What is a libertarian?

[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

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

You know what, you're right.

Deadwood was just a failure from the Wild West days.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

This is not only a display of ignorance regarding libertarianism, but of anarchism as well.

 

[LibertyForAll]

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.

I am not spinning in a different direction. My questions illustrate the absolute absurdity of a "NeoLibertarian". It's an impossible state of mind without doublethink. I will say with certainty that if you want to police the world and practice imperialism then you are not a libertarian of any shape, sort or size. PERIOD.

 

[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.

This is an honest question. How could a monopoly be maintained in the real world without government supporting it?

Oh, I dunno. How about forming a CARTEL where you set your prices just to the point where the next marginal producer of said alternative cannot profitable produce?

 

[SniperFire]

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.

I am not spinning in a different direction. My questions illustrate the absolute absurdity of a "NeoLibertarian". It's an impossible state of mind without doublethink. I will say with certainty that if you want to police the world and practice imperialism

A neolibertarian does not think promoting democracy throughout the world is 'imperialism.'

One thing about you guys is that you are all totalitarians, even when you don't agree amongst yourselves.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

This is not only a display of ignorance regarding libertarianism, but of anarchism as well.

Anarchy is the natural state of 'libertariansim'. See: Deadwood

 

[LibertyForAll]

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?

Oh, I dunno. How about forming a CARTEL where you set your prices just to the point where the next marginal producer of said alternative cannot profitable produce?

If they are artificially lowering their prices to get rid of competition then once the competition is gone they will have to raise their prices or go broke. Once they raise their prices they open the door for competition to come back in.

 

[SniperFire]

This is an honest question. How could a monopoly be maintained in the real world without government supporting it?

Oh, I dunno. How about forming a CARTEL where you set your prices just to the point where the next marginal producer of said alternative cannot profitable produce?

If they are artificially lowering their prices to get rid of competition then once the competition is gone they will have to raise their prices or go broke.

Foolish.

What if said alternative has several times production cost disadvantage, and the CARTEL can produce it's products for a tiny FRACTION of the alternative product?

Or what is economies of scale of said CARTEL keep it cost prohibitive for new entries into the marketplace?

Have you thought any of this out, or are you reading from 'Dumbass Libertainan Theory Guide' tonight?

 

[SniperFire]

Did you ever take an economics class, Liberty?

 

[LibertyForAll]

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

I am not spinning in a different direction. My questions illustrate the absolute absurdity of a "NeoLibertarian". It's an impossible state of mind without doublethink. I will say with certainty that if you want to police the world and practice imperialism

A neolibertarian does not think promoting democracy throughout the world is 'imperialism.'

One thing about you guys is that you are all totalitarians, even when you don't agree amongst yourselves.

Here we go again....


Libertarians want to ensure equal rights for all and in so doing would impose laws that would limit the ability of the majority to impose it's will on the minority and this is wrong because it;s their god given right because who cares about individual rights when you have the numbers right? Do I have your argument right?

I think Einstein had you in mind when he came up with his definition of insanity.

 

[SniperFire]

I am not spinning in a different direction. My questions illustrate the absolute absurdity of a "NeoLibertarian". It's an impossible state of mind without doublethink. I will say with certainty that if you want to police the world and practice imperialism

A neolibertarian does not think promoting democracy throughout the world is 'imperialism.'

One thing about you guys is that you are all totalitarians, even when you don't agree amongst yourselves.

Here we go again....


Libertarians want to ensure equal rights for all and in so doing would impose laws that would limit the ability of the majority to impose it's will on the minority and this is wrong because it;s their god given right because who cares about individual rights when you have the numbers right? Do I have your argument right?

I think Einstein had you in mind when he came up with his definition of insanity.

You are babbling and spinning off on a tangent once again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes it is.

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

Anarchist hack.

This is not only a display of ignorance regarding libertarianism, but of anarchism as well.

Anarchy is the natural state of 'libertariansim'. See: Deadwood

Which shows that you, like Marc, have little to no grasp of either libertarianism or anarchism.

 

[MarcATL]

The government is THE only entity that can enforce laws, regulations and the like.

The people cannot.

You dumb RW schmuck!

Lemme guess, you're gonna say "Corporations are people," right?


lol

 

[LibertyForAll]

Oh, I dunno. How about forming a CARTEL where you set your prices just to the point where the next marginal producer of said alternative cannot profitable produce?

If they are artificially lowering their prices to get rid of competition then once the competition is gone they will have to raise their prices or go broke.

Foolish.

What if said alternative has several times production cost disadvantage, and the CARTEL can produce it's products for a tiny FRACTION of the alternative product?

Or what is economies of scale of said CARTEL keep it cost prohibitive for new entries into the marketplace?

Have you thought any of this out, or are you reading from 'Dumbass Libertainan Theory Guide' tonight?

I fail to see the problem if the consumer is getting a fair price, business is a competition. If the monopoly exerts unfair pressure on a commodity that is necessary for life then I can see a problem. Like air, water or food. Otherwise don't buy it if you don't like the price or the company.

I am not an economist and like I said it was an honest question. I don't know everything there is to know on this earth and I like discussing things to broaden my knowledge. I am merely laying out my logic and you are free to discuss where you think I am wrong. I will read what you say and evaluate it and I may change my mind if you make sense. I even sometimes learn from those who call me names for no reason.

 

[SniperFire]

This is not only a display of ignorance regarding libertarianism, but of anarchism as well.

Anarchy is the natural state of 'libertariansim'. See: Deadwood

Which shows that you, like Marc, have little to no grasp of either libertarianism or anarchism.

Both are mindless, impractical and non-functioning theories on government, both existing only in an idyllic bubble of mental mastrubation - far from the vagrancies of human nature which render both absurdly unworkable from the first day they are put in place.

 

[SniperFire]

If they are artificially lowering their prices to get rid of competition then once the competition is gone they will have to raise their prices or go broke.

Foolish.

What if said alternative has several times production cost disadvantage, and the CARTEL can produce it's products for a tiny FRACTION of the alternative product?

Or what is economies of scale of said CARTEL keep it cost prohibitive for new entries into the marketplace?

Have you thought any of this out, or are you reading from 'Dumbass Libertainan Theory Guide' tonight?

I fail to see the problem if the consumer is getting a fair price, business is a competition. If the monopoly exerts unfair pressure on a commodity that is necessary for life then I can see a problem. Like air, water or food. Otherwise don't buy it if you don't like the price or the company.

I am not an economist and like I said it was an honest question. I don't know everything there is to know on this earth and I like discussing things to broaden my knowledge. I am merely laying out my logic and you are free to discuss where you think I am wrong. I will read what you say and evaluate it and I may change my mind if you make sense. I even sometimes learn from those who call me names for no reason.

You don't know shit.

 

[LibertyForAll]

A neolibertarian does not think promoting democracy throughout the world is 'imperialism.'

One thing about you guys is that you are all totalitarians, even when you don't agree amongst yourselves.

Here we go again....


Libertarians want to ensure equal rights for all and in so doing would impose laws that would limit the ability of the majority to impose it's will on the minority and this is wrong because it;s their god given right because who cares about individual rights when you have the numbers right? Do I have your argument right?

I think Einstein had you in mind when he came up with his definition of insanity.

You are babbling and spinning off on a tangent once again.

actually no that's your argument. Libertarians are totalitarians because they would prevent people from passing a law that would create universal healthcare even if the majority wanted it. Nevermind that it's a violation of the constitution that's irrelevant because the people want it. This is why you are a progressive.

 

[LibertyForAll]

The government is THE only entity that can enforce laws, regulations and the like.

The people cannot.

You dumb RW schmuck!

Lemme guess, you're gonna say "Corporations are people," right?


lol

Actually I think governments are people.

 

[LibertyForAll]

foolish.

What if said alternative has several times production cost disadvantage, and the cartel can produce it's products for a tiny fraction of the alternative product?

Or what is economies of scale of said cartel keep it cost prohibitive for new entries into the marketplace?

Have you thought any of this out, or are you reading from 'dumbass libertainan theory guide' tonight?

i fail to see the problem if the consumer is getting a fair price, business is a competition. If the monopoly exerts unfair pressure on a commodity that is necessary for life then i can see a problem. Like air, water or food. Otherwise don't buy it if you don't like the price or the company.

I am not an economist and like i said it was an honest question. I don't know everything there is to know on this earth and i like discussing things to broaden my knowledge. I am merely laying out my logic and you are free to discuss where you think i am wrong. I will read what you say and evaluate it and i may change my mind if you make sense. I even sometimes learn from those who call me names for no reason.

you don't know shit.

no u!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MarcATL]

The government is THE only entity that can enforce laws, regulations and the like.

The people cannot.

You dumb RW schmuck!

Lemme guess, you're gonna say "Corporations are people," right?


lol

Actually I think governments are people.

So you think governments AND corporations are people?

Do I have that right?