• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question for the Libertarians


A state monopoly is 10x worse than a private monopoly. Look what Standard Oil did for price of kerosene, which was a critical fuel at the time for lighting, heating, and cooking:


Show me a state monopoly that benefited consumers anywhere near as much.


Equal access isn’t the same as equal quality. Socialized healthcare, education, transportation always end up as two-tiered systems - a shit public option, which you have to pay for whether you use it or not, and a superior private option. Compare private transportation to public transportation, or government-run schools to private schools. No country would dare to have a completely public healthcare system, because that would mean your beloved politicians would end up dying on waiting lists just like the little people.

Econ4every1 said:
Essential services like healthcare, education, emergency services (police, fire), public transportation, and mail delivery.
Click to expand...

Food is more essential than anything on that list, so why is it missing? Don't you support collective farms and government-run grocery stores, comrade?
 
Continued:


First of all, the private sector builds most of the world’s military tech - governments contract it out for a reason: the state is simply too incompetent and corrupt.

Econ4every1 said:
In developing economies, the state might control certain key industries to steer economic development and industrialization.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Remember this little exchange we had:

aociswundumho said:
Then why don't you just have the state produce goods and services, then these wise and benevolent politicians you worship will have all the power they need to do their good deeds.
Click to expand...
Econ4every1 said:
2. Because incentives are wrong.
Click to expand...

Explain how the state is going to "control certain key industries to steer economic development and industrialization" when the incentives are wrong.


Governments are demonstrably worse for the environment. Consider what your beloved USSR did to the environment.

Even government environmental regulation is awful. One solution the idiot federal government came up with is to add ethanol to gasoline, which makes the environment worse.

This entire post of yours glorifies socialism and central planning, both of which have a mile long track record of failure.
 
aociswundumho said:
A state monopoly is 10x worse than a private monopoly.
Click to expand...
LOL. Oh, ok, who knew.

aociswundumho said:
Show me a state monopoly that benefited consumers anywhere near as much.
Click to expand...
The difference between monopolies in the 1870's and today, is the many of the people of that time still had a sense of civic duty, even the wealthiest men, that or the best way to display their vanity was to build schools and libraries and name them after themselves.

Today, men like Musk are unlawfully striping funding away from the world poorest, including 10's of thousands of children and doing it with no shame and a total sense of glee.

Now even if you think that children dying in a far off land isn't your problem and you think that the government's money could better be spent elsewhere, I'd hope that you'd have the decency not to pull the rug out from under those people and then take joy in it. If that's not pure evil, nothing is.

Now find me a modern monopoly that you think benefits the public.

aociswundumho said:
Equal access isn’t the same as equal quality. Socialized healthcare, education, transportation always end up as two-tiered systems - a shit public option,
Click to expand...
Again, demonstrably false for healthcare.

There's no disputing that Europe, So. Korea and Japan have better public transport

And as far as education, the only place the US competes on this list is some colleges.

aociswundumho said:
Food is more essential than anything on that list, so why is it missing? Don't you support collective farms and government-run grocery stores, comrade?
Click to expand...
We may soon as corporations work to consolidate control of the food supply. Fortunately, competition and a very large country to grow things in makes it a little harder to dominate.

Though, as an example of what I say, we've recently learned that the nation's largest egg producer is earning record profits 3 times higher than recent years, why? Because of the perception of shortages allowed the industry to gouge people. Turns out that Bird Flu cost the industry about 4% of it's flock. At every turn we learn about greedy capitalists gouging people for higher and higher profits. Libertarian utopia would be a nightmare.
 
Not so. I'm a libertarian and I do support direst taxes as long as they are not onerous. You may be correct, for all I know or care, about the US movement or party but there is a big wide world where US ideas do not apply.
 
Sweden said:
Not so. I'm a libertarian and I do support direst taxes as long as they are not onerous.
Click to expand...
You are definitely NOT a libertarian. There is not ONE libertarian on the entire planet who believes that government should have the power and authority to take (by force) the earnings of a citizen. NOT ONE.

You lean libertarian. Many people lean libertarian.

The very CORE principle of libertarianism is that government should NEVER force (or coerce) a person to do something against his or her will, and Direct Taxes (income taxes) forces the citizen to bend to their will. If we don't then government will hunt us down and inflict harm in some way.

If the Founding Fathers ever found out that Government was taking a portion of our earnings BY FORCE, they would be furious.
 
Econ4every1 said:
We may soon as corporations work to consolidate control of the food supply. Fortunately, competition and a very large country to grow things in makes it a little harder to dominate.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but you are evading the question: You claimed "essential" industries should be run by the government. Food is more essential than any other industry you mentioned.

Do you support public control over food production?

Econ4every1 said:
Though, as an example of what I say, we've recently learned that the nation's largest egg producer is earning record profits 3 times higher than recent years, why? Because of the perception of shortages allowed the industry to gouge people.
Click to expand...

Good Lord, you don't even know where prices come from. What kind of "economist" would use the term gouge to describe a price increase?
 
Sweden said:
. . . You may be correct, for all I know or care, about the US movement or party but there is a big wide world where US ideas do not apply.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to sound sanctimonious in my last post, but upon reading it later, I kinda did.

Please consider this crucial part of the Libertarian Party's Preamble:

"Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own [Libertarian Party] grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent." https://lp.org/platform-page/

"Seize the fruits of their labor without their consent." In other words, Income Taxes.

"Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life." - Ron Paul

"Property taxes rank right up there with 'income taxes' in terms of immorality and destructiveness. Where 'income taxes' are simply slavery using different words, 'property taxes' are just a Mafia turf racket using different words." - Larken Rose

Income Taxes and Property Taxes are both Direct Taxes. All libertarians oppose direct taxes.
 
Taxes isn't stealing: it's the collection of money to fund government. Almost all governments since the ancient city of Ur have taxed. Having said that, I would agree with the sentiment that there are onerous and bad taxes out there, and bad persons who taxed for personal benefit. A representative government tries to address those issues (unless members are corrupt, of course, but that is also why you need checks and balances.

Libertarianism can encourage "development, innovation, exploration, and growth." Until it impedes profit, at which point businesses will use their free market freedoms to squash innovation that will threaten their profits (automobiles, oil, cigarettes, etc.). Government rules and regs are designed for safety, but as far as using those regs to thwart innovation...that only comes from the behest of businesses not wishing to cut into profits, not the government. The government is simply the facilitator of the desires of businesses trying to control a "free market". Manipulation comes from those who feel they have the greatest to loose, not the government.

Agree on not liking an over-powered government. There is a balance out there. I feel we are looking at massive over-reach from the Trump administration that adversely affects just about everything.

That quote is from John Barnhill as he was bashing socialists in 1919. I'm sure Jefferson has quotes that have that thought in mind, but that particular quote is not his.

My problem with libertarianism is the same problem I have with communism: it all sounds nice and fuzzy but it will never work because human beings exist. Government exists to counter those who would take advantage due to self-interest that would harm the public good and welfare. We have the whole of human history to show us that 95% of the time, when someone is given a choice to do good or to bad to enrich themselves, folks often choose to do bad. Libertarianism prizes the individual to do the right thing to their own and society's benefit, which is lofty...but will actually set the stage for individuals to act in their own self interest and either create anarchy or transfer power from the people to a small group of like-minded individuals or worse...one person.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Taxes isn't stealing:
Click to expand...
Actually it IS. Direct taxes, anyways. Direct taxes are compulsory. Indirect taxes are not. It's important that we make this distinction.

Government coercing a citizen to pay Income Tax is not different than a robber sticking a gun in the citizen's ribs and saying "Give me your wallet."

Both are stealing money by coercion. Both the robber AND the Government promise to inflict harm on us if we don't hand over our money to them.

"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to steal for you." - Ron Paul
Jason Warfield said:
. . . My problem with libertarianism is the same problem I have with communism: it all sounds nice and fuzzy but it will never work because human beings exist.
Click to expand...
Libertarianism is a collection of principles, based mostly on Philosopher John Locke's "natural rights" of Life, Liberty and Property. Libertarianism is NOT an economic theory as communism or socialism are.
 
Last edited:
Econ4every1 said:
NASA got Saturn 5 to the moon in 1969, in one try.
Click to expand...
That isn't true. Apollo 8 was the first make it to the moon's distance and orbit it. They took the famous "earthrise" photo. There were two unmanned launches with a Saturn V prior to that. 11/9/67 and 4/4/68. Apollo 8 was the first Apollo mission to use it, and launched on 12/21/68. The last one launch for a Saturn V was unmanned, with Skylab 1 on 5/14/73. They had two more Saturn V rockets, but Apollo 18 and 19 were never launched.
 
I disagree with "Without their consent" line. In democracies voters have a choice. In the USA very few choose the Libertarian Party. In my two countries such a party does not even exist, though there are many people who oppose a socialist command economy wile being strongly for individual freedoms.
 
No one has given you or even the Fllipping Founding Fathers the right to define Liberty. You lean anarchist - at an angle of 50 degrees or so.
 
Sweden said:
I disagree with "Without their consent" line.
Click to expand...
Ok, you disagree with a very fundamental part of Libertarian Party's principles, and that's my point.

If a person rejects the principles of the virgin birth, and the resurrection, and the water-into-wine miracle, and then identifies as a Christian, that doesn't make any sense.

Likewise, if someone rejects or dismisses fundamental principles of a political ideology, and then claims to have the ideology, that doesn't make sense.

For any Direct (Income) Tax to happen, the government must force the person to surrender some part of their income to the government. The government promises to harm the citizen if they don't bow down to their demands. Government doesn't need anyone's consent.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles made the Progressive Income Tax the second plank of the Communist Manifesto. Income Tax and abolishing private property are communist constructs, and all libertarians despise both of these things.

"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx

Sweden said:
In democracies voters have a choice. In the USA very few choose the Libertarian Party.
Click to expand...
True. Libertarians make up only about 12% to 14% of the electorate in the U.S..
Sweden said:
In my two countries such a party does not even exist, though there are many people who oppose a socialist command economy wile being strongly for individual freedoms.
Click to expand...
They lean libertarian. I have friends in the Republican Party who lean libertarian on some issues. I have Independent friends who lean libertarian on some issues, and even a couple democrats agree with a few libertarian ideals. But they all believe in the Marxist idea of Income Taxes without consent.

My two Libertarian friends (a married couple) do not, of course.
 
Last edited:
aociswundumho said:
That's nice, but you are evading the question: You claimed "essential" industries should be run by the government. Food is more essential than any other industry you mentioned.

Do you support public control over food production?
Click to expand...
Like I said, I don't think that the government talking over food production, despite it being essential, is necessary at this time for reasons I gave already.

aociswundumho said:
Good Lord, you don't even know where prices come from. What kind of "economist" would use the term gouge to describe a price increase?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, when increases in price are not the result of increases in input costs
 
There is a reason why there's never been, nor will there ever be a nation founded on the principles you promote.

In a word, fairness.

Generally speaking, people would rather "suffer" equal "oppression" than live in a world where some people free ride, even if that free ride doesn't directly affect them. There are plenty of social experiments that demonstrate this feature of human behavior. Sure, you might get a few like minded people bound by their ideology to band together as a group or tribe and under external pressure largely work together, but when the external pressure is lifted and the reason for internal cohesion diminishes, Libertarian utopia you describe will collapse.

Someone should make a video game based n this concept. A large multi-player game where, instead of picking factions like Elves, vs Dwarves, vs Men, or Humans vs Aliens, vs Predator, we should have a game where the social and economic rules are based on Libertarian principles, vs Socialist/ Communist principles, vs Capitalistic principles, with basic rules and laws defined. In a competitive adversarial world, Libertarians would be the first to be crushed.
 
Econ4every1 said:
Like I said, I don't think that the government talking over food production, despite it being essential, is necessary at this time for reasons I gave already.
Click to expand...

Yes, you said the incentives facing politicians and bureaucrats are "wrong". But do those incentives somehow change depending on what good or service the state is producing?

Econ4every1 said:
Generally speaking, when increases in price are not the result of increases in input costs
Click to expand...

Good Lord. Input costs aren’t the only cost that matters. Prices allocate resources efficiently, remember? After a major hurricane, if drinking water becomes scarce, the price of a gallon skyrockets, even though input costs haven’t changed. That’s not gouging, that’s the price system doing its job - rationing supply and signaling scarcity to producers.


Both capitalism and libertarianism revolve around private property rights, voluntary exchange, and free markets. And no, we don’t need a multiplayer game - your socialist/commie ideology has already been tested in the real world dozens of times, with the same disastrous results every time.
 
Gardener said:
How did you go from a libertarian to an authoritarian leftist inin league with globalists?
Click to expand...
Probably the same way some went "libertarian" to an authoritative rightist in league with the entrenched oligarchy.
 
Econ4every1 said:
There is a reason why there's never been, nor will there ever be a nation founded on the principles you promote.

In a word, fairness.
Click to expand...
Isn't this ironic?

Libertarianism is the fairest of all political ideologies, because it is based on the Non Aggression Principle - meaning that the government cannot force (or coerce) citizens to do something against their wishes.

If a government forces the citizens to surrender a portion of their earnings (Income Taxes), that is WRONG. All Democrats think that government SHOULD have the power to force citizens to do something against their will, and so do all Republicans.

The only difference between democrats and republicans is the manner with how they choose to redistribute the money stolen from citizens. Democrats like to redistribute the money to special interest groups, and republicans like to redistribute the stolen money to banks, corporations, and corn farmers (in the form of subsidies).
Libertarians believe that my money is mine, and your money is YOURS. Dave's money belongs to Dave, and Sue's money belongs to Sue. Mike's money belongs to Mike, etc, etc. . . .

Neither democrats nor republicans believe that.

"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to steal for you." - Ron Paul
Econ4every1 said:
. . . In a competitive adversarial world, Libertarians would be the first to be crushed.
Click to expand...
True, but libertarians are the only political party based on the Non Aggression Principle - a principle of ethics. Libertarianism is the only political party based on ANY principle, actually. Democrats and Republicans (and even the Green Party) just want to steal our wealth and redistribute it. Which of course is really stupid.
 
I used to consider myself a Libertarian until I realized that you can't get more the two Libertarians to agree on anything, because as soon as a third party gets involved the arguments begin, including the standard accusations of "you aren't a real Libertarian because you'd agree with me if you were."
 
aociswundumho said:
Yes, you said the incentives facing politicians and bureaucrats are "wrong". But do those incentives somehow change depending on what good or service the state is producing?
Click to expand...
It depends on how easily the resource in question is dominated by a few people or an individual. So I gave the example of farming likely does not need to be controlled by the state because dominating farming, given that you can farm in at least 2/3rds if the states in the US, and the fact that food from farming is not confined to a region. Last time I was in the grocery store, I could by food from South America for a reasonable price. However, there are other potential bottlenecks in how food travels from the fields where it's grown or raised (in the case of livestock), to your table. If the delivery of food were dominated by a small group, increasing price and using that domination to suppress competition, then the government should step in and should, 1) attempt to restore competition to the market, or, in the cases that's not possible, 2) regulate the market in question, or 3) in cases where the first two aren't possible, take that market over.

How much involvement the government takes in these endeavors is proportional to the need of the good or service in question. DeBeers dominance of the diamond trade should be less of a concern, then a handful of venture capital firms dominating an industry like nursing homes, or access to affordable housing.

But, consider a resource like water. It's necessary for survival and it is highly regional because of how it's delivered in quantity. Thus, there is a state interest in the delivery of that good at or even below the market cost of that good.
aociswundumho said:
Input costs aren’t the only cost that matters.
Click to expand...
Where did I say otherwise?
aociswundumho said:
Prices allocate resources efficiently, remember?
Click to expand...
They can, but not always
 
I've heard this hypothetical many times, but, if you'll forgive the pun, it doesn't hold water. Let me explain all the fatal flaws of your argument.
Your argument is a classic example of applying a sterile, theoretical economic model to a complex, chaotic, and deeply human situation where the model's core assumptions do not hold. It prioritizes a theoretical concept of market efficiency while ignoring infrastructure collapse, information imbalances, critical time lags, and the profound ethical and social consequences of denying people access to a substance they need to survive.

In other words, your example assumes there is always an adequate supply of potable containerized water just outside any affected area, ready and able to pounce on a market opportunity to supply water to an area affected by a hurricane.

Your argument conflates two functions of the price system that operate on vastly different timelines.
  • Rationing (Immediate): High prices do immediately ration the existing, on-the-ground supply. Those who can and are willing to pay the high price get the water.
  • Signaling (Delayed): The signal for new supply to enter the market is not instantaneous. A producer hundreds of miles away must learn of the shortage, source trucks, find drivers willing to enter a disaster area, secure fuel, and navigate damaged infrastructure. This can take days.
The weakness is that people can die of dehydration in the time it takes for the "supply signal" to produce an actual response. The argument celebrates a long-term solution while ignoring a potentially fatal short-term reality.

The argument implicitly assumes a functioning transportation and communication network. In a major hurricane's aftermath, this is rarely the case.
  • Impassable Roads: Roads are flooded, bridges are out, and debris makes travel impossible. A truck full of water might be just 20 miles away but have no physical way to reach the people in need.
  • Communication Blackouts: Power outages and damaged cell towers mean sellers can't contact suppliers, and suppliers may not even be aware of the specific, localized demand.
  • Fuel Scarcity: The very same scarcity affecting water also affects gasoline, making it difficult or impossible for suppliers to operate their delivery trucks.
The free market model assumes goods can flow to where prices are highest. In a disaster, the "flow" itself is broken, rendering the price signal impotent.

Can we agree monopolies are bad?

Your argument presents the market as a collection of equal actors. The reality is a power imbalance.

A seller with the only pallet of bottled water in a ten-mile radius is not a simple participant in a competitive market; they are a temporary, hyper-localized monopolist. The buyer is not a rational actor making a calculated choice; they are a desperate person with incomplete information. They don't know if a FEMA truck is an hour away or if this is their only chance to get water for two days. The seller can exploit this information asymmetry and desperation, which goes beyond efficient "rationing" and into the realm of predatory behavior.
Lastly, your argument completely ignores the cascading consequences (negative externalities) of pricing people out of water.

  • Public Health Crisis: If a significant portion of the population cannot afford clean water, they will turn to contaminated sources. This can lead to outbreaks of cholera, dysentery, and other waterborne diseases. A public health crisis affects everyone, including those who could afford the expensive water, through the spread of disease and the overwhelming of any functioning medical facilities.
  • Breakdown of Social Cohesion: When people see their neighbors hoarding a life-essential resource and selling it at astronomical prices, or when they are unable to provide for their families, it erodes trust and can lead to civil unrest, looting, and violence. The long-term cost of rebuilding a community's social fabric is far higher than the supposed short-term benefit of "efficient" price signaling.

Thus, the need for government to step in to prevent people from profiting off human misery. Another example of incentives that are not in line with the interests of preventing unnecessary suffering and more importantly the failure of Libertarian market philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.