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.
Hmm, Apple couldn't come out with the 7 because precisely that their technology was not there yet. If they didn't put out their best products, you know, some dumb people called competitors might have done that. Apple would be left in the dust if that happened.
Apple has no competition. Copyrights, patents, zoning, and tax laws see to that. All with the approval (or more appropriately collusion) of its business partner Uncle Sammy.
All my arguments are in the context of a completely stateless free market, why do you think I have been intentionally indicating that the actual currency traded for the service doesn't matter, it will always be correlated to the real value/cost of the service being bought. Hint, when I say "real value" I am not talking about American dollars. If you want we can measure it in cheese burgers. The average individual will not be able to afford the amount of cheese burgers it would take to pay off all the manpower and resources it takes to bring a criminal to justice.
Truth is, in any free market there will always be a real value associated with the cost of man hours for skilled labor and there will always be a real value associated with the use of resources required to bring criminals to justice, and the combined values of these two factors will be more expensive than 95% of people are going to be able to handle. If I need trained professionals to commit 4000(sometimes less, many times more) hours of work to a case to solve it, that will always be at least as expensive as the salary of those professionals over those 4000 hours, regardless of the currency they are payed in. This is basically the foundation principle of a free market - Goods and services have intrinsic values that the market will find.
The problem arises when you have a service that is vital for society but not profitable enough for any individual or corp to be willing to provide it.
I am asking you to back up your assertion from earlier that the criminal justice system is making money by keeping things illegal. I disagree because I don't think the criminal justice system is making money at all. It is funded at a loss via taxes and newly printed currency just like most of the other government agencies. Why are you deflecting? Just back up your earlier assertion.
Ugh. This is why I bowed out. I disagree that you are starting from a truly free market perspective. I'm going to tap out again.
So you are right, but you can't say why you are right, or why I am wrong, or why I am not starting from a truly free market perspective.
I disagree with you, I AM starting from a truly free market perspective.
Gee Wiz, this is easy, do I win the debate now?
Regardless of who's "right" and who's "wrong" it's your world we'll be living in.
That's why I always tell you statists to take it easy on us few anarchists. It's bad enough you'll call in armed State enforcers on me if my privacy fence is above height regulation. Can't you let us win an internet debate or two for the suffering we endure at your hands?
This actually reminds me of the idea that "the market" is some deity to libertarians...which is a big misunderstanding. You're exactly right that it's just people, but the idea is that allowing people to make their own decisions is superior to having a central plan dictate what they must do. You could also say that the problem is people thinking they know what's best, so they intrude, micromanage, and completely distort the naturally occurring forces of people acting in freedom (which is what the market refers to).
I also have to say that yes, allowing people to make their own decisions is better than putting someone in power to make those decisions for everyone. Definitely from the rights/"morality" perspective, but also the practical...unless the person making those decisions is a God of some sort, which is why I laugh when I hear the "market as a deity" comment.
On "the market" is it your contention that individuals and/or groups of people do not influence "the market?"
That is what I'm getting at. Both markets and government are influenced by people.
Many libertarians it seems fail to realize the above - that people created and constantly "influence" the markets. Also that people "allow" other people to do so. Also that people "allow" other people to "influence" the government. Every social institution in existence that humans follow was created and is continuously "influenced" by people.
So IMO it is laughable to hear all this stuff about "the free market" as if it is something that can even exist without the influence of lay persons. Also to act like it is some sort of equalizer on society when it is not. People ALWAYS make their own decisions. Many of you who are libertarians or anarchist minded individuals make a conscious decision to continue to live in a country that is opposite to the politics that you desire in a nation it seems. No one is "put" into power. The person makes a conscious decision to be in power, that person builds up a coalition of like minded individuals and then they convince and/or force the person to be put into power. This can happen in both government and "the free market."
Not acknowledging that "the free market" is not some sort of self governing beast IMO is a hallmark of the naivete of Libertarianism. It (libertarianism) takes the human element out of the situation. In human existence, the human element, the "people" factor is at play in every type of institution whether it be government, financial, familial, or friendship. Humans by nature are outliers. We do not follow a specific set of rules and codes "just because." We only do so when there is a benefit to ourselves and/or society at large. And what one person feels is their "right" may not be respected by another person, honestly I guarantee it won't in many cases. Only when people consciously decide and come to a consensus on what a "right" is, will people buy into that "right" and adhere to it. That is a pure example of government.
I wanted to also note separately that I believe that many Libertarians do not understand that Economics in and of itself is a "social science." It is not based on specific "principles." Those principles change over time due to the influence of people and our behavior/actions..
So you are right, but you can't say why you are right, or why I am wrong, or why I am not starting from a truly free market perspective.
I disagree with you, I AM starting from a truly free market perspective.
Gee Wiz, this is easy, do I win the debate now?
For the record, I get what you're saying. I'm honestly not sure what the real value would be, but it's possible that hiring many skilled professionals will cost too much for the average person. It's also possible that it doesn't turn out that way due to technological advancements that replace a lot of the time and effort required now, or some other factors we can't predict. That happens a lot, and is why many predictions about the future are laughable when you look back at them.
I think the more important question is whether we need to do things the way they're done now. It's like that Einstein saying...you can't solve the problem with the same thinking we used to create it. We have a pretty expensive way of handling crime right now, and there's little opportunity or incentive for new ideas with the state in the way.
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest libertarianism - adherence to the non-aggression principle and respect of private property rights. Do you have a problem with this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Its not that simple, so lets not pretend it is.
Actually, it is!
When government gets involved is when things become complicated and downright broken!
For the op and anyone else questioning what the premise of Libertarianism is simply go to our site where it is explained:
Unlike the other parties, we actually update and adapt while protecting the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Apple has no competition. Copyrights, patents, zoning, and tax laws see to that. All with the approval (or more appropriately collusion) of its business partner Uncle Sammy.
You can't possibly hope to win an argument against a brick wall. If people want government to run their lives they will delude themselves into believing government is great, the more the better. The scales have tipped, and soon they will understand how they themselves will fall victim to such an oligarchy.
They won't know what they had until they have given it all away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Regardless of who's "right" and who's "wrong" it's your world we'll be living in.
I think the more important question is whether we need to do things the way they're done now. It's like that Einstein saying...you can't solve the problem with the same thinking we used to create it. We have a pretty expensive way of handling crime right now, and there's little opportunity or incentive for new ideas with the state in the way.
Completely agree, I would love to see the nations politics move more towards libertarianism. Just because I am critical of the flaws in a "pure" application of the ideology doesn't mean I don't think that it has many useful ideas. I already voted for Gary Johnson, no way in hell was I voting for the other two and maybe he will get enough votes to give the Rs & Ds some pause.
I am in favor of social freedoms and a limited government that basically only provides the services that are vital to society while at the same time being cost prohibitive as a business > Police/EmergencyServices/Infrastructure/Military(Defensive non interventionist)
I don't understand a lot of how libertarians think their ideology would work, so I got some questions that I hope a few of them may answer. Thanks!
1. I hear libertarians gripe about everything Gov't is involved in, I get the feeling that they generally believe the Gov't can do no right. I see a lot of benefits to my current gov't that I quite enjoy thank you very much. For example my local Food Health Inspector makes sure that the restaurant I frequent maintains a clean workplace and is up to code, a libertarian owner of a restaurant may think this is intrusion into one's business but if the city didn't do this then how could I trust that a restaurant is going to even care about my well being? other than taking my money for food who's to say they even try, are we as a society expected to simply hope (in a libertarian world) that people do the right thing??
2. I understand the debate for minimum wage across various parties and ideologies is different, but I don't understand how in the world Libertarians think that having no minimum wage would be beneficial. If we tried it what's to stop these corporations from paying pennies to their employees? Libertarians that I've spoken too say that "well its the employee's responsibility to go out and see what their worth, its a dog eat dog world" WHAT!?!?! Instead of giving corporations more power why don't we give the employee more power and allow them to unionize. Unless somebody has got actual concrete proof that having no minimum wage has worked in this country I am not buying that theory one bit.
3. Roads and public things such as libraries, libertarians believe in allowing these to privatized? So they are ok with paying some middle eastern company who owns the toll roads money to use said roads but not ok to pay slightly more in taxes to drive these roads for free?? Makes a ton sense.
I could go on but you guys get my drift, feel free to add to my list if you agree with me. I appreciate all responses.
I don't need to answer each of your questions to sum up the principle of Libertarianism succinctly, it is about Constitutional authority of the federal government. The LP is not against laws and regulations that are accepted by state and local municipalities. Your local health department monitors code compliance for restaurants, not the federal government, your water and air quality is enforced through your state DEP, schools and local roads are managed and governed by your town government. Having a federal presence is redundant at best and mandates can be harmful at worst. Even minimum wage laws, there's no reason they can't be local, a decent wage in a high cost of living area may be a high median wage in a low cost of living area, a federal mandate could have the effect of causing localized inflation and depressing a local economy further. By getting more federal government out of mandating more regulation or entitlement policies, it gives the people who live in our communities more power to control the quality of their lives based on local wants and needs. You would have far more control of your elected representatives if they lived in the same community that you do, rather than a city hundreds or maybe thousands of miles away.
The whole idea that a centralized government can be more efficient has turned out to be a fallacy, it has created bloated ineffective departments and has promoted pork barrel legislation as states compete for funds. The Constitution did not give the federal government authority to build these massive departments that have essentially become a way for government to redistribute wealth and politicize services that add to our quality of life. Why not consider the Libertarian alternative, keep your government local and protect your liberties?
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.
