Libertarianism Solves it All!

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This is often a point of confusion. The invisible hand is not an economic model, simply a theorem put forward by Adam Smith at the time. In his own works, Smith did not advocate an unregulated market. He just saw the value in minimizing regulations. A lot will fix itself, but there are several exceptions and those must be managed by a governing body.

Lots of folks assume that, because libertarians are always of the mindset that the inefficiency of government means it should serve specific needs, they actually want an unregulated market and no government. This is decidedly not the case. It's about keeping the controller manageable, not delving into chaos.

Instead of a very small elite minority of wealthy boards of directors, and oftentimes outright criminals, making all the decisions for war, water and all things necessary for a quality of life, why not try opening it up for everyone to decide?

Mixing in a little bit of socialism democratizes our capitalism, so now the invisible hand is very real for EVERYONE.
Yaaaay, you've really done it now, Keridan!!

:applaud

But seriously, opening it up to pure mob rule is dangerous for other reasons, but I think you get the point that leaving it as the exclusive province of "Massa Who Be Livin on the Plantation" isn't very healthy either.

 

[Keridan]

Instead of a very small elite minority of wealthy boards of directors, and oftentimes outright criminals, making all the decisions for war, water and all things necessary for a quality of life, why not try opening it up for everyone to decide?

Mixing in a little bit of socialism democratizes our capitalism, so now the invisible hand is very real for EVERYONE.
Yaaaay, you've really done it now, Keridan!!

:applaud

But seriously, opening it up to pure mob rule is dangerous for other reasons, but I think you get the point that leaving it as the exclusive province of "Massa Who Be Livin on the Plantation" isn't very healthy either.

I get your point and you are already acknowledging mine in your last statement. Really, all this stuff falls to a matter of degrees. And let's be honest, those degrees are decided by our faith in government. I have very little. I want them to do their job and keep it from being some sort of free-for-all survival of the fittest BS, but I don't want them running the whole game.

The lower the level of government managing something, the happier I am, as well. Cities know what is best for them, counties, too. Federal may have some concept, but they can't individualize for each market. Some are just the opposite. They think the fed government is the most capable for the global view.

I believe in the invisible hand. I believe with a few pushes in the right direction (like protecting children and those who can't physically pay for themselves and avoiding monopolies, etc) the market will take care of the worker, the employer, and the consumer. I'm not an idiot that thinks this happens without a governing body or two looking out for the dead ends.

Anyway, I enjoyed your post and please let me know if you have more thoughts on what I just clarified!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I get your point and you are already acknowledging mine in your last statement. Really, all this stuff falls to a matter of degrees. And let's be honest, those degrees are decided by our faith in government. I have very little. I want them to do their job and keep it from being some sort of free-for-all survival of the fittest BS, but I don't want them running the whole game.

The lower the level of government managing something, the happier I am, as well. Cities know what is best for them, counties, too. Federal may have some concept, but they can't individualize for each market. Some are just the opposite. They think the fed government is the most capable for the global view.

I believe in the invisible hand. I believe with a few pushes in the right direction (like protecting children and those who can't physically pay for themselves and avoiding monopolies, etc) the market will take care of the worker, the employer, and the consumer. I'm not an idiot that thinks this happens without a governing body or two looking out for the dead ends.

Anyway, I enjoyed your post and please let me know if you have more thoughts on what I just clarified!

I'm a lot more pessimistic than you are because I know for a fact that Kenneth Lay was the "invisible hand" in the energy markets during the turn of the millennium.
A friend of mine actually did federal time because he money laundered for Ken Lay and thought that if he "fell on his sword", ole "Kenny Boy" (as Dubya used to call him) would protect him, but instead he wound up doing three years at Bastrop.

It's not invisible and it's not a hand, it's highly visible, made of 18K gold and it's a pitchfork aimed right at our asses.
Sorry, I just don't buy into the "non-aggression" thing and I have a pretty good idea of just how aggressive raw naked unregulated capitalism can be.
The government isn't supposed to take over businesses but it is supposed to prevent the big guys from grinding us up to make Soylent Green out of us.

 

[Keridan]

I'm a lot more pessimistic than you are because I know for a fact that Kenneth Lay was the "invisible hand" in the energy markets during the turn of the millennium.
A friend of mine actually did federal time because he money laundered for Ken Lay and thought that if he "fell on his sword", ole "Kenny Boy" (as Dubya used to call him) would protect him, but instead he wound up doing three years at Bastrop.

It's not invisible and it's not a hand, it's highly visible, made of 18K gold and it's a pitchfork aimed right at our asses.
Sorry, I just don't buy into the "non-aggression" thing and I have a pretty good idea of just how aggressive raw naked unregulated capitalism can be.
The government isn't supposed to take over businesses but it is supposed to prevent the big guys from grinding us up to make Soylent Green out of us.

I'm asking this just to make sure we are discussing the same thing. Have you read up on the invisible hand from sources outside of debate and biased media? I really don't like to assume people need an explanation, but I'm seeing a lot of interpretation of the invisible hand theorem today that makes me wonder if the original idea is lost. Even a lot of libertarians severely mistake exactly what it means.

 

[AlbqOwl]

i don't see libertarianism as resulting in the original intent of the founders anymore. i see it as giving control to fewer and fewer winners at the expense of the average worker. like i said, it was hard to let go of that illusion.

Just separate Libertarianism, the ideology and political system, from libertarianism (little "L") which comes from the word liberty meaning recognition, respect, and security of unalienable rights, options, choices, opportunity, and ability to govern oneself so long as the ability of others to do the same is not infringed.

I wish our choice of labels for our political leanings included libertarian (little "L") or classical liberal (which is exactly the same thing). I can't choose Libertarian because it dictates rather than respects individual rights and self governance.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm asking this just to make sure we are discussing the same thing. Have you read up on the invisible hand from sources outside of debate and biased media? I really don't like to assume people need an explanation, but I'm seeing a lot of interpretation of the invisible hand theorem today that makes me wonder if the original idea is lost. Even a lot of libertarians severely mistake exactly what it means.

Self-interested individuals operate a network of mutual interdependencies to promote the general benefit and general welfare of the largest majority of people.
Except they don't. They game the system...every. single. bloody. time.

 

[Nickyjo]

I understand your point that having a smaller government means there's less for corporations to influence, but the flipside of that is that corporations won't even need to influence government. The less regulation there is of their behavior, the more reign they have.

As for fine print: do you think you have ever been in a position to negotiate the fine print?

You download a system update or anything like that, and the corporation dictates what the terms are to you. And in many cases, you can't actually get by in the modern world without accepting the terms. At least a decently run government agency can stop corporations from imposing draconian terms that screw people.

Libertarianism would work very well if corporations behaved, but they're not going to. They're going to do whatever they can to make the most money they can. And the bigger they are and the fewer there are in a given market, the less power individual buyers have. Looking at the fine print doesn't accomplish anything if the fine print is always the same and always screws the customer.



If every car company could put "if you purchase this car and it explodes and you die because we were negligent, you waive the right to sue or demand arbitration" in their fine print, and government didn't have any sort of regulatory or legislative authority over it because it was sufficiently shrunk, you can't convince me that'd be a good thing.

If that sounds like an absurd hypothetical, that's because existing law prevents a corporation from requiring purchasers to waive certain things. Without that law, it wouldn't be an absurd hypothetical anymore.

Question and comment. I read the Libertarian Party platform back in the 1970s or early 1980s. I don’t remember what it said about this, but would corporations be permitted? Are acts by the state limiting liability and establishing corporate personhood counter to Libertarian principles? Also, from what I remember the description of society presented resembled what communists spoke of as the “withering away of the state.” That belief seemed as naive as the communist one. If human nature is defined by self interest, aren’t actions to further my self interest by having the government intervene to assist me with this or that program no different than any other I may make in the business world? Who polices this under libertarian theory?

 

[Mr Person]

Question and comment. I read the Libertarian Party platform back in the 1970s or early 1980s. I don’t remember what it said about this, but would corporations be permitted? Are acts by the state limiting liability and establishing corporate personhood counter to Libertarian principles? Also, from what I remember the description of society presented resembled what communists spoke of as the “withering away of the state.” That belief seemed as naive as the communist one. If human nature is defined by self interest, aren’t actions to further my self interest by having the government intervene to assist me with this or that program no different than any other I may make in the business world? Who polices this under libertarian theory?

1. I do not specifically know anything about the Libertarian Party's platform back then.

The aside: The thing about them - and this is a plus - is that they all seem to have rather different views about just how big government should be and what exactly its role should be. A lot like many of the "liberals" here (I can't tell you how many times I've disagreed on policy points with people I get along with who are liberal, here and elsewhere). Unlike, for example, people who call themselves conservative under Trump... that uniformity, which is not absolute I grant, seemed to mainly start under Gingrich's permanent majority push.

2. It all depends whether limiting something specific like the ability of a corporation to put a waiver of liability for things like negligence or product defects is something the particular Libertarian thinks is good or bad. I don't know all of PoS's beliefs on these various subjects. I simply argued about the first historical examples that came to mind on these fronts of situations where the generally unregulated free market approach lead to ills that were not cured by new market entrants. I have no idea what he thinks about the specific examples, yet.

3. Well, the communist idea you mention is quite stupid (that is, actually believing it could work; I am not saying your post is stupid). I'd compare it to anarchy, really. As originally defined, socialism is government ownership of the means of production. It supposedly exercises that ownership to get rid of what we might have called 'robber barons' in the past and then redirect the wealth to the workers. And then, says Drunkard Marx, the awesomeness of this policy results in the need for government dissolving and workers running production, communities working together in harmony, yadda bull**** yadda.

That ignores human nature, as I feel libertarianism does in some of its applications. But unlike communism, libertarianism does seem to be the best approach in some areas.

It's also a much more wholesome approach. As history has shown, true socialism - not at all what the right in general calls socialism - requires an authoritarian/totalitarian government. Could be dicatorship (Mao), could be a Dictatorship that blends with oligarchy (Soviet Russia, starting more with dictatorship with a pretense of Oligarchy and moving more to the latter). But the bottom line there is once the government structure is set up, they never let up on the economic structure ('socialism'), and the end result is we never get to the equally impossible true communist state. After all, wherever government has dissolved in history, we see the rise of tribal warlord structures. See for example Somolia, Ethiopia, at points in the last few decades.

4. As for the last bit, I don't follow at the moment. But that's probably my fault. I've had maybe 12h of sleep over the last three nights (thanks, insomnia + bad head/chest/nose cold + appellate oral argument today). Basically, I'd respond by noting that there are so many variations, the main category being what I'd call "small L libertarians" and "big L libertarians". On a number of fronts, I fall into the former. But not overall.

What I'd call "big L libertarians" never seem to find a government policy they approve of. Government shouldn't do this, that, or the other thing. That group I'd equate more to anarchist, but the communist idea isn't that far off. The difference is in how society allegedly ends up in the final and supposedly beneficial state.



I think the main flaw these various ideas share in general is an assumption that people will behave better if you let them. History says "**** no". I'd like government to get out of social/drug/etc policy that is directed at people doing things that do not directly hurt others. But I don't think we can deregulate any number of industries and hope corporations behave well.

Do that, they grow, conglomerate, dominate the market with a few, and then do whatever the flaming hell they want. We need plenty of freedom for them to maneuver but we also need a list of things they are not allowed to do.

 

[iguanaman]

SIAP. And went to the socialist state where man has no say about how goods and services are distributed but, rather, politics and some nebulous political moral decided by neither me nor you has any say.

Social democracies address the faults of capitalism while preserving the good. Libertarians fail because they don't understand that like all ideologies capitalism is not a perfect system. It will collapse if left to it's own devices.

 

[Keridan]

Self-interested individuals operate a network of mutual interdependencies to promote the general benefit and general welfare of the largest majority of people.
Except they don't. They game the system...every. single. bloody. time.

I'm not surprised. That's an intelligent and largely correct summary. However, it lacks much context or application. The problem in this scenario is that the failures are sung from the rooftops by folks who want bigger government and it's many, many, many successes are silent. When the invisible hand does a job properly, few people even realize there was a problem to fix. The need is fulfilled by a wise individual or company before anyone realizes the lack would have been there.

The gaming of the system you refer to is definitely possible. However, it is not a natural extension of the theorem. Often, as soon as there are signs of it, the people put a quick stop to it (after screaming and pointing they found a flaw) either through change in demand or overpowering the government to handle it.

The problem with this discussion is that there are too many examples and theoretical arguments to make. We can just compromise and assume I understand things better and am right. The value of compromise is unending that way

 

[Keridan]

Social democracies address the faults of capitalism while preserving the good. Libertarians fail because they don't understand that like all ideologies capitalism is not a perfect system. It will collapse if left to it's own devices.

Honest question. Is the irony of this post satirical or unintended?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The problem in this scenario is that the failures are sung from the rooftops by folks who want bigger government

Honestly, that is a misnomer...nobody actually wants "bigger" government just for the sake of bigger.
People just want sensible regulations..."don't jack up drug prices 585%".

That doesn't require bigger government, it just requires the appropriate agency to do this:

 

[Keridan]

Honestly, that is a misnomer...nobody actually wants "bigger" government just for the sake of bigger.
People just want sensible regulations..."don't jack up drug prices 585%".

That doesn't require bigger government, it just requires the appropriate agency to do this:

I get what you are saying, but there is a point to consider here. Democratic socialism is not the same as national socialism. No true socialism exists or has been tried because they don't actually seize the means of production or businesses.

"Where the f are you going with this, Keridan?" you ask. Well, here's the thing that causes so much strife even from those of us who know the value of compromise; incremental movement through this regulation or that minor law takes us to the equivalent of socialism or even communism. If you put enough regulations and rules in place, you might as well seize it, because you have taken control.

I absolutely don't think each movement that direction is bad or designed to head toward full control. However, it sneaks up. We are far from an authoritarian state and still have measures to refine and implement. But each piece of control that people allow government to take means bigger government and movement in the wrong direction.

That's why so many libertarians (or worse; conservatives) fight every single twitch this direction. They will fight with their very lives to avoid forcing a company to use a different font even if sans new roman is killing pedestrians.

Those of us with strong reasoning skills understand there is a compromise. Those of us with omniscience realize the compromise comes from following my every whim.

I don't really think it's all an attempt to take over everything, but I also have some tendency to fight against bigger government because of this reasoning.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I get what you are saying, but there is a point to consider here. Democratic socialism is not the same as national socialism. No true socialism exists or has been tried because they don't actually seize the means of production or businesses.

"Where the f are you going with this, Keridan?" you ask. Well, here's the thing that causes so much strife even from those of us who know the value of compromise; incremental movement through this regulation or that minor law takes us to the equivalent of socialism or even communism. If you put enough regulations and rules in place, you might as well seize it, because you have taken control.

I absolutely don't think each movement that direction is bad or designed to head toward full control. However, it sneaks up. We are far from an authoritarian state and still have measures to refine and implement. But each piece of control that people allow government to take means bigger government and movement in the wrong direction.

That's why so many libertarians (or worse; conservatives) fight every single twitch this direction. They will fight with their very lives to avoid forcing a company to use a different font even if sans new roman is killing pedestrians.

Those of us with strong reasoning skills understand there is a compromise. Those of us with omniscience realize the compromise comes from following my every whim.

I don't really think it's all an attempt to take over everything, but I also have some tendency to fight against bigger government because of this reasoning.

I'm not in favor of democratic socialism.
America doesn't have a frame of reference for socialism. We're capitalists and we've been capitalists for four hundred some odd years. What we HAVE had in the past is capitalism with social democracy.
That's where Uncle Sam and/or state or local government does just enough to prevent capitalists from turning humans into mush. It is, that thing by which capitalism is prevented from becoming what Matt Taibbi termed "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money".

In my humble opinion we are very very close to becoming an authoritarian state, a theocratic authoritarian state.
It's not socialists I worry about, it's fascists. In the last ten years, all of a sudden, kids are being taught that Hitler was a liberal left wing socialist. It's the most egregious piece of flapdoodle historical revisionism perpetrated since The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This bit of nonsense about Hitler's NSDAP being left wing goes hand in hand with another piece of baloney, the notion that "America is not a democracy".
No doubt you're hearing that being echoed in increasingly shrill tones the last few years as well. Of course America is a democracy, a representative democracy functioning within a constitutional republic, as it has always been. The founders were shrieking about the dangers of PURE democracy, which has not been tried in 2500 years, and for good reason. Democracy must always be buffered, as it is in this country and every other republic like it.

Authoritarians believe that they can destroy democracy, kill off secularism, kill the social contract with death by a thousand cuts, and frighten Americans into accepting a theocracy enabling strongman. And they need to take us in one piece in order for their plan to work.

So, between the one big lie about Hitler, and the other big lie about democracy, one sees a "pincer movement" attack, and equating theocracy and patriotism is the means by which they intend to cut off the blood and oxygen supply for the final blow, most likely under the color of authority to be used during a manufactured war of some kind.

Catapulting ethnic minorities into the river is just the icing on the cake, because once fascist authoritarian theocracy is implemented in full, anybody who opposes it might as well change the color of their skin for all practical purposes.
Why? Because Dominionists don't mind killing other white people if they aren't true believers, that's why.

What we are witnessing is a concerted effort to divide us all into tiny warring factions all fighting each other. The thing that frightens them the most is the idea that we just might put our petty differences aside and act in a general self interest as a united people.

And to be honest, I apologize if my little screed derailed the thread, but it's a much bigger problem than a teensy bit of social democracy to take the edge off the predatory nature of anarcho-capitalism.

PS: I am not a socialist.

 

[Keridan]

I'm not in favor of democratic socialism.
America doesn't have a frame of reference for socialism. We're capitalists and we've been capitalists for four hundred some odd years. What we HAVE had in the past is capitalism with social democracy.
That's where Uncle Sam and/or state or local government does just enough to prevent capitalists from turning humans into mush. It is, that thing by which capitalism is prevented from becoming what Matt Taibbi termed "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money".

In my humble opinion we are very very close to becoming an authoritarian state, a theocratic authoritarian state.
It's not socialists I worry about, it's fascists. In the last ten years, all of a sudden, kids are being taught that Hitler was a liberal left wing socialist. It's the most egregious piece of flapdoodle historical revisionism perpetrated since The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This bit of nonsense about Hitler's NSDAP being left wing goes hand in hand with another piece of baloney, the notion that "America is not a democracy".
No doubt you're hearing that being echoed in increasingly shrill tones the last few years as well. Of course America is a democracy, a representative democracy functioning within a constitutional republic, as it has always been. The founders were shrieking about the dangers of PURE democracy, which has not been tried in 2500 years, and for good reason. Democracy must always be buffered, as it is in this country and every other republic like it.

Authoritarians believe that they can destroy democracy, kill off secularism, kill the social contract with death by a thousand cuts, and frighten Americans into accepting a theocracy enabling strongman. And they need to take us in one piece in order for their plan to work.

So, between the one big lie about Hitler, and the other big lie about democracy, one sees a "pincer movement" attack, and equating theocracy and patriotism is the means by which they intend to cut off the blood and oxygen supply for the final blow, most likely under the color of authority to be used during a manufactured war of some kind.

Catapulting ethnic minorities into the river is just the icing on the cake, because once fascist authoritarian theocracy is implemented in full, anybody who opposes it might as well change the color of their skin for all practical purposes.
Why? Because Dominionists don't mind killing other white people if they aren't true believers, that's why.

What we are witnessing is a concerted effort to divide us all into tiny warring factions all fighting each other. The thing that frightens them the most is the idea that we just might put our petty differences aside and act in a general self interest as a united people.

And to be honest, I apologize if my little screed derailed the thread, but it's a much bigger problem than a teensy bit of social democracy to take the edge off the predatory nature of anarcho-capitalism.

Forgive me for not giving a point-by-point on your detailed post. You obviously have strong feelings on the subject. The thing is, there is a very high percentage I agree with.

I did not mean to imply you supported democratic socialism. I was just using it as an example. You haven't struck me as aligning with any particular group any more than I consider myself a "typical libertarian".

If I follow you correctly, we are in agreement that we are on the verge of an authoritarian state and it's dangerous. I'm inferring that you also feel government for the sake of government is a very bad thing. There are many areas of commerce and social interactions the government needs to get the hell out of. I think it was you (several threads tonight) that was saying government should get out of marriage, etc.

Again, assuming I get you right, we are in full agreement. There are many areas that need intervention and management, but there is too much corruption going on while we try to get those concerns addressed.

Do you have a suggestion to improve on it? Am I missing any major parts of your discussion?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Forgive me for not giving a point-by-point on your detailed post. You obviously have strong feelings on the subject. The thing is, there is a very high percentage I agree with.

I did not mean to imply you supported democratic socialism. I was just using it as an example. You haven't struck me as aligning with any particular group any more than I consider myself a "typical libertarian".

If I follow you correctly, we are in agreement that we are on the verge of an authoritarian state and it's dangerous. I'm inferring that you also feel government for the sake of government is a very bad thing. There are many areas of commerce and social interactions the government needs to get the hell out of. I think it was you (several threads tonight) that was saying government should get out of marriage, etc.

Again, assuming I get you right, we are in full agreement. There are many areas that need intervention and management, but there is too much corruption going on while we try to get those concerns addressed.

Do you have a suggestion to improve on it? Am I missing any major parts of your discussion?

I hadn't weighed in on marriage actually, but why is government in the marriage business?
Well, the FEDERAL government isn't, except in asking if states have a marriage license for two people.
So it is the individual states and territories that are in the marriage business...for tax purposes, of course.
Uncle Sam doesn't issue "Federal" marriage licenses.

Our capitalist system is a perfectly good system.
It's just that right now, it's like having almost no fire safety laws in a forest area.
Deregulation is heady stuff, very exciting...to an anarcho-capitalist it must taste like total absolute utter freedom.

If it was a car, it would have no mufflers, no traction control, big racing slicks in the back and 104 octane gasoline with a 15% nitromethane mix and a giant honking supercharger...and no speed limits or stop signs or traffic lights in the middle of town.

I wouldn't want to impose horsepower limits on a car...if the driver can control their 2500 horsepower machine so it drives in a civilized manner through town and can manage to handle things like crosswalks, stop signs, traffic lights and a 35 mph speed limit, sure why not.
They can open it up out in the countryside where the deer and the antelope play.

 

[Keridan]

I hadn't weighed in on marriage actually, but why is government in the marriage business?
Well, the FEDERAL government isn't, except in asking if states have a marriage license for two people.
So it is the individual states and territories that are in the marriage business...for tax purposes, of course.
Uncle Sam doesn't issue "Federal" marriage licenses.

Our capitalist system is a perfectly good system.
It's just that right now, it's like having almost no fire safety laws in a forest area.
Deregulation is heady stuff, very exciting...to an anarcho-capitalist it must taste like total absolute utter freedom.

If it was a car, it would have no mufflers, no traction control, big racing slicks in the back and 104 octane gasoline with a 15% nitromethane mix and a giant honking supercharger...and no speed limits or stop signs or traffic lights in the middle of town.

I wouldn't want to impose horsepower limits on a car...if the driver can control their 2500 horsepower machine so it drives in a civilized manner through town and can manage to handle things like crosswalks, stop signs, traffic lights and a 35 mph speed limit, sure why not.
They can open it up out in the countryside where the deer and the antelope play.

Nice analogy. I see where you are coming from. I would say that we do have a lot of regulations in place, but they are mostly the wrong ones. No breaks or emergency breaks, but we sure have the break lights in solid shape. Worse, we have the salesmen out there writing their own contract laws and holding a gun to your head while you fill out the paperwork. Then they pretend you can choose your salesman, but they are triplets and have all the same personality disorders.

Just in case I was too abstract, of course the sales folks are congress. What's even worst of all, though, we seem to have the love child of Hitler and Peewee Herman as the current general manager.

We need rules that make sense and actually prevent disaster, but instead we have idiots making sure we are polite while we kill each other.

On the marriage, I'm with ya. No reason at all for feds to be involved. Many of my family and friends have waited decades to be able to marry the person they love. The only hold up was religion in an area it shouldn't have been.

Personally, I think there should be no tax incentives, restrictions, or any form of involvement between government and marriage.

 

[PoS]

<Post 141>



1. I can't do the chop-out-most-things and then line-by-line it.

(What's with "Layne"...I'm not attacking you here, just arguing my position.)

Calm down, I was joking.

"Magical regulation"? You edited it out. If every car company put in the 'fine print' of contracts that you waive your right to sue and there isn't a law saying you can't do that, they would do it.

OK, so? One can always buy a car from somebody that gives you the right to sue. Thats why we call it a free market.

The problem with the market entrants argument is, again, that we already tried it your way.

Wrong. Like I stated, there was never a time that libertarianism was ever implemented.

Hence anti-trust laws.

LOL like those really work. All you have to do is look at the cable industry and the prescription drug market to see where that led to- government sponsored monopolies.

Defective product? Not if all the corporations produce a product that is defective in the same way.

Since when did that ever happen? The beauty of a free market is that somebody will innovate, build a better mousetrap and cheaper too.

We don't have the modern apparatus because someone thought it would be cool to exercise power and control companies. We have it because when a market is unregulated everyone gets screwed.

More recent example? There was a housing bubble that was growing. It could have popped without too much damage. But the Bush admin largely deregulated certain financial instruments. The result was that the corporations didn't give half a ****, made their money passing off junk instruments to people who were betting they could make money passing it on again. In the end, it was a mortgage-financial bubble that exploded and screwed everyone.

Thats not true. The crisis of 2008 was not caused by deregulation.

There's nothing wrong with banks going into other investments. The problem was HOW they did it- through fraud, government collusion and risky financial instruments like derivatives (which was never regulated btw).

What made it all worse was that government bailed them out and let them get away with it. A free makret would have let them all go under and their assets get taken over by more efficient banks who didnt leverage risk.

The bottom line to what I'm saying here is this: do not think about this in terms of how things might work in principle. Just look at history.

Again, false. A true free market combined with small government has never come about, not yet anyway.

 

[cabse5]

Social democracies address the faults of capitalism while preserving the good. Libertarians fail because they don't understand that like all ideologies capitalism is not a perfect system. It will collapse if left to it's own devices.

And a social democracy will tax everyone at an astronomical rate. This is also given. Which are the political morals that everyone will donate at an astronomical rate? You nor I nor any individual has any say.

 

[iguanaman]

And a social democracy will tax everyone at an astronomical rate. This is also given. Which are the political morals that everyone will donate at an astronomical rate? You nor I nor any individual has any say.

No it will not. Taxing away money that would be spent in the economy is self-defeating and comes right out of GDP. The higher rates would only effect incomes far above any reasonable cost of living. Taxing income not spent at a higher rate actually helps GDP growth.

 

[cabse5]

No it will not. Taxing away money that would be spent in the economy is self-defeating and comes right out of GDP. The higher rates would only effect incomes far above any reasonable cost of living. Taxing income not spent at a higher rate actually helps GDP growth.

Growth to do what? Eliminate fossil based fuels? Rebuild, entirely? Provide reparations for all African-American ancestors, for examples?