping new developers from entering the sector to compete. So while our fictitious Microsoft is now in the lead of competitors, there is nothing stopping that from changing with the entrance of new developers to expand the market, or come up with something that will lead Microsoft to lose consumers, or perhaps even a host of them. Competition keeps monopolies in check far better than any government that actually fosters them. The government itself is a monopoly.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

I was starting to think that I had imagined putting this in a post but nope, there it is. And this is exactly what happened in the 80's. They sold at a loss until there was no competition left.

OMG!! You mean the Japanese were more competitive in making things like flat screen TVs so they out performed the competition!!??? CALL THE FUCKIN' PRESS!

That's how competition works, Joe.

I assumed by your earlier post regarding government intervention, that you knew the Japanese government used government funds (borrowed from us) to help their electronics industry monopolize markets. Now I see this post, and wonder what you meant before.

OK, so it's a double loser for Joe.

 

[JoeNormal]

Joe, I hope you are normal and understand that REPUTATION is an asset.

So give me an example of a company that engaged in that type of behavior.

.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

I was starting to think that I had imagined putting this in a post but nope, there it is. And this is exactly what happened in the 80's. They sold at a loss until there was no competition left.

OMG!! You mean the Japanese were more competitive in making things like flat screen TVs so they out performed the competition!!??? CALL THE FUCKIN' PRESS!

That's how competition works, Joe.

Holy ******* shit, you cannot possibly be as goddamned stupid as you come across.

Note to people who want Libertarianism to take hold:

I was at one time enough of a libertarian to stiffle my gag reflex for long enough to register as a repulican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Didn't seem to help. It's not that Paul's platform had no holes in it but I thought that a man of integrity pulling in the opposite direction of where we were headed seemed like a good thing at the time.

Since then, I've met what appears to be the Libertarian mainstream both in person and on web sites such as this. The level of pure fantasy and willful ignorance to the real threats that large entities such as multinational corporations pose makes it clear that I'm not really a Libertarian.

If you want to see your movement progress beyond a footnote in history, you should fix that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you've completely lost your argument and now resort to bashing libertarianism?

You turds are too predictable.

Had you made a proper argument over the Eeeevvviiiiillllll corporations taking over the world, you might not have to resort to being a loser AND a shit stain. Better luck on those examples next time, Job.

 

[JoeNormal]

So you've completely lost your argument and now resort to bashing libertarianism?

You turds are too predictable.

Had you made a proper argument over the Eeeevvviiiiillllll corporations taking over the world, you might not have to resort to being a loser AND a shit stain. Better luck on those examples next time, Job.

Your Libertarian compatriots probably wish you'd just STFU before you lose them any more potential converts.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You just want me to shut up because I scrubbed the floor with your false notions of reality. Better luck next time, Job.

 

[JoeNormal]

You just want me to shut up because I scrubbed the floor with your false notions of reality. Better luck next time, Job.

Wow, yeah you really gave me a shellacking and you have the emoticon to prove it.

 

[Contumacious]

.

Since then, I've met what appears to be the Libertarian mainstream both in person and on web sites such as this. The level of pure fantasy and willful ignorance to the real threats that large entities such as multinational corporations pose makes it clear that I'm not really a Libertarian.

If you want to see your movement progress beyond a footnote in history, you should fix that.

The Libertarian Party may never win an election and that is too bad. The ONLY thing they market is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

But if you have parasitic tendencies and believes that government owes you a living then we can not help.

If you believe that government should dictate to companies and force them to pay their employees a certain amount or sell for a centrally designated price then stay where you are.

.

 

[kaz]

I voted Johnson, without regret.

And as government continues to take over our healthcare system, you're going to start to regret it. As I've pointed out, that is fundamentally different than other programs other than Social Security/Medicare as it makes EVERY citizen dependent on government for their basic needs.

I'm tired of this argument though, had enough of them in the last election. Libertarians way too often see what they want to. Sadly the inability to tell the party that is useless and pathetic from the one that is a malignant cancer on our liberty just seems to go with that.

No I wont. I don't think of time in 4year increments I think of time in lifetime increments. You want my vote? Easy fix, put up a constitutional conservative and you will have my vote. Keep putting up bigoted 70year old candidates who believe in compassionate conservatism aka socialist style authoritarian war hawk religious right conservatism. and you will never get my vote. Never, I have principles that I won't cross. So there it is, you have a choice, possibly win an election by putting up socialists like Cristie, or possibly win an election by putting up a constitutional conservative like Johnson, Reagan, Rubio, Rand Paul, etc.

Anyway, the election is over and I'm sure we're both tired of this argument. So let's let it go. No disrespect intended at all in that, and I look forward to continue to posting with you, most often on the same side.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sorry, misread your post. Flatscreen technology was invented in the USA but Japanese manufacturers undercut us for long enough to drive US companies out of business. Last I heard, there were no US TV manufacturers left.

Then there's Monsanto. They're creating whole new ecological systems with a combination of GMO's and herbicides. It's not inconceivable that they'll have a monopoly on the food supply at some point.

I was starting to think that I had imagined putting this in a post but nope, there it is. And this is exactly what happened in the 80's. They sold at a loss until there was no competition left.

OMG!! You mean the Japanese were more competitive in making things like flat screen TVs so they out performed the competition!!??? CALL THE FUCKIN' PRESS!

That's how competition works, Joe.

Holy ******* shit, you cannot possibly be as goddamned stupid as you come across.

Note to people who want Libertarianism to take hold:

I was at one time enough of a libertarian to stiffle my gag reflex for long enough to register as a repulican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Didn't seem to help. It's not that Paul's platform had no holes in it but I thought that a man of integrity pulling in the opposite direction of where we were headed seemed like a good thing at the time.

Since then, I've met what appears to be the Libertarian mainstream both in person and on web sites such as this. The level of pure fantasy and willful ignorance to the real threats that large entities such as multinational corporations pose makes it clear that I'm not really a Libertarian.

If you want to see your movement progress beyond a footnote in history, you should fix that.

Please explain how you propose we manage everything that everyone says that is contrary to reasoned thought. Should we start with your rage post, or with the response that threw you into a rage?

 

[JoeNormal]

.

Since then, I've met what appears to be the Libertarian mainstream both in person and on web sites such as this. The level of pure fantasy and willful ignorance to the real threats that large entities such as multinational corporations pose makes it clear that I'm not really a Libertarian.

If you want to see your movement progress beyond a footnote in history, you should fix that.

The Libertarian Party may never win an election and that is too bad. The ONLY thing they market is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

But if you have parasitic tendencies and believes that government owes you a living then we can not help.

If you believe that government should dictate to companies and force them to pay their employees a certain amount or sell for a centrally designated price then stay where you are.

.

Here's a little bit about me. I've been gainfully employed for 36 years - 25 as a professional. In that time, I've collected a grand total of 2 weeks of unemployment, zero social security and I've leaned on the system in terms of benefits for my kids very gently. I'm for military non-intervention and resent corporate welfare and sustained handouts for society's leaches. You'd think I'd be prime Libertarian material, wouldn't you?

I just see a gaping hole in Libertarian ideology and unless all that talk about personal liberty is just wishful thinking or "if only...", I think the movement could gain some traction if a few things were addressed in a realistic way.