John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[TmoonII]

Why does this philosophy require a government?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The internet was originally conceived to coordinate strategic nuclear command networks. Again, an outgrowth of military spending.

Which basically means it was created by Fascist corporate-state partnership.

The express purpose of Fascist corporate-state partnerships is to socialize research and development costs on to the backs of tax payers so private entities don't have to cough up the research dough on their own.

This allows private firms to reap technological gains while having their research costs be subsidized by their competitors or by other industries that have no research costs.

Thus, corn farmers and teachers are paying to subsidize the research and development costs of companies like McDonald Douglas, Raytheon, General Electric, Pfizer and others.

This is very same reason why colleges and schools are heavily subsidized. It has nothing to do with providing a quality education, and everything to do with socializing corporate training costs. Thus, again we have potato growers and gas station owners subsidizing the training costs of corporate conglomerates through the educational system.

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n312/Hatma/Benito_Mussolini.jpg

Changed image to link due to incomplete masking of profanity. Please note that Rule 10 applies to images as well as written text.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[brodski]

Should we really be trading individual liberty for utility?

AS that's the basis of every civilisation to a greater or lesser degree I'm going to go with "yes".

 

[michaelsuede]

[qimg]http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n312/Hatma/Benito_Mussolini.jpg[/qimg]

I love that image.

Thanks for posting that.

 

[corbin]

And there you hit on the main issue: How much is enough, how much is too much. How much government control is necessary to ensure the free market remains free and equitable for all players; and how much is too much which simply stifles, or worse, limits market operation only to that which has the "correct" ideology. Some control is necessary, but too much control is not. The practical argument is where and when government influence is needed.

Care to show any examples of monopolies not created by government?

There's a homeopath on just about every corner in India. So there's plenty of local awareness of prices, etc. So sorry, that one doesn't fly. Try again! Why are the prices of homeopathy in India relatively high in a free and open market with many competitors?

Perhaps the prices aren't as high as you think? Maybe consumers are happy to pay such prices so they shop around? Maybe the homeopaths don't care about how much money they are making and thus don't try to lower prices to increase market share? Perhaps there are social or service-based considerations in the price that aren't so visible?

I give up. You tell me.

I disagree. I think that a socialist system is also moral, in that it is intended to redistribute wealth to where it will do the most good. You can argue that this doesn't work in practice, but I can argue the same thing about the free market.

Socialism legalizes the use of force against certain sectors of society, the free market does not.

The question of wealth distribution is a question of practical benefit, not basic morality.

Now you're cooking with electric stove! That's one of the main problems of "free market as the solution for everything" theories. People don't have complete information.

Of course they don't have complete information, but the tendency is certainly toward consumers being careful about where they spend there money. The law of demand means that consumers tend to take price/quality into consideration.

The market tends towards perfect competition even though perfect competition obviously does not exist.

People don't have the same starting positions. It is not free to change industry you are working in (move capital from place to place). It is not easy for labourers (workers owning labour) to change their place of living and work. Not everyone has the same education and same starting position on the labour market... The list goes on and on and on! That's why there's state getting in on the act. Minimal wages, work safety laws, different taxes for different industries... It's all in try to even the odds and equalise the market, to fix what the free market doesn't care about.

Somewhat of a wealth hierarchy is to be expected in any system simply because some people are more fit to make money than others. The only way to "correct" this natural tendency is to commit theft upon those fortunate enough to be more fit to make money. Furthermore, in the case of markets, the only way of acquiring wealth is by satisfying consumer demand.

That said, don't believe that the current wealth stratification we see now is the result of the free market. The free market results in an essentially linear wealth distribution, with an extremely small lower-class due only to their physical inability to work.

Add in some goods and services that are not profitable for private owners to produce (street light, for example) and you can see that state got into play from necessity.

How is a street light not profitable?

If something isn't profitable its because there isn't a demand for it.

Private charity must also be considered, which would be greatly increased if it wasn't so deincentivized by the state.

 

[clown]

Somewhat of a wealth hierarchy is to be expected in any system simply because some people are more fit to make money than others. The only way to "correct" this natural tendency is to commit theft upon those fortunate enough to be more fit to make money. Furthermore, in the case of markets, the only way of acquiring wealth is by satisfying consumer demand.

That said, don't believe that the current wealth stratification we see now is the result of the free market. The free market results in an essentially linear wealth distribution, with an extremely small lower-class due only to their physical inability to work.

There's so much wrong with this *sigh*. It doesn't have to be their inability to work. It could be their inability to find well paid job, because of low mobility, employers monopoly, lack of safety regulations (I'll see you working in death trap of a workplace), over-abundance of workforce in the area... List goes on.

Care to show any examples of monopolies not created by government?


Socialism legalizes the use of force against certain sectors of society, the free market does not.

The question of wealth distribution is a question of practical benefit, not basic morality.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18845_6-secret-monopolies-you-didnt-know-run-world.html

Of course they don't have complete information, but the tendency is certainly toward consumers being careful about where they spend there money.
The market tends towards perfect competition even though perfect competition obviously does not exist.

The law of demand means that consumers tend to take price/quality into consideration.

If something isn't profitable its because there isn't a demand for it.

That is so in perfect market. There are no perfect markets in reality and the closest any given market to monopoly is, the less choice consumers have and price/quality have lesser impact on the decision to buy. Add in the fact the difficulty in entering monopolised branch/industry and you've got mess.

Those difficulties include more experience of the monopolist, more knowledge about market segment, existing distribution networks and "economy of size". Weaker companies tend to merge, get bought or bankrupt.

If they don't, they become strong ones, in which case they tend to merge with those of their size (getting even bigger) or to "eat" the small ones, with the same result. End result is one big ass monopolist (or a few giant oligopolists that might not be in cartel) controlling both the amount of products produced, price of said products and ability of specialised workers to get employed in branch/industry they have educated themselves for (aka ability to decide salary). And even if the big guy allows you to produce some stuff, the fact of the matter is that your price will be higher, your expenses will be higher, the amount you manage to produce won't make a dent in demand and people will still be forced to buy from the big guy in the end, because of that small amount.

And if, by some incredible chance, you survive long enough on the market to be even the smallest threat to the big guy(s), (t)he can always use dumping prices to win in price war or just simply buy you. And the worse thing, it's natural process and even the perfect market won't stay in perfect equilibrium for long and will become imperfect.

How is a street light not profitable?

How do you think it could be? .

It takes too much effort to build the infrastructure, it is extremely hard to know who is using the service, it is even harder to make people pay for using it and there's no efficient way to cut people refusing to pay without cutting lots of "paying customers". So? Any ideas to make it profitable?

If something isn't profitable its because there isn't a demand for it.

Demand is not the issue. Supplying it is the tricky part, if you do it for profit, because costs outweigh profits. But, if you are state and are doing it because you want to lower crime rate and the number of accidents happening in the dark... Well, it's completely another ballgame.

Or, if you don't like that example, take another type of goods and services. Those that are beneficial for the society as a whole but usually don't turn out profit. Water recycling, for example. Is there a huge profit margin in taking a raw sewage, turning it into clean water and returning said water back into the river that I am not aware of? Mine sweeping. Disaster relief.

My point is, people have more motivations than greed (profit!) alone. Compassion. Lust. Desire for respect. Hunger for knowledge etc.

Private charity must also be considered, which would be greatly increased if it wasn't so deincentivized by the state.

What you theorise about (free, unregulated market) was tried once. But it was tried extensively, for a few hundred years. It didn't work then. It was changed into the (better but still not perfect) system we have now. Tell me, why should we get back to something that didn't work?

The rich had no reasons to give to the poor then and never gave enough. The main reason to give usually boiled to "If too much people starve to death or are hungry enough, they'll get angry, pick their scythes and hammers up and raise against us."

 

[Roboramma]

Somalia is not in a state of true anarchy, there are many outside governmental organizations injecting themselves into the affairs of the Somali people. Further, tribal warlords are operating states within the region known as Somalia. They are governments unto themselves. Thus, the regions they control are not in a state of anarchy.

And how do you propose that a truly anarchic state prevent the influence of outside governmental organizations or the emergence of tribal warlords? It seems to me that even if we accept your claim that Somalia is not a legitimate anarchy your anarchic utopia will be very short lived if you don't have some means of preventing it turning into Somalia.

 

[IchabodPlain]

The private system of justice that you are suing him under.

The wha??

You're suing someone, yet you think that isn't governance? And if I disagree with your charges, yet the case rules in your favor? Aren't you, by proxy, stealing from me that which I believe is rightfully mine? Courts render themselves meaningless unless their rulings can be enforced. What if two different courts disagree? Higher courts? Enforced by whom, exactly? Doesn't that initiate violence when court orders are enforced against an unwilling individual who believes no abuse of rights has occurred?

By creating an institution which guides the scope of natural rights, you've set up the moral underpinning for justified violence. You've also created a magnificent opportunity for corruption, so congratulations on that. Maybe competition cures all ills - but courts aren't free. I'd need to pony up to defend my case, then for higher courts on appeals (assuming I can). And even in the odd case of a respected judge and company - their power provides an ever-present economic incentive to do wrong.

The State is not necessary to have law and order.

Oh? And if I'm accused of murder, but plead innocent then what? I'm hung as a murderer by a mob? The mob clashes which my private security force which I pay to protect my rights (assuming I can)? Is it The Battle of Orlando every time I'm accused of stealing a Snickers?

The State is the exact opposite of law and order because it is predicated on the use of coercion to fund itself.

Well, no. It's law and order because it has an enforcement mechanism. You do see the "law" in "law and order" correct? Laws are some jumble of words written on a bit of stone or paper without enforcement. That enforcement isn't free. Further, 1,000's of security members aren't going to die over you or anyone else every time the town thinks you're accused of a serious crime which you plead innocent.

 

[Twiler]

Socialism legalizes the use of force against certain sectors of society, the free market does not.

The question of wealth distribution is a question of practical benefit, not basic morality.

You said the free market system was more moral than socialism, I disagreed, and gave my reasons. YOU brought up morality, not me.

 

[Zep]

Care to show any examples of monopolies not created by government?

Where to start!

Microsoft
BHP Billiton

To start with. I'm sure others can provide more. In fact, in both of these, they became monopolies despite government.

Perhaps the prices aren't as high as you think? [I've already said they are relatively more expensive than nutritious food.] Maybe consumers are happy to pay such prices so they shop around? [I've already said they have a whole herd of homeopaths within easy reach every day.] Maybe the homeopaths don't care about how much money they are making and thus don't try to lower prices to increase market share? [Quite the opposite - they are relatively rich and influential people locally...hint.] Perhaps there are social or service-based considerations in the price that aren't so visible?
I give up. You tell me.

See, now you're just guessing. But even that's an improvement on mikey.

I've highlighted what comes the closest, so you're nearly there! Think about it - put it in perspective of the reality of the environment in which this is happening. Remember: It's a free and open market with literally zero government oversight or involvement. In short, a perfect an-cap lab experiment.

 

[michaelsuede]

So Zep....

How big would they be without patent protections?

 

[clown]

So Zep....

How big would they be without patent protections?

Is that the stench of moving the goalposts I smell? It started with

Care to show any examples of monopolies not created by government?

and now the definition of "created by the government" is changed to include "happening in society that has any form of government", which is literally every society currently existing in the world.*

*Except for imaginary one in your mind.

 

[Neally]

You can go to Libertopia. In our world, that country is Somolia.

This is a lie that you and others keep repeating. "Somolia" is ruled by local warlords and is hardly an example of the ideal type of government advocated by libertarians.

 

[PGH]

This is a lie that you and others keep repeating. "Somolia" is ruled by local warlords and is hardly an example of the ideal type of government advocated by libertarians.

You are correct.


Somalia is what a libertarian government would look like 15 minutes after starting.


(Brodski below reminds me I should say an-cap government as opposed to libertarian government.)

 

[brodski]

This is a lie that you and others keep repeating. "Somolia" is ruled by local warlords and is hardly an example of the ideal type of government advocated by libertarians.

But this thread isn’t about libertarians (minarchists); it’s about anarchio-capitalists.
While it is true that few an-cap proponents will argue for a Somalia type existence (there have be a couple of nutters on the fringe of this fringe who have) there is nothing in an-cap philosophy which would prevent a Somalia type situation form arising, and once it has arisen nothing allowable in their philosophy which could practicably deal with the situation.
In the real world in the absence of a secure sate warlords spring up, in the an-cap pipedream in the absence of a secure state liberty and justice flourishes for all.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You are correct.
Somalia is what a libertarian government would look like 15 minutes after starting.

That seems unlikely.
Assume that, tomorrow, the U.S. Congress decried that all criminal penalties for failing to pay taxes would be revoked, but that taxes would still be calculated and collected, and that the actual taxes paid (voluntarily) by each individual and business would be a matter of public record.
Can you explain by what process this would cause the United States to become Somalia, and how long this process would take?

 

[brodski]

Somalia is what a libertarian government would look like 15 minutes after starting.

Nope. Whilst I don't think it would be desirable to live in a minarchist state, even one with an effective police force, it wouldn't look anything like Somalia.
An an-cap society? Yeah that would look like Somalia pretty quickly. The difference is important.

 

[PGH]

I went back to edit fellas..I see where I made the mistake. But most of the thread has been about anarcho-capitalism as opposed to libertarian ideals.

 

[AvalonXQ]

An an-cap society? Yeah that would look like Somalia pretty quickly. The difference is important.

I still don't agree. What, precisely, is the basis by which the removal of coercive force from the government necessarily corresponds with a transition from the U.S. today to Somalia?

 

[PGH]

I still don't agree. What, precisely, is the basis by which the removal of coercive force from the government necessarily corresponds with a transition from the U.S. today to Somalia?

Because for a whole lot of people the only thing keeping them from kicking down your door and just taking everything you own is that coercive force of government.