1. First of all, the DeBeers market share reached an all time high of 80% and then startes decreasing to its current market share of 50%. Anyways, even if a company monopolizes through the use of violence, governments or private defense agencies could help out and besides they're diamonds, they're rare and not very important, so it isnt a big deal.
Let me get this straight. Over the course of this thread you've gone from "monopolies are impossible" to "yes, companies can violently monopolize, but a diamond monopoly isn't a big deal"?
2. If push comes to shove and the discriminated against group can't find anyone that lets the group buy the things the group wants to buy from them,(this being obviously unlikely)...
Jesus Christ, do you not even know what a history book is? This happened. Every single thing that you've said is unlikely or impossible in this thread has actually happened! And not only that, but happened frequently and harmfully enough to be the very reason the laws that you're railing against exist in the first place!
Which have vastly less capital, resources, and skilled labor, and the same old lack-of-competitive-access problem. You are creating a second-class market that has to make do with the leavings of the first market. That's not free-market capitalism. And again, because this is what actually happened, we know for a fact this is how it turns out.
3. If I steal from you to buy you a car,I have still stolen from you.
But the government isn't stealing from you to buy you a car. It's buying your parents a car, with their consent, to be paid for on an installment plan, such that when you inherit the car you have to keep up the payments or else the car gets repossessed.
Besides I'd like to object to your statement that the state benefits me as I would think that the some of the things the state does, the free market could do better,and some of the things the state does is useless or harmful to the economy and the people.
Okay, object away. But "I think this is true" doesn't exactly constitute a dazzling argument in your favor. In any case, even if some other arrangement could theoretically build e.g. the interstate highway system more efficiently than the federal government, that doesn't change the fact that the federal government built the interstate highway system you're actually using. You have to pay for your dinner at the restaurant you're at, even if you think some other restaurant might have prepared it better.
Libertarianism seems to me to be a very american consept. Not the idea of what you want to achieve, but the structure and ideas that goes into libertarianism seems very american.
Libertarianisem has some things they can never solve. Total freedom will never stop climate change for instance. Climate change, if you want to stop it, does requier some regulations.
As a Norwegian from northern europe it just seems like what you want with liberterianism is a big amount of personal fredom. Now in Scandinavia, Norway, Sweeden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland we have a big amount of personal freedom. We have big social mobilaty, something liberterians want, but can not provide through liberterianisemn. If you look at social democracy from scandinavia, it's achievements are closer to the end goal of liberterianisemn then liverternianismn itself has.
Just my thoughts. Bernie Sanders was maybe to strange for America, but if his plans had been implemented (fat chance) the end goals of liberterianisms would be close then if liberterioanisms has won. My honest opinion. Go Social Democracy
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
Libertarianism seems to me to be a very american consept.
No, FYGM, exists in every country. Perhaps you have heard of this refugee crisis in Syria and how people are refusing to let them into their countries because they are "full up."
'TOP DEFINITION
FYGM
variant of FYIGM - (**** You, I Got Mine)
The Republican Party is the FYGM party.'
Is this what you mean by FYGM? I am not used to that acronymn.
When you speak of liberterianisemn (sorry for the spelling) I was thinking of the movement in America. I have heard some interviews with them on some podcasts. I think they are the 3rd or 4th biggest party in USA, stil very small.. Of course liberterianisemn grew out of the ideals comming from the founding fathers. Who again came from the revolutions in Europe, most notably France with the 3 ideas of liberty (blue) equality (white) and fraternity (red).
Maybe you are speaking of something else. I was thinking of the ideas of the spesific libertarian party in USA. Anyway, those particular liberterians wants no regulation, in the aim of getting maximum personal fredom. Well, the Scandinavia and Nordic countries have a wide amount of personal freedom even though we have very steep taxes. I think we are much closer to the liberty ideal, then actual liberterians.
Pleasse enlighten me if we are speaking about different things. I like this consept of personal freedom and how to enable freedom. I like how the movie Blue (1993) by Kieslowski.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
VidarThor, you're on to something, but it's not really that libertarianism is an "American" thing per se. The United States was founded in an era when the discussion of personal rights and how to protect those rights from government overreach was all the rage in political philosophy. We declared independence from the British Empire in response to perceived tyranny -- America can be crudely summed up as the most successful tax revolt in history. So our founding documents are written in a language of inviolable rights and limited government. Libertarianism proper came along a while later, but it grew out of this same philosophical tradition and used this same language. So its ideas may resonate more strongly among Americans than among citizens of many other countries.
That said, the philosophers who inspired the American founders were European, and they were widely read in Europe as well. And libertarianism, which grew out of these philosophers, is likewise just as much a product of Europe as it is America. The particular strain of libertarianism MTGTCG is attempting to defend is called the "Austrian School", for the sensible reason that it was developed and promulgated mostly by Austrians, particularly a man named Ludwig von Mises. But to bring this discussion full circle, von Mises did emigrate to America, and his ideas are certainly more broadly popular in America than they are in Austria.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
'TOP DEFINITION
FYGM
variant of FYIGM - (**** You, I Got Mine)
The Republican Party is the FYGM party.'
Is this what you mean by FYGM? I am not used to that acronymn.
When you speak of liberterianisemn (sorry for the spelling) I was thinking of the movement in America. I have heard some interviews with them on some podcasts. I think they are the 3rd or 4th biggest party in USA, stil very small.. Of course liberterianisemn grew out of the ideals comming from the founding fathers. Who again came from the revolutions in Europe, most notably France with the 3 ideas of liberty (blue) equality (white) and fraternity (red).
Yes, that's what it means but a history lesson is in order here:
It's a myth that the American founding fathers were some kind of small-government loving libertarians. Remember they tried that at first and it was an unmitigated disaster. The Articles of confederation nearly blew up the country and thus they had to come up with a new document. The American constitution is very much a counter-revolution to the small government militia revolt that tricked Britain into withdrawing from America. Power is removed from the squabbling states and back into landed elites. The only one really opposed to this is Thomas Jefferson, and when people say "the founders wanted limited government!" they mean Jefferson. Jefferson was opposed, but people like the title character of the hit musical Hamilton? Alexander Hamilton was all about centralized government.
Also, uh, our revolution came first so France learned it from watching us, but then their revolution was kinda creepy so we wanted nothing to do with it. The cost to aid the American revolution was one of the sticking points of the French Revolution. Also, we gave up a Thomas Paine when we were done with him and he, well... he should have invoked his NMC.
Maybe you are speaking of something else. I was thinking of the ideas of the spesific libertarian party in USA. Anyway, those particular liberterians wants no regulation, in the aim of getting maximum personal fredom. Well, the Scandinavia and Nordic countries have a wide amount of personal freedom even though we have very steep taxes. I think we are much closer to the liberty ideal, then actual liberterians.
Nah, you have plenty of those people in your country too.
Pleasse enlighten me if we are speaking about different things. I like this consept of personal freedom and how to enable freedom. I like how the movie Blue (1993) by Kieslowski.
Of course everyone likes "this concept of personal freedom", who isn't, other than Hydra?
Nah, you have plenty of those people in your country too.
I've found it to be a little different worldwide; most countries appear to be significantly more liberal than the USA, so while USA libertarians are essentially right-wingers that support personal freedoms, other countries might be more likely to have liberals that support some business freedom. Or just anarchists for the sake of anarchy.
they're diamonds, they're rare and not very important, so it isnt a big deal.
Diamonds aren't rare (De Beers creates artificial scarcity thanks to their monopoly), and they're quite important for tools in a number of industries. Many of those tools only need diamond dust, or don't need high-quality diamonds, but the diamond industry is much more important than just expensive jewelry.
What I am more interested in is why people, americans mostly, who want personal freedom are so against soscial democrasy?
Because raising your taxes reduces your freedom to decide how to spend your money, and providing you with state-run services reduces your freedom to shop around for the service you want. Social democracy sure as hell isn't fascism, but it's still unquestionably a relative reduction in personal freedom.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well I guess it depends on how you define freedom. Yes you pay less taxes in America, but I would say for the averadge citisent in USA they have little freedom. One thing I value very higly in a sociaty would be social mobilaty, AKA the abilaty to move socialy from where you are born to where you want to be in life. Also known as the american dream, or a huge part of the american dream. This is easier to achive in Norway because we have big social mobilaty. The other 4 scandinavian/northic countries also also up there with us, so we are not just 'skimming of the oil'. The social democratic model works, supricingly well. But it is very looked down upon in USA, despite both wanting the same end goal. I find this baffeling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
Social mobility is the ability of someone to move between classes (financial, social, etc). European democracies with good social safely nets have a reputation for high social mobility which I'm honestly not in the mood to research the accuracy of right now but which seems reasonable because being poor or sick or both is less of a crippling long term problem in societies with safety nets.
The US is particularly stratified, because as a rule if your parents were rich you'll be rich, and if they were poor, you're ****ed. There's a racial component too, which can be summarized as "if you're white you only have to worry about the financial aspect". I'm not digging for the links right now but my posts in the pre-election Trump topic discussed this as part ofan extended digression on crime, punishment, wealth & racism in the USA which eventually turned out to be relevant because have you looked at Trump's cabinet recently.
If you go digging through my posts and find the ones where most of the page is me and other people talking ***** about white supremacists and how bad they are at interpreting statistics, you're in the correct ballpark of the topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Well I guess it depends on how you define freedom. Yes you pay less taxes in America, but I would say for the averadge citisent in USA they have little freedom. One thing I value very higly in a sociaty would be social mobilaty, AKA the abilaty to move socialy from where you are born to where you want to be in life. Also known as the american dream, or a huge part of the american dream. This is easier to achive in Norway because we have big social mobilaty.
This would not be how Americans, or indeed I think most English speakers, would define "freedom". Not that it's a bad thing, but that's not the word we'd use. There are lots of good things that aren't matters of freedom: peace, GDP per capita, literacy, low crime, etc. Freedom is very simple: how much is the government telling me what I can and can't do?
As for state of the American Dream: it's Silicon Valley, not Silicon Fjord. Just sayin'.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I thought the american dream was the abilaty for every man to have the abilaty to change his fate and become what he wanted. Not being an anarcist.
Edit: To be more precise. Is not the true measure of freedom how much can do? Instead of what your are allowed to do? Being allowed to do something is not the same as being able to do it. Are you not more free if you are able to do something instead of not being able to do it? I would think so.
Well I guess it depends on how you define freedom. Yes you pay less taxes in America, but I would say for the averadge citisent in USA they have little freedom. One thing I value very higly in a sociaty would be social mobilaty, AKA the abilaty to move socialy from where you are born to where you want to be in life. Also known as the american dream, or a huge part of the american dream. This is easier to achive in Norway because we have big social mobilaty. The other 4 scandinavian/northic countries also also up there with us, so we are not just 'skimming of the oil'. The social democratic model works, supricingly well. But it is very looked down upon in USA, despite both wanting the same end goal. I find this baffeling.
Uh, I think "Social Mobility" vs "Who pays more taxes" is kinda an obtuse way of measuring freedom.
Edit: To be more precise. Is not the true measure of freedom how much can do? Instead of what your are allowed to do? Being allowed to do something is not the same as being able to do it. Are you not more free if you are able to do something instead of not being able to do it? I would think so.
A man named Faust made a deal with the Devil. The Devil granted him great power: he was able to do many more things than he could before. But in return, Faust had to do the Devil's bidding. Did this pact make Faust more free, or less?
What you're talking about isn't freedom, it's power. And, notwithstanding my Mephistophelean metaphor, power is not always a bad thing. But a recurring theme in American culture is that giving up freedom for power is a bad trade. Ben Franklin said it outright, in one of the most popular quotations from any of our Founders: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The iconic American farmer would rather struggle to make a living on land he owned outright than mortgage the farm for a more comfortable life beholden to a bank. We take pride in independence and rankle at having to accept handouts. The American Dream at its purest is making it on your own. If you get a leg-up, whether from a rich family or from the government or from a bank, it doesn't count. This is why Obama's 2012 statement that "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that" caused so much white-hot fury, and why Donald Trump tries to portray himself as raising his business empire from almost nothing, downplaying its origins as "a very, very small loan from my father" (of only a million dollars ).
So you can argue until you're blue in the face that the "true" definition of freedom is social democracy, but you'll just be playing word games and missing the real point. No matter what you try to call it, what you're talking about is not the freedom of the American Dream. It's actually the opposite of that.
I am not trying to argue. I am trying to understand liberterianism. And I am trying to figure out why Social Democracy poletics has such a bad reputation in America. I see the resoults of both ideaolagies and one works and the other one i not putting up the results it once did.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
It seems like you are mincing my words MTGTCG. Your article is refering to the difference between democratic socialism and social democratic as they are two different things. That seems like a low blow. And the article keep talking in circles, and it is not always correct. I am in fact a bit source critical to fee.org after reading it, but that is not here nor there.
It also seems like poeple keep talking about liberterianism as a consept, and the political party liberterianism. I thought this thread was discussing the later, but I seem wrong.
Blinking Spirit I do not think I mistake freedom with power. In america it does not matter that you can get an edication and have a 'class journey' if you do not have posabilaty to do so. Currently that it something very few have. You went as far as to make the metafor with faust, but that just seems unrealistic. If anything, what you seem to be saying is that a liberterians favoret senario would be to be stuck in an island without anything like robinson cruso. Except without the native people. To me that sounds like crazy talk, you would not have any of the benefits of sociaty.
I am sorry, I do not think I will ever understand the mindsett of liberterniaism (as the political party, not the consept of personal fredom.)
The closest I can wrap my brain around this is conseptual art where the method is more important then the result. In this instance insisting on taking an extreme consept to it's fullest, no matter the resoult. However, if what they where interested in was a resoult of personal freedom I think social democratic would be the way to. Can't argue with the resoults.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
One way to explain it is that libertarians are opposed to the government being above the law in the following ways: taxation- if a business or an individual were to partake in the forceful redistribution of money to the cause the he thought was worthy of it, he would be considered a thief, war- war is mass murder and conscription is slavery, why do we tolerate the government doing this and are fine with the government being above the law? I don't know.
Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...
Jesus Christ, do you not even know what a history book is? This happened. Every single thing that you've said is unlikely or impossible in this thread has actually happened! And not only that, but happened frequently and harmfully enough to be the very reason the laws that you're railing against exist in the first place!
Which have vastly less capital, resources, and skilled labor, and the same old lack-of-competitive-access problem. You are creating a second-class market that has to make do with the leavings of the first market. That's not free-market capitalism. And again, because this is what actually happened, we know for a fact this is how it turns out.
But the government isn't stealing from you to buy you a car. It's buying your parents a car, with their consent, to be paid for on an installment plan, such that when you inherit the car you have to keep up the payments or else the car gets repossessed.
Okay, object away. But "I think this is true" doesn't exactly constitute a dazzling argument in your favor. In any case, even if some other arrangement could theoretically build e.g. the interstate highway system more efficiently than the federal government, that doesn't change the fact that the federal government built the interstate highway system you're actually using. You have to pay for your dinner at the restaurant you're at, even if you think some other restaurant might have prepared it better.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Libertarianisem has some things they can never solve. Total freedom will never stop climate change for instance. Climate change, if you want to stop it, does requier some regulations.
As a Norwegian from northern europe it just seems like what you want with liberterianism is a big amount of personal fredom. Now in Scandinavia, Norway, Sweeden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland we have a big amount of personal freedom. We have big social mobilaty, something liberterians want, but can not provide through liberterianisemn. If you look at social democracy from scandinavia, it's achievements are closer to the end goal of liberterianisemn then liverternianismn itself has.
Just my thoughts. Bernie Sanders was maybe to strange for America, but if his plans had been implemented (fat chance) the end goals of liberterianisms would be close then if liberterioanisms has won. My honest opinion. Go Social Democracy
FYGM
variant of FYIGM - (**** You, I Got Mine)
The Republican Party is the FYGM party.'
Is this what you mean by FYGM? I am not used to that acronymn.
When you speak of liberterianisemn (sorry for the spelling) I was thinking of the movement in America. I have heard some interviews with them on some podcasts. I think they are the 3rd or 4th biggest party in USA, stil very small.. Of course liberterianisemn grew out of the ideals comming from the founding fathers. Who again came from the revolutions in Europe, most notably France with the 3 ideas of liberty (blue) equality (white) and fraternity (red).
Maybe you are speaking of something else. I was thinking of the ideas of the spesific libertarian party in USA. Anyway, those particular liberterians wants no regulation, in the aim of getting maximum personal fredom. Well, the Scandinavia and Nordic countries have a wide amount of personal freedom even though we have very steep taxes. I think we are much closer to the liberty ideal, then actual liberterians.
Pleasse enlighten me if we are speaking about different things. I like this consept of personal freedom and how to enable freedom. I like how the movie Blue (1993) by Kieslowski.
That said, the philosophers who inspired the American founders were European, and they were widely read in Europe as well. And libertarianism, which grew out of these philosophers, is likewise just as much a product of Europe as it is America. The particular strain of libertarianism MTGTCG is attempting to defend is called the "Austrian School", for the sensible reason that it was developed and promulgated mostly by Austrians, particularly a man named Ludwig von Mises. But to bring this discussion full circle, von Mises did emigrate to America, and his ideas are certainly more broadly popular in America than they are in Austria.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, that's what it means but a history lesson is in order here:
It's a myth that the American founding fathers were some kind of small-government loving libertarians. Remember they tried that at first and it was an unmitigated disaster. The Articles of confederation nearly blew up the country and thus they had to come up with a new document. The American constitution is very much a counter-revolution to the small government militia revolt that tricked Britain into withdrawing from America. Power is removed from the squabbling states and back into landed elites. The only one really opposed to this is Thomas Jefferson, and when people say "the founders wanted limited government!" they mean Jefferson. Jefferson was opposed, but people like the title character of the hit musical Hamilton? Alexander Hamilton was all about centralized government.
Also, uh, our revolution came first so France learned it from watching us, but then their revolution was kinda creepy so we wanted nothing to do with it. The cost to aid the American revolution was one of the sticking points of the French Revolution. Also, we gave up a Thomas Paine when we were done with him and he, well... he should have invoked his NMC.
Nah, you have plenty of those people in your country too.
Of course everyone likes "this concept of personal freedom", who isn't, other than Hydra?
I've found it to be a little different worldwide; most countries appear to be significantly more liberal than the USA, so while USA libertarians are essentially right-wingers that support personal freedoms, other countries might be more likely to have liberals that support some business freedom. Or just anarchists for the sake of anarchy.
Because as soon as anyone even sneezes in a way that sounds like "socialism", the Red Scare shows up again.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In Norway I have complete fredom. I do not understand how USA can stand being so restricted. Particularly when they want liberterianism.
How do we have less freedom in the US than Norway?
The US is particularly stratified, because as a rule if your parents were rich you'll be rich, and if they were poor, you're ****ed. There's a racial component too, which can be summarized as "if you're white you only have to worry about the financial aspect". I'm not digging for the links right now but my posts in the pre-election Trump topic discussed this as part ofan extended digression on crime, punishment, wealth & racism in the USA which eventually turned out to be relevant because have you looked at Trump's cabinet recently.
If you go digging through my posts and find the ones where most of the page is me and other people talking ***** about white supremacists and how bad they are at interpreting statistics, you're in the correct ballpark of the topic.
Art is life itself.
As for state of the American Dream: it's Silicon Valley, not Silicon Fjord. Just sayin'.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Edit: To be more precise. Is not the true measure of freedom how much can do? Instead of what your are allowed to do? Being allowed to do something is not the same as being able to do it. Are you not more free if you are able to do something instead of not being able to do it? I would think so.
Uh, I think "Social Mobility" vs "Who pays more taxes" is kinda an obtuse way of measuring freedom.
What you're talking about isn't freedom, it's power. And, notwithstanding my Mephistophelean metaphor, power is not always a bad thing. But a recurring theme in American culture is that giving up freedom for power is a bad trade. Ben Franklin said it outright, in one of the most popular quotations from any of our Founders: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The iconic American farmer would rather struggle to make a living on land he owned outright than mortgage the farm for a more comfortable life beholden to a bank. We take pride in independence and rankle at having to accept handouts. The American Dream at its purest is making it on your own. If you get a leg-up, whether from a rich family or from the government or from a bank, it doesn't count. This is why Obama's 2012 statement that "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that" caused so much white-hot fury, and why Donald Trump tries to portray himself as raising his business empire from almost nothing, downplaying its origins as "a very, very small loan from my father" (of only a million dollars
So you can argue until you're blue in the face that the "true" definition of freedom is social democracy, but you'll just be playing word games and missing the real point. No matter what you try to call it, what you're talking about is not the freedom of the American Dream. It's actually the opposite of that.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
2. The so called Scandinavian democratic socialism isn't socialism, the countries pursue a system of somewhat free-market capitalism with a welfare state. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
It also seems like poeple keep talking about liberterianism as a consept, and the political party liberterianism. I thought this thread was discussing the later, but I seem wrong.
Blinking Spirit I do not think I mistake freedom with power. In america it does not matter that you can get an edication and have a 'class journey' if you do not have posabilaty to do so. Currently that it something very few have. You went as far as to make the metafor with faust, but that just seems unrealistic. If anything, what you seem to be saying is that a liberterians favoret senario would be to be stuck in an island without anything like robinson cruso. Except without the native people. To me that sounds like crazy talk, you would not have any of the benefits of sociaty.
I feel like this tedtalk sumarice a lot of my problems I have with american liberterianism. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU
The closest I can wrap my brain around this is conseptual art where the method is more important then the result. In this instance insisting on taking an extreme consept to it's fullest, no matter the resoult. However, if what they where interested in was a resoult of personal freedom I think social democratic would be the way to. Can't argue with the resoults.
Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...