The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#51
#51
volinbham said:
Public schools are not a monopoly because:

1. I am not compelled to use the service
2. I can find any number of alternatives including doing it myself.
Click to expand...

BTW, I've never heard these 2 points used as criteria for determining if monopoly or not. I'm not compelled to use Microsoft. There are obviously alternatives. So not a monopoly?
 
#52
#52
possumslayer said:
The libertarian test,Google it
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Interesting...
Your Libertarian Purity Score

Your score is...

94

What Your Score Means

0 points: You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are probably not even a liberal or a conservative. Just some Nazi nut, I guess.

1-5 points: You have a few libertarian notions, but overall you're a statist.

6-15 points: You are starting to have libertarian leanings. Explore them.

16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.

31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

131-159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer. :)

160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.
Click to expand...
 
#54
#54
580388_411600728857742_192214550796362_1525694_2061621226_n.jpg
 
#55
#55
n_huffhines said:
BTW, I've never heard these 2 points used as criteria for determining if monopoly or not. I'm not compelled to use Microsoft. There are obviously alternatives. So not a monopoly?
Click to expand...

The second point is the very definition of a monopoly. If there are competing alternatives then you don't have a monopoly.

WRT to MS: If you read my post you'll see I suggested that Microsoft used monopoly behaviors - (the ones you suggested in an earlier post). I did not claim it was a monopoly.
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
n_huffhines said:
b) If I had business that got 100% of its revenue from subsidies and I gave away my product for free, you wouldn't consider it a monopoly? That's the finest form of predatory pricing. The competition can't charge $0, and your profits won't even suffer from your predatory pricing.
Click to expand...

Predatory pricing is not the definition of a monopoly.

Look at the definition of a monopoly. It is about exclusivity of supply to a market.
 
#57
#57
btw, the Post Office and roads are among the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution

ok, "post roads" is what is actually listed
 
#58
#58
volinbham said:
The second point is the very definition of a monopoly. If there are competing alternatives then you don't have a monopoly.

WRT to MS: If you read my post you'll see I suggested that Microsoft used monopoly behaviors - (the ones you suggested in an earlier post). I did not claim it was a monopoly.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of that definition. That might be a concise, quasi-accurate way to explain a monopoly to a child. There has never been a market offering without competing alternatives*, so adopting that definition would mean there has never been a monopoly.

*substitute goods
 
#59
#59
MG1968 said:
btw, the Post Office and roads are among the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution

ok, "post roads" is what is actually listed
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the father of the constitution vetoed an interstate highway system claiming it was unconstitutional.
 
#60
#60
n_huffhines said:
I've never heard of that definition. That might be a concise, quasi-accurate way to explain a monopoly to a child. There has never been a market offering without competing alternatives*, so adopting that definition would mean there has never been a monopoly.

*substitute goods
Click to expand...

A monopoly is when there is a single supplier. If there are competing suppliers you do not have a monopoly. There are any number of competitors to public schools in a given area - private, religious, home-school.

Monopolies rarely exist. When they do, the are typically geographically bound. Given logistics and general mobility of the population monopolies are increasingly rare.

One doesn't have to be a true monopoly to exhibit monopolistic behaviors.
 
#61
#61
volinbham said:
A monopoly is when there is a single supplier. If there are competing suppliers you do not have a monopoly. There are any number of competitors to public schools in a given area - private, religious, home-school.

Monopolies rarely exist. When they do, the are typically geographically bound. Given logistics and general mobility of the population monopolies are increasingly rare.

One doesn't have to be a true monopoly to exhibit monopolistic behaviors.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but what I'm saying is you can fail to satisfy that requirement and still be considered a monopoly. Legally speaking, and academically speaking.

In the UK you only have to have 25% of market share to be considered a monopoly.
 
#63
#63
n_huffhines said:
Now go study up on the philosophy of liberty for a few years, and you'll come back an anarchist, LOL.
Click to expand...

I am quite positive that the philosophers who deal with liberty are not anarchists, nor could they be reduced to anarchists without quite a bit of rhetorical gymnastics.
 
#64
#64
therealUT said:
I am quite positive that the philosophers who deal with liberty are not anarchists, nor could they be reduced to anarchists without quite a bit of rhetorical gymnastics.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Socrates. I'm talking about more modern political minds that espouse ideas like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I[/youtube]
 
#65
#65
government monopolies: military, state/local police, court system. agree?

I would argue yes, but after reading huffhines and vbh's debate, I'm curious what you all think?
 
#66
#66
n_huffhines said:
I'm not talking about Socrates. I'm talking about more modern political minds that espouse ideas like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I could only stomach about 1:42 of that tripe. If, in order to reach the masses, philosopher is reduced to that kind of crap, then we, as a human race, are absolutely f*****.

I would include Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Mill, Thoreau, and Simmons in the group of modern political philosophers who espouse liberty. None of these philosophers could be classified as political anarchists (although, Simmons self-identifies as a "philosophical anarchist"); all of them argue that societal/government structures must exist to mete out justice and resolve disputes.
 
#67
#67
dreVol said:
government monopolies: military, state/local police, court system. agree?

I would argue yes, but after reading huffhines and vbh's debate, I'm curious what you all think?
Click to expand...

Military: if defined, as restricted under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of the 1970s, a force used solely for the purposes of self-defense, I see no argument as to why citizens and corporations should not be allowed to have private security forces and paramilitaries to be used in their defense.

State/local police: If a group of persons choose to live in an exclusive commune, they should also have the choice to have their own local, self-policing system and force.

Courts: If two individuals have a dispute, they should have the option to seek mediation through whatever system they both agree to, whether this system is religiously based, institutionally based, or community based. If they cannot agree to any single institution, then, and only then, should the government, as an unbiased mediator, resolve the dispute.
 
#69
#69
therealUT said:
I could only stomach about 1:42 of that tripe. If, in order to reach the masses, philosopher is reduced to that kind of crap, then we, as a human race, are absolutely f*****.

I would include Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Mill, Thoreau, and Simmons in the group of modern political philosophers who espouse liberty. None of these philosophers could be classified as political anarchists (although, Simmons self-identifies as a "philosophical anarchist"); all of them argue that societal/government structures must exist to mete out justice and resolve disputes.
Click to expand...

Goosfraba.

What exactly did you not like about it? I agree it's rudimentary, but people have a very difficult time understanding these concepts.

Have you read up much on liberty and anarchy?
 
#70
#70
dreVol said:
government monopolies: military, state/local police, court system. agree?

I would argue yes, but after reading huffhines and vbh's debate, I'm curious what you all think?
Click to expand...

What exactly are you asking? Are you asking if they are monopolies?
 
#71
#71
n_huffhines said:
Goosfraba.

What exactly did you not like about it? I agree it's rudimentary, but people have a very difficult time understanding these concepts.

Have you read up much on liberty and anarchy?
Click to expand...

I'm old enough that I have to forget something to learn something new so I appreciate when it is in small bits and I don't have to dump anything important(like the way home!).

:birgits_giggle:
 
#72
#72
n_huffhines said:
Goosfraba.

What exactly did you not like about it? I agree it's rudimentary, but people have a very difficult time understanding these concepts.
Click to expand...

1. In the same amount of time (1:42), I could have easily read and come away with more information.

2. I thought both the music and the color-scheme were nauseating.

3. I am not sold, nor are many philosophers, on the identity of the self over time; therefore, the property, liberty, life distinction is incredibly problematic (this distinction is also problematic from a purely epistemological standpoint: the past is gone (property does not exist in the past; nothing exists in the past); the present is always dying/always going out of existence (yet, this is where liberty occurs, according to whomever put this video together); and, the future never exists (yet, this is where our life is, according to this video). I do my best to avoid both the philosophy of identity and of existence because the ontology and metaontology (yes, this is a discipline and area of philosophy) are highly complex and, for my interests, impractical. I can, and the philosophers I've named can, explore morality (ethics and politics) without having to deal directly (hopefully, not even tangentially) with the problems of identity and existence.

n_huffhines said:
Have you read up much on liberty and anarchy?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what 'much' here signifies. I've certainly read my fair share of political philosophy and much of that concerns liberty (some concerns anarchy); I have not read anything by Nozick, yet. That said, I have read plenty of Rawls and I have plenty of complaints that I hear Nozick has about Rawls's Theory of Justice.
 
#73
#73
therealUT said:
1. In the same amount of time (1:42), I could have easily read and come away with more information.

2. I thought both the music and the color-scheme were nauseating.

3. I am not sold, nor are many philosophers, on the identity of the self over time; therefore, the property, liberty, life distinction is incredibly problematic (this distinction is also problematic from a purely epistemological standpoint: the past is gone (property does not exist in the past; nothing exists in the past); the present is always dying/always going out of existence (yet, this is where liberty occurs, according to whomever put this video together); and, the future never exists (yet, this is where our life is, according to this video). I do my best to avoid both the philosophy of identity and of existence because the ontology and metaontology (yes, this is a discipline and area of philosophy) are highly complex and, for my interests, impractical. I can, and the philosophers I've named can, explore morality (ethics and politics) without having to deal directly (hopefully, not even tangentially) with the problems of identity and existence.
Click to expand...

The point of the video is they are saying your property is the present manifestation of your past. It's representative of what you accomplished with your time and your liberty. It's basically proof of life. When someone takes your property, they are stealing your past.

Philosophy is not my expertise. I'm more about economics. Economic "philosophers" like Hayek, Rothbard, and Von Mises are the guys I'm talking about. They had nothing to do with this video, which I admit is very simplistic. They developed the science of praxeology (which I'm sure you'd be interested in, since you are into some heavy-thinking ****).

Also, another good book is the Machinery of Freedom (David Friedman, available for free download), which isn't so much philosophy as it is an explanation of how an anarchist society would function.
 
#74
#74
n_huffhines said:
The point of the video is they are saying your property is the present manifestation of your past. It's representative of what you accomplished with your time and your liberty. It's basically proof of life. When someone takes your property, they are stealing your past.
Click to expand...

I understand that this is the point they are trying to make. I find it problematic, at best, and, at first glance, it strikes me as an absurd notion. It is as absurd of a notion as Hegel's definition of property as an extension of the self or Locke's assertion that since one gains property by laboring, that one's life is in property. Yet, the easiest rebuttal to such claims is to demonstrate that if I torch the house your built or the field you have cultivated (these entities which somehow possess a part of your life), I have not in any way actually harmed your life. Property as a natural human right is a problematic notion each and every time it is encountered (Kant thinks that first claim constitutes property and that one's property can extend as far as one can mechanically defend it; a sensational claim considering modern drone technology).

Non-problematically, property is at least a good, and a social right, depending upon the society in which one lives. For American's, then, the right to property is one established through the Constitution. Whether the right to property reaches beyond that is contentious.

n_huffhines said:
Philosophy is not my expertise. I'm more about economics. Economic "philosophers" like Hayek, Rothbard, and Von Mises are the guys I'm talking about. They had nothing to do with this video, which I admit is very simplistic. They developed the science of praxeology (which I'm sure you'd be interested in, since you are into some heavy-thinking ****).

Also, another good book is the Machinery of Freedom (David Friedman, available for free download), which isn't so much philosophy as it is an explanation of how an anarchist society would function.
Click to expand...

I have not read too many modern economists. I enjoy Adam Smith and I enjoy Milton Friedman. I think Keynes is an intelligent idiot. I have heard that Hayek has some great stuff; maybe he has an argument as to why property is a natural human right that does not depend on the philosophy of identity and existence. If he does, then I am going to find it highly problematic (where most non-philosophically educated individuals might accept the basic premises based on life and time).
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top