It's also worth mentioning that the monopoly company is able to do things like force customers into long-term contracts, with stiff penalties for attempting to break contract to try out the doomed upstart competitor. If it would cost more to switch your phone plan from Monolith Telecom to Upstart Wireless than it would to stick with Monolith Telecom, Monolith doesn't have to lowers its prices at all for existing customers. Then they can offer new customer incentives that Upstart Wireless can't hope to match to prevent people not in the middle of a contract from going to the new company. By the time the new customer incentive has run out, Upstart is out of business, and the customer is forced to renew with Monolith at the higher (unchanged) price.
In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
Imagine you're a member of a cartel. For the sake of concreteness, let's say you're a member of a Mexican drug cartel. These are, after all, real-world examples of organizations operating outside the bounds of the law to sell a product to consumers.
Modern drug cartels aren't actually cartels. The name is a legacy from when the cocain trade actually did operate as a cartel, but that's no longer the case.
There are really two theories here: one says "either you're libertarian or you aren't" and the other says "some people are more libertarian than others." I was originally of the first school of thought, but I am more and more inclined to the second, simply because it is more clear-cut than the first one.
I think it should be obvious that libertarianism is a scale that many people fall at different points on, just like liberalism and conservatism. You can cut the categories finer, for example a fiscally conservative scale, but none of it is black and white.
Given that, when discussing political positions in the United States, I find it reasonable to take the Libertarian Party's positions as a "default" libertarian position. Individuals considered to be libertarians could be more or less libertarian than the declared platform of the party, but to discuss the ideology, you don't get very far if you say "libertarians believe everything" -- you need a starting place for the discussion. The party seems like a great starting place to me. And that starting place wants small government at both federal and state level, which is a description of the libertarian position that is at odds with the position as defined by Oopssorryy.
Taking the same starting position for republicans, they want small federal and larger state government, which is the position Oopssorryy espoused, hence my comment "You seem to be confusing Libertarians with Republicans."
My point is that you say libertarians want small federal government and larger state government. But that's what the republicans (say) they want. Meanwhile, the libertarian party says they want small federal and small state government.
An actual cartel (not the usage as it relates to current illegal drug enterprises) is essentially a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but you should never say never. The India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-Ceylon Conferences was a cartel that lasted 134 years. Additionally, when a cartel breaks up, the pressures that led to the formation of the cartel return almost immediately, so even if an individual cartel does not last long, and industry can constantly have cartels.
it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
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.
1. Would you buy from a business that steals and kills people?
If your concern is that a company is doing things like stealing and killing, why would you buy anything from De Beers today (which, considering their monopoly on the market, practically means "why would you buy diamonds")?
De Beers has only asserted that their diamonds are conflict-free (ie: not blood diamonds) since March 2000, and that move was only in response to international government interference.
De Beers is also implicated in the long-running exploitation and forceful relocation of the native tribes of Botswana, to the extent that Survival International has called is a genocide.
Monopolies- Give me 1 example of a natural monopoly(a monopoly that occured without government intervention) that has occured in the history of the industrialized world.
Water supply, electricity, gas, railways...
There's a reason why most countries either nationalize or heavily regulate such industries. These industries require significant infrastructure in order to supply the customer, and these costs both deter entry into and exit from the industry. Attempting to increase competition in these fields also decreases efficiency, since a potential competitor would have to duplicate the existing infrastructure.
Hate the Poor- welfare is bad for the poor, it incentivizes laziness, minimum wage is bad for the poor as it creates unemployment and increase prices on goods, trade restrictions are bad for the poor as they increase prices on goods, child labor laws and maximum working hours per week regulations are bad for the poor as they decrease the amount of money that can be made by the poor, There are many more examples but that's enough for now
According tot he Luxembourg Income Study, welfare programs in 14 countries dropped the absolute poverty rate by half or more (except the US, which went from 21.0 to 11.7). The country with the highest absolute poverty rate (France at 36.1) dropped the most (to 9.8).
Taxation- it is theft, if I steal from you to give to the poor I am a thieve, the government does the same so shouldn't they be theives as well, taxation funds the government which is inefficient with the money,
Taxation is not theft, but I think that's already been discussed in this thread.
Anarchy- yes it probably works, no you probably dont need the government to have a functioning legal system, you probably think Im crazy but I can probably answer all of your questions
Please answer how you think anarchy is not making false assumptions (eg, that people will keep what is theirs and give away their property in exchange for others' property).
Please explain how your concept of anarchy does not rely on a mythical definition of "government".
Industrial Era- brought great wealth and prosperity to poor, middle class, everyone...
I'm not sure "great" is the correct qualifier there, but during the industrial revolution wages did increase and the prices for most goods did decrease. The evils generally associated with it (eg, child labor) were not a product of the industrial revolution, as they had been present prior. I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of the thread, though.
Discrimination- forcing me to serve someone who I dont want to serve sounds a lot like slavery if you ask me...
You're not being forced to do it, you're being paid to do it. If the pay is insufficient to overcome your own discriminatory biases, you're welcome to quit.
The constitution was written by the framers, yet you will find a significant portion of the population (that votes and impact policy) that truly believe Jesus descended from the heavens in a silvery chariot and presented the constitution to the American people.
As with many governmental philosophies, I think it's nice in theory and a bad idea in practice. A lot of libertarian ideas just seem naive when applied to the real world. To me, it's like trying to get as close to anarchy as possible without actually being anarchy.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Given that, when discussing political positions in the United States, I find it reasonable to take the Libertarian Party's positions as a "default" libertarian position. Individuals considered to be libertarians could be more or less libertarian than the declared platform of the party, but to discuss the ideology, you don't get very far if you say "libertarians believe everything" -- you need a starting place for the discussion. The party seems like a great starting place to me. And that starting place wants small government at both federal and state level, which is a description of the libertarian position that is at odds with the position as defined by Oopssorryy.
Taking the same starting position for republicans, they want small federal and larger state government, which is the position Oopssorryy espoused, hence my comment "You seem to be confusing Libertarians with Republicans."
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
An actual cartel (not the usage as it relates to current illegal drug enterprises) is essentially a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but you should never say never. The India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-Ceylon Conferences was a cartel that lasted 134 years. Additionally, when a cartel breaks up, the pressures that led to the formation of the cartel return almost immediately, so even if an individual cartel does not last long, and industry can constantly have cartels.
Taxation is not a violation of property rights.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
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)
De Beers has only asserted that their diamonds are conflict-free (ie: not blood diamonds) since March 2000, and that move was only in response to international government interference.
De Beers is also implicated in the long-running exploitation and forceful relocation of the native tribes of Botswana, to the extent that Survival International has called is a genocide.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
There's a reason why most countries either nationalize or heavily regulate such industries. These industries require significant infrastructure in order to supply the customer, and these costs both deter entry into and exit from the industry. Attempting to increase competition in these fields also decreases efficiency, since a potential competitor would have to duplicate the existing infrastructure.
According tot he Luxembourg Income Study, welfare programs in 14 countries dropped the absolute poverty rate by half or more (except the US, which went from 21.0 to 11.7). The country with the highest absolute poverty rate (France at 36.1) dropped the most (to 9.8).
Taxation is not theft, but I think that's already been discussed in this thread.
Please answer how you think anarchy is not making false assumptions (eg, that people will keep what is theirs and give away their property in exchange for others' property).
Please explain how your concept of anarchy does not rely on a mythical definition of "government".
I'm not sure "great" is the correct qualifier there, but during the industrial revolution wages did increase and the prices for most goods did decrease. The evils generally associated with it (eg, child labor) were not a product of the industrial revolution, as they had been present prior. I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of the thread, though.
You're not being forced to do it, you're being paid to do it. If the pay is insufficient to overcome your own discriminatory biases, you're welcome to quit.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)