Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I do, that is what supply and demand is based off of. Libertarians understand that the government doesn't know what people want, and even it it did, it would work in it's own best interest first. Free markets have an incentive to meet the demands of people. The government has little incentive to do so after they've been appointed and given their power.
Government is a product of the people. People tell the government what it wants not the other way around.
Quote:
Markets aren't a monolith, but the government is. There is a very clear difference here that you choose to ignore. Also the government is not for the people. That's a lie. You have absolutely no influence in the poltical process. Occasionally the govenrnment will throw you a bone, but they're not working for the people.
Markets are the same as government. People influence the political process same as they influence markets.
Quote:
Only if the demand go down. But I'm pretty sure you just pulled that statement out of your ass.
LOL, I'm basing this on my own investments and my actual life. You do not reap the benefits of markets immediately. You reap the best rewards over time. You have to work to get something out of the market. It doesn't just fall in your lap. FWIW that is the same in regards to government and creating laws or dismantling laws as well. It just won't happen, you have to do something to make it happen. I also did say that markets move faster than government. That is primarily because governments are used to manage/control a variety of institutions/influences in a society, including the markets.
Quote:
I study economics. What you're referring to is speculation and boom/bust cycles. Generally when this happens the market corrects itself. This often happens after a company makes an IPO and the market has a spike, the settles down once the market corrects itself.
We are always in either a boom or bust. I have also studied economics. The booms and busts are based on human influence. The settling (which is basically the "boom") only occurs after emotions of humans decline and remain stable for a period. However, the cycle of boom/bust will always occur in any capitalist economy.
Quote:
What prevents market correction is government interfering, because they can't predict demand. Hence they make things worse than they were before.
This doesn't make any sense as IMO it is not based in reality. Is it your contention that markets have never stabilized due to government always being an influence? IMO there have been a series of booms and busts throughout the course of our nations history. We have always had a government yet the above has still occurred.
Quote:
Accept what people in the market produce is tangible, and it's voluntary. This is a key difference. Government isn't voluntary.
See above posts. Participation in markets is not voluntary. All of us depend on some sort of market economy just to survive.
Quote:
And what makes the government more "solid and stable". I mean it's clearly not, just look at all of the disasters the financially and socially the government has under it's belt.
The disasters of the financial sector are market disasters, not government disaster. Government is more solid and stable, in this nation, due to the constitution and there being rules that society buys into. If people did not buy into those rules, then our government would not be solid or stable. We'd be like some crazy war torn nation like Syria.
Quote:
And again, read up on economics. Markets usually straighten themselves out. And government usually prolongs economic issue moreso than they fix them. Case in point, we've been driving ourselves further into debt and destroying our producivity because the government continues to interfere
Markets straighten out after a disastrous cycle. That is boom and bust of which you mentioned above and it is the nature of "the markets" in a capitalistic society. Government does not cause the booms and busts. Markets do that naturally. Government can mitigate the damage or attempt to improve the economy after a bust and mostly this is done due to trying to calm the public down since, as stated earlier, markets and government are primarily influenced by human behavior and emotion. When people perceive the government is "doing something" then they will feel better and the economy will improve. If the government is perceived to not be "doing something" then the busts of markets and economy will be prolonged and more damaging to real people's lives.
Also, as stated, I've taken economics courses. I also have taken sociology and history courses. All of what I wrote above is common stuff. It is my opinion that you Libertarians and you specifically as an anarchist are just not putting the emphasis on human behavior in regards to the markets as you should.
Also, you are making "the government" some sort of beast just like you make "the markets" a God. Both are created, maintained, and influenced by human behavior. I agreed with you that markets are "faster" as they can be more easily manipulated based on human needs, activity and emotion in particular. Government cannot be as there is a process to follow. IMO there is a place in society for markets and government. I think our current system, though flawed, is one of the best ever created in the history of our world on this subject - government role in regulating markets.
You, like many Libertarian minded people do not think that government should regulate anything at all in the markets. However, it is impossible for governments not to do this because volatility in markets can greatly impact the country on various levels and even cause a society to collapse.
Business cannot hold anybody in poverty. In a relatively free society like US, the skill level and work ethics determine the economic level of each person. In some more restrictive society, it may be their family name. You will not be able to name a case where a business were able to hold anybody in poverty. For a business to do that, it's suicidal - who's going to buy their product and services? Business has an enormous interest to enrich everybody because only then, they can enrich themselves.
A coal mine cannot hold anybody done if every miner is a brain surgeon.The issue is those miners had no other skills but pure labor.
So then based on the bold, are you stating that the market will force people to get into a particular field, and not solely rely on their own labor?
On the red, I actually did in regards to coal miners. Coal miners and their entire families were kept in poverty by capitalist in our "free" society in the 19ths and 20th centuries...
I guess you believe that the USA was not "free" during that time period...
On the black, that is an odd thing for me to think about.
The time period that we have had more of what you all seem to want - a more Libertarian form of government where our nation's governing bodies or executives did not get all that involved in free markets was during the 19th century and the early 20th century. Businesses forced people to labor and kept entire families and towns in poverty. Our society was considered a "free" society at the time.
The primary thing that anyone has to use is their "labor." Not everyone is or can be a brain surgeon.
So are you admitting that in a Libertarian society, unless one is of a professional class (a brain surgeon), that they will be forced to be in poverty or they should accept that they are of a poverty stricken class???
I'm giggling at the red. Do you actually believe that people cannot participate in the financial markets/economy of a society??? Everyone is forced to participate in it just like everyone is forced to participate in government. If you want goods/services, even without currency, you will have to do something to get them. It is a necessity to participate in receiving goods and services (food and water for instance). There fore, everyone is forced to participate in markets. You cannot exist in society without doing so. Our current society, everyone is participating in our economy from babies to elderly. There is no way that you cannot participate in it if you want or need anything to survive.
On the blue, of course the first paragraph is an example of "government." Plenty of organizations, including businesses in the free markets have "governing bodies." The governing bodies (i.e. the board of commmissioners) adhere to policies/codes of the businesses of which they run and they make decisions to run the business. They also punish those who do not follow the businesses policies/codes of behavior. They are a government.
On the mafia, and the 2nd paragraph, of course people in a neighborhood can indeed see the mafia as a "legitimate" authority and government of a particular area even much more so "legitimate" than they do the actual local, state or federal government. History shows this to be the case in regards to various ethnic enclaves in America in the past and I'm sure in many areas/industries today. The mafia did "tax" people by force or without force. They offered "protection" same as government does. All sorts of enterprises, both criminal and non-criminal can indeed be a governing body and impost a governmental authority on others.
Again, that is my whole issue with the concept of Libertarianism. It is like you all just cannot see it even when you bring forth examples that human beings are always forming some type of governing body and always are involved in a market of goods and services.
Ok, maybe this will focus things a bit more since we're kind of arguing semantics here...
I'm not against voluntary governing bodies, if you want to call it that. If every individual involved actually chose to be a part of it and had the option to refuse, that's fine. Nobody is initiating force or harassing people who were minding their own business. They could form whatever government they want for all I care, as long nobody is being forced into it.
What I have a problem with is any situation where someone is minding their own business and someone comes along and imposes things on them that they never agreed to. I'd have a big problem with Walmart coming to your door and billing you for some random items you never asked for, or if they came onto your property and told you that you must obey their company rules.
You can argue that participation in the market is involuntary (although technically you could try to be self-sufficient) but that's kind of like saying we're slaves to oxygen because we need to breathe. It's a fact of life, whereas forcing others to fund what I want and imposing my will on them is not.
At least the neophyte troll isn't accusing Trump of whatever it is that Hillary was caught doing. It's a good sign that libertarians are on the radar and considered a threat, no matter how small.
Ok, maybe this will focus things a bit more since we're kind of arguing semantics here...
I'm not against voluntary governing bodies, if you want to call it that. If every individual involved actually chose to be a part of it and had the option to refuse, that's fine. Nobody is initiating force or harassing people who were minding their own business. They could form whatever government they want for all I care, as long nobody is being forced into it.
What I have a problem with is any situation where someone is minding their own business and someone comes along and imposes things on them that they never agreed to. I'd have a big problem with Walmart coming to your door and billing you for some random items you never asked for, or if they came onto your property and told you that you must obey their company rules.
You can argue that participation in the market is involuntary (although technically you could try to be self-sufficient) but that's kind of like saying we're slaves to oxygen because we need to breathe. It's a fact of life, whereas forcing others to fund what I want and imposing my will on them is not.
On the red, then you are not a Libertarian since that is basically what our government is here in America.
If a majority of people didn't chose to be a part of it, we would not have a government to debate about or a country at all.
Everyone in a stable country has voluntarily chosen to governed.
If you do not want to be governed, you can chose to leave the country. No one would stop you. Please note this is not directed at you specifically, but is a general "you."
IMO participation in some sort of market economy actually is a part of life. This is another reason why I do not buy into the concept of Libertarians as it seems like many staunch Libertarians do not understand that this is the case.
I know that some posters on here are anarchists as well and FWIW I do think there is a huge difference between them and Libertarians. They are a whole different kind of crazy IMO.
However, too many Libertarians push a more anarchist viewpoint IMO. Instead of limiting government, they seek to privatize everything and do not realize that businesses can be just as damaging to the lives of individuals as governments can be - that there is no way to ensure competition and that people can have their rights/freedoms infringed upon by businesses just as they can with governmental authority.
On the red, then you are not a Libertarian since that is basically what our government is here in America.
If a majority of people didn't chose to be a part of it, we would not have a government to debate about or a country at all.
Everyone in a stable country has voluntarily chosen to governed.
If you do not want to be governed, you can chose to leave the country. No one would stop you. Please note this is not directed at you specifically, but is a general "you."
IMO participation in some sort of market economy actually is a part of life. This is another reason why I do not buy into the concept of Libertarians as it seems like many staunch Libertarians do not understand that this is the case.
I know that some posters on here are anarchists as well and FWIW I do think there is a huge difference between them and Libertarians. They are a whole different kind of crazy IMO.
However, too many Libertarians push a more anarchist viewpoint IMO. Instead of limiting government, they seek to privatize everything and do not realize that businesses can be just as damaging to the lives of individuals as governments can be - that there is no way to ensure competition and that people can have their rights/freedoms infringed upon by businesses just as they can with governmental authority.
so let's not bog down this thread too much, I feel we're going in circles. what makes the government inherently better than a business?
So then based on the bold, are you stating that the market will force people to get into a particular field, and not solely rely on their own labor?
On the red, I actually did in regards to coal miners. Coal miners and their entire families were kept in poverty by capitalist in our "free" society in the 19ths and 20th centuries...
I guess you believe that the USA was not "free" during that time period...
On the black, that is an odd thing for me to think about.
The time period that we have had more of what you all seem to want - a more Libertarian form of government where our nation's governing bodies or executives did not get all that involved in free markets was during the 19th century and the early 20th century. Businesses forced people to labor and kept entire families and towns in poverty. Our society was considered a "free" society at the time.
The primary thing that anyone has to use is their "labor." Not everyone is or can be a brain surgeon.
So are you admitting that in a Libertarian society, unless one is of a professional class (a brain surgeon), that they will be forced to be in poverty or they should accept that they are of a poverty stricken class???
IMO that is what you are admitting with the bold.
How did the coal mine hold people down? That makes no sense whatsoever. Did they put a gun on people's heads? Did they limit their ability to travel? What did the coal mine do exactly?
I know that some posters on here are anarchists as well and FWIW I do think there is a huge difference between them and Libertarians. They are a whole different kind of crazy IMO.
However, too many Libertarians push a more anarchist viewpoint IMO. Instead of limiting government, they seek to privatize everything and do not realize that businesses can be just as damaging to the lives of individuals as governments can be - that there is no way to ensure competition and that people can have their rights/freedoms infringed upon by businesses just as they can with governmental authority.
I don't know any single libertarian who's not aware of what the business can do to damage our freedom.
Take Google for example, it got so large that it cornered the search world. Because it's leaning left politically, it has banned many type of searches. It could very well influence the election if it wants to.
On the red, then you are not a Libertarian since that is basically what our government is here in America.
If a majority of people didn't chose to be a part of it, we would not have a government to debate about or a country at all.
Everyone in a stable country has voluntarily chosen to governed.
If you do not want to be governed, you can chose to leave the country. No one would stop you. Please note this is not directed at you specifically, but is a general "you."
IMO participation in some sort of market economy actually is a part of life. This is another reason why I do not buy into the concept of Libertarians as it seems like many staunch Libertarians do not understand that this is the case.
I know that some posters on here are anarchists as well and FWIW I do think there is a huge difference between them and Libertarians. They are a whole different kind of crazy IMO.
However, too many Libertarians push a more anarchist viewpoint IMO. Instead of limiting government, they seek to privatize everything and do not realize that businesses can be just as damaging to the lives of individuals as governments can be - that there is no way to ensure competition and that people can have their rights/freedoms infringed upon by businesses just as they can with governmental authority.
Well I am an anarchist libertarian who thinks everything should be privately owned, for the record. I don't even trust private businesses more than government, I just prefer organizations that people can ignore rather than ones that have societal permission to take your stuff and enforce their will on you.
I also think you misunderstood what I said about the fact of life thing...I agree that the market is a fact of life. I was saying government (or a ruling class, to use a different term) is not a fact of life. They used to say slavery was a fact of life because of human nature, but clearly not. People just had to stop treating it as acceptable behavior.
As for what I said existing today, definitely not. The majority consenting is not the same as each individual consenting. You also got into a social contract type of argument, which always drives me insane, but I don't think I've discussed it with you before...so nothing personal. It just makes me want to smash my head against the wall. So the points I'd make are:
1. It isn't the burden of the person minding their own business to move if others are initiating force. If you're on your own property and Walmart decides to harass you, it isn't you that needs to deal with it or move, even if your neighbors all support Walmart. They need to stop harassing you.
2. There is currently no free society on Earth, so saying I consent by not moving doesn't really work. It's like if there were 10 houses you could choose to live in, and each one had a designated guy that came in every night and jumped on your bed...so you say you don't want any guy jumping on your bed and you're told "well you agreed to it by living in this house, and if you don't like it you can move to one of the other houses"...where you'll have the same problem.
By that logic, government can do no wrong because everyone consents to it. If we don't like it, we can just move. Being left alone isn't an option at this time in history.
so let's not bog down this thread too much, I feel we're going in circles. what makes the government inherently better than a business?
I didn't say that government was inherently better than business. I said businesses can be just as bad as government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
