Non-Agenda-Oriented Solutions

pat · October 6, 2011, 5:43pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Do we think the libertarian wet dream of Somalia is really that successful? I think its pretty easy to see what happens when there really is as little government as completely possible.[/quote]

So you managed to demonstrate what happens when people fight over a power structure. Now prove that a government would be better in its place.

I’ll wait.[/quote]

A government would be better in its place. Any government would be better which is very telling.
[/quote]

This is not proof. This is your opinion.

[/quote]

No its a fact. It can be discerned by anyone with more than minimal intelligence. You can call it my premise.

Ideas propagate action. Prove this. What do you mean by ideas? I would hazard much more action is precipitated by brute emotion and raw desire than any lofty ideal.

When you are starving and you have a gun and that guy over there has the food its not an idea propagating whats going to occur.

I am all for intellectual arguments, but I think there could be a case made that no government anywhere at anytime in history has done anything to equal the depths of depravity that goes on in Somalia daily. To dismiss this as not my problem? It would be your problem if you lived somewhere with no government. There is no way you believe no government is a good state if you are being intellectually honest.
[/quote]

You cannot act without a proper idea.

QED.[/quote]

Please define idea. Are you simply making a tautology with idea being equal to thought? If so that isn’t how you were implying it. Fine I agree with you you cannot act unless your brain sends a series of electrical impulses through a set of nerves.

So great now we have your premise being that to commit any action your brain has to send some electricity somewhere. Or perhaps you mean something else by idea?
[/quote]

Concepts. Awareness. Thoughts. Notions. Impressions. Intentions. Opinions. Views. Beliefs.

You can look the meaning up in any dictionary.
[/quote]

Thats not how you were using it. You think you are being tricky or maybe you’re just not that quick. You took one very specific meaning of a word. Then when pressed you try to broaden the word so much as to be meaningless so you can’t be called on statements you present as true.

You were referring to idea more as an ideal. Don’t be a pussy and try to equate it with all mental states humans have.

Its still a fact that any government would be better than the state of affairs in Somalia. If you want a proof to fight with.

A There is a terrible amount of suffering and death in Somalia now.
B Any government would lessen this amount of suffering. Some by more than others.
C The lessening of suffering and premature violent death is a state to be worked toward.

Thus
D Some government should be put in place in Somalia.
[/quote]

Governments are responsible for suffering and death.

In order to lessen suffering it would have to first create more suffering and death.

Civilization arose out of cooperation sans government.[/quote]

You have a very poor grasp of history if you think that. Government exists at all levels, when it’s really tiny we call it a tribe, but there is a central power, rules and regulations in place. And if you aren’t a part of said tribe, you are the enemy until proven otherwise.
The Native Americans fought each other all the time. Tribal regions in Africa fight each other all the time. Conflict exists and it is part of the fabric of human existence.
Getting rid of government will not induce cooperation, it will do the opposite. You just need a government that knows it’s limits, but there are no ideals. It just doesn’t exist.

pat · October 6, 2011, 5:48pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Do we think the libertarian wet dream of Somalia is really that successful? I think its pretty easy to see what happens when there really is as little government as completely possible.[/quote]

So you managed to demonstrate what happens when people fight over a power structure. Now prove that a government would be better in its place.

I’ll wait.[/quote]

A government would be better in its place. Any government would be better which is very telling.
[/quote]

This is not proof. This is your opinion.

[/quote]

No its a fact. It can be discerned by anyone with more than minimal intelligence. You can call it my premise.

Ideas propagate action. Prove this. What do you mean by ideas? I would hazard much more action is precipitated by brute emotion and raw desire than any lofty ideal.

When you are starving and you have a gun and that guy over there has the food its not an idea propagating whats going to occur.

I am all for intellectual arguments, but I think there could be a case made that no government anywhere at anytime in history has done anything to equal the depths of depravity that goes on in Somalia daily. To dismiss this as not my problem? It would be your problem if you lived somewhere with no government. There is no way you believe no government is a good state if you are being intellectually honest.
[/quote]

You cannot act without a proper idea.

QED.[/quote]

Please define idea. Are you simply making a tautology with idea being equal to thought? If so that isn’t how you were implying it. Fine I agree with you you cannot act unless your brain sends a series of electrical impulses through a set of nerves.

So great now we have your premise being that to commit any action your brain has to send some electricity somewhere. Or perhaps you mean something else by idea?
[/quote]

Concepts. Awareness. Thoughts. Notions. Impressions. Intentions. Opinions. Views. Beliefs.

You can look the meaning up in any dictionary.
[/quote]

Thats not how you were using it. You think you are being tricky or maybe you’re just not that quick. You took one very specific meaning of a word. Then when pressed you try to broaden the word so much as to be meaningless so you can’t be called on statements you present as true.

You were referring to idea more as an ideal. Don’t be a pussy and try to equate it with all mental states humans have.

Its still a fact that any government would be better than the state of affairs in Somalia. If you want a proof to fight with.

A There is a terrible amount of suffering and death in Somalia now.
B Any government would lessen this amount of suffering. Some by more than others.
C The lessening of suffering and premature violent death is a state to be worked toward.

Thus
D Some government should be put in place in Somalia.
[/quote]

Governments are responsible for suffering and death.

In order to lessen suffering it would have to first create more suffering and death.

Civilization arose out of cooperation sans government.[/quote]

I think Somalia is a perfect example that your idea doesn’t work in practice.

orion · October 6, 2011, 5:55pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’m not going to watch the lecture orion. No doubt it’ll be as onesided as your viewpoints.

Please give me an example of a failed monopoly or cartel when relevant regulations to prevent them were absent.[/quote]

But he brings several examples, I think Rockefeller who tried to build an oil refining monopoly in the US and a German cartel that tried to block an American entrepreneur from selling bromine in Europe by constantly undercutting him.

I think Rothbard also has several examples, it never works.

orion · October 6, 2011, 5:57pm

[quote]groo wrote:
Do we think the libertarian wet dream of Somalia is really that successful? I think its pretty easy to see what happens when there really is as little government as completely possible.[/quote]

I doubt that “most” libertarians would cheer for Somalia.

Most libertarians are minarchists, not anarchists.

pat · October 6, 2011, 6:02pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Do we think the libertarian wet dream of Somalia is really that successful? I think its pretty easy to see what happens when there really is as little government as completely possible.[/quote]

I doubt that “most” libertarians would cheer for Somalia.

Most libertarians are minarchists, not anarchists. [/quote]

Correct, libertarianism is still pro-government. Just minimal government. But the movement has no teeth and I don’t think it ever will, it’s just not taking off. Grass roots ain’t gettin’ it done. I think an investment of about 2-3 billion dollars in advertising is whats needed to gain any ground. I don’t see any libertarian parting with that kind of cash, but you have flood the media because it’s being largely ignored.
We’re stuck with two parties until further notice.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · October 6, 2011, 6:21pm

[quote]pat wrote:
I think Somalia is a perfect example that your idea doesn’t work in practice.[/quote]

That is not my idea in practice.

My idea in practice is…wait for it…

wait for it

…

Don’t hurt people. Mind your own business.

orion · October 6, 2011, 6:25pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I think Somalia is a perfect example that your idea doesn’t work in practice.[/quote]

That is not my idea in practice.

My idea in practice is…wait for it…

wait for it

…

Don’t hurt people. Mind your own business.[/quote]

Yeah, and my addendum would be that a small but dedicated police force should come down like the wrath of God (OT) on those who do not quite get that raping, murdering and plundering are not ok.

ephrem · October 6, 2011, 6:32pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’m not going to watch the lecture orion. No doubt it’ll be as onesided as your viewpoints.

Please give me an example of a failed monopoly or cartel when relevant regulations to prevent them were absent.[/quote]

But he brings several examples, I think Rockefeller who tried to build an oil refining monopoly in the US and a German cartel that tried to block an American entrepreneur from selling bromine in Europe by constantly undercutting him.

I think Rothbard also has several examples, it never works.[/quote]

When was this, 1860?

ironcross · October 6, 2011, 11:18pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’m not going to watch the lecture orion. No doubt it’ll be as onesided as your viewpoints.

Please give me an example of a failed monopoly or cartel when relevant regulations to prevent them were absent.[/quote]

But he brings several examples, I think Rockefeller who tried to build an oil refining monopoly in the US and a German cartel that tried to block an American entrepreneur from selling bromine in Europe by constantly undercutting him.

I think Rothbard also has several examples, it never works.[/quote]

When was this, 1860?
[/quote]

It does work:

Carnegie, Morgan, and U.S. Steel
Among the wealthiest and most famous captains of industry in the late 1800s was Andrew Carnegie. A Scottish immigrant, Carnegie turned his one Pennsylvanian production plant into a veritable steel empire through a business tactic called vertical integration. Rather than rely on expensive middlemen, Carnegie vertically integrated his production process by buying out all of the companiesÃ¢??coal, iron ore, and so onÃ¢??needed to produce his steel, as well as the companies that produced the steel, shipped it, and sold it. Eventually, Carnegie sold his company to banker J. P. Morgan, who used the company as the foundation for the U.S. Steel Corporation. By the end of his life, Carnegie was one of the richest men in America, with a fortune of nearly $500 million.

Yes, Cargnegie succeeded in creating a monopoly.

Since the inception of corporations, they have been trying to take advantage of people, and the people they’ve taken advantage of have asked that they be made to pay what they failed to deliver on. The government stepped in because they were asked to:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1322201?seq=7

This isn’t to say corporations are a bad idea. But when your job is to make as much money any way you can and the people in charge have gotten there through competition, you have to understand that they are going to be good at lying and good at cheating.

orion · October 7, 2011, 6:12am

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’m not going to watch the lecture orion. No doubt it’ll be as onesided as your viewpoints.

Please give me an example of a failed monopoly or cartel when relevant regulations to prevent them were absent.[/quote]

But he brings several examples, I think Rockefeller who tried to build an oil refining monopoly in the US and a German cartel that tried to block an American entrepreneur from selling bromine in Europe by constantly undercutting him.

I think Rothbard also has several examples, it never works.[/quote]

When was this, 1860?
[/quote]

It does work:

Carnegie, Morgan, and U.S. Steel
Among the wealthiest and most famous captains of industry in the late 1800s was Andrew Carnegie. A Scottish immigrant, Carnegie turned his one Pennsylvanian production plant into a veritable steel empire through a business tactic called vertical integration. Rather than rely on expensive middlemen, Carnegie vertically integrated his production process by buying out all of the companiesÃ?Â¢??coal, iron ore, and so onÃ?Â¢??needed to produce his steel, as well as the companies that produced the steel, shipped it, and sold it. Eventually, Carnegie sold his company to banker J. P. Morgan, who used the company as the foundation for the U.S. Steel Corporation. By the end of his life, Carnegie was one of the richest men in America, with a fortune of nearly $500 million.

Yes, Cargnegie succeeded in creating a monopoly.

Since the inception of corporations, they have been trying to take advantage of people, and the people they’ve taken advantage of have asked that they be made to pay what they failed to deliver on. The government stepped in because they were asked to:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1322201?seq=7

This isn’t to say corporations are a bad idea. But when your job is to make as much money any way you can and the people in charge have gotten there through competition, you have to understand that they are going to be good at lying and good at cheating.[/quote]

What you fail to mention is that Carnegie slashed the price of steel rail by 90%, making construction, transportation and whatnot infinitely cheaper.

So, even if you think he had a monopoly, this monopoly was based on excellence and was never used to demand a premium.

The point that was made was that companies form cartels and monopolies to fleece their customers, which is something Carnegie never did and if he had tried he would have failed.

orion · October 7, 2011, 6:15am

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’m not going to watch the lecture orion. No doubt it’ll be as onesided as your viewpoints.

Please give me an example of a failed monopoly or cartel when relevant regulations to prevent them were absent.[/quote]

But he brings several examples, I think Rockefeller who tried to build an oil refining monopoly in the US and a German cartel that tried to block an American entrepreneur from selling bromine in Europe by constantly undercutting him.

I think Rothbard also has several examples, it never works.[/quote]

When was this, 1860?
[/quote]

Well, you asked for examples before laws where in place to prevent cartels, which was around 1890 in the US.

Of course, those laws were instantly used to form completely legal cartels. You now, the kind that is protected by the government from the evil forces of the market that would otherwise destroy them.

ephrem · October 7, 2011, 7:57am

[quote]orion wrote:

What you fail to mention is that Carnegie slashed the price of steel rail by 90%, making construction, transportation and whatnot infinitely cheaper.

So, even if you think he had a monopoly, this monopoly was based on excellence and was never used to demand a premium.

The point that was made was that companies form cartels and monopolies to fleece their customers, which is something Carnegie never did and if he had tried he would have failed.

[/quote]

Okay, I’ll concede that this was a succesful monopoly, in the absence of relevant regulation, that didn’t fleece its customers.

Do you have examples of how legislation leads to the formation of cartels, illegal price agreements and monopolies?

orion · October 7, 2011, 8:27am

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

What you fail to mention is that Carnegie slashed the price of steel rail by 90%, making construction, transportation and whatnot infinitely cheaper.

So, even if you think he had a monopoly, this monopoly was based on excellence and was never used to demand a premium.

The point that was made was that companies form cartels and monopolies to fleece their customers, which is something Carnegie never did and if he had tried he would have failed.

[/quote]

Okay, I’ll concede that this was a succesful monopoly, in the absence of relevant regulation, that didn’t fleece its customers.

Do you have examples of how legislation leads to the formation of cartels, illegal price agreements and monopolies?
[/quote]

Well of course I have no examples for laws that lead to illegal price agreements, because, well, those agreements were not only legal but mandated by law.

As far as fleecisng the customers goes:

Well there were laws passed to make sure that “market wages” were required if you wanted government contracts, i.e you had to pay union wages or else you could not compete. This was used to drive out southern companies from the north that out competed northern companies.

PanAM I think was granted a monopoly on all transatlantic flights.

Most states in the US have a lot of mandatory requirements for health insures policies, which makes them unnecessarily expensive.

Trucking and cab licenses, minimum wages, price fixing, especially under Roosevelt and Nixon, and, most important of all, a granted monopoly to the Fed to issue legal tender, which, via inflation fleeces the public of billions a year. Maybe trillions, who knows.

The trick du jour is environmental and safety regulations. If you just make those regulations expensive and intricate enough only big companies can comply. A recent example that comes to mind is safety regulation for childrens toys in the wake of this lead paint scandal. Even if there is no evidence that any child was ever harmed by this new toys were meant to undergo such a complicated process that it would have wiped small toy manufacturers of the market. Incidentally Mattel did not care, in fact, they had been building their own research facility and were heavily lobbying for it. All in the name of safety of course.

Oh, and there are ethanol subsidies, who cares if it makes no environmental sense, the customers pay more and a few hundred thousand people starve because their food prices double.

Just off the top of my head, if I did a minimal amount of research I could probably bury you with cases.

Interestingly enough, the only successful free market monopoly I can think of is de Beers and who gives a shit about diamonds.

ephrem · October 7, 2011, 9:17am

[quote]orion wrote:

Well of course I have no examples for laws that lead to illegal price agreements, because, well, those agreements were not only legal but mandated by law.

As far as fleecisng the customers goes:

Well there were laws passed to make sure that “market wages” were required if you wanted government contracts, i.e you had to pay union wages or else you could not compete. This was used to drive out southern companies from the north that out competed northern companies.

PanAM I think was granted a monopoly on all transatlantic flights.

Most states in the US have a lot of mandatory requirements for health insures policies, which makes them unnecessarily expensive.

Trucking and cab licenses, minimum wages, price fixing, especially under Roosevelt and Nixon, and, most important of all, a granted monopoly to the Fed to issue legal tender, which, via inflation fleeces the public of billions a year. Maybe trillions, who knows.

The trick du jour is environmental and safety regulations. If you just make those regulations expensive and intricate enough only big companies can comply. A recent example that comes to mind is safety regulation for childrens toys in the wake of this lead paint scandal. Even if there is no evidence that any child was ever harmed by this new toys were meant to undergo such a complicated process that it would have wiped small toy manufacturers of the market. Incidentally Mattel did not care, in fact, they had been building their own research facility and were heavily lobbying for it. All in the name of safety of course.

Oh, and there are ethanol subsidies, who cares if it makes no environmental sense, the customers pay more and a few hundred thousand people starve because their food prices double.

Just off the top of my head, if I did a minimal amount of research I could probably bury you with cases.

Interestingly enough, the only successful free market monopoly I can think of is de Beers and who gives a shit about diamonds. [/quote]

This is all about the USA. Things work slightly different over there, but I guess they’re valid examples.

Conservatives on this board often tout the '50s as a decade where everything was right in the world [USA]. Yet somehow they forget the 91% income tax for the rich: Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia

Roosevelts New Deal imposed regulation and stimulated the formation of workers unions. Subsequently the USA’s economy soared to great heights until sometime after 1974 many markets were deregulated, taxes were cut and spending increased.

So what’s wrong with this picture? Why does an economy surge and a nation flourish with regulation and high taxes for the rich? Why is, when [almost] everyone benefits from an economic upswing, this a bad thing?

Nowadays only the already rich increase their wealth exponentially while the have-nots suffer and bear the brunt of the recession. Why is this a good thing?

Why do you still believe that what is good for a few [the ultra rich] is good for all? Because you are taxed against your will?

Again, I’m not argueing in favor of our current system, I just fail to see the positive side of your position. If all else is equal, a free market will not result in diversifacation and honesty among businesses vs consumers.

How can it? The goal of any business is to make a profit, no matter what. There are plenty of examples of immoral behaviour by conglomerates all over the world, where there’s nobody to look over their shoulder because they paid them off. Africa comes to mind.

I did learn something from this exchange orion, that’s something at least.

orion · October 7, 2011, 10:03am