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.
Then there is demand, and someone will create a competing business. You're asking about monopolies. Fun fact, there has never been a monopoly that the government hasn't help create. This is where you lack of business sense is showing.
The government's official response on being accused of helping create monopolies:
The issue with arguing ResidingHere2007 is that she is unable to make the paradigm shift. her frame of reference for everything is the government. I've debated her several times, and when we talk about private schools she keeps saying things how public schools are superior to private school. A statement that can't even be proven since private schools are not a monolith and public schools are. She thinks monolithically, so when you say "market" she is viewing "market" as a monolith the same way government is. She hasn't made the shift away from non-monolithic thinking, and that's a huge problem I see with statist.
LOL, I stated in a previous post that I am not out change your minds, just offer a different perspective to readers.
I can concede that I am not "right" on all things government or markets, however, my views have more basis in reality than yours or any anarchist Libertarian considering it is a fact what I stated that you cannot implement anachist Libertarianism without some sort of consensus or governing body. What you believe is "evil" - government is just a creation of a system by people. Just as the markets are a system created by people.
I'm breaking this down for you in the most simplistic terms that I can.
I also never said that public schools are "superior" to private schools. I stated that some public schools are superior to some private schools. Also that private schools are superior in many ways because they do not accept "problem students" or they will kick them out. Public schools are superior in many ways because they offer services for special needs children that private schools do not provide. Not sure how you don't understand that...
On the monolith, do you not think that both markets and government are "monoliths?"
On the "statist" reference, do you want a "state" that is based on anarcho-capitalism? If so, sorry to inform you, but you are a "statist."
Also, I am speaking in very simplistic terms about human nature in relation to government and markets. You are the ones who cannot break down your views in a simplified format and consider human nature.
For a Libertarian-esque/anarchist government, who will ensure that people's "rights" are defined and protected?
If you say anything as an answer, you are not an anarchist, you are a statist. Anarchy is free of government. No society can ever be free of government. I'm not saying this because I just am gung ho about government BTW. I'm saying this because it is the truth and there is no way for you to spin it to any way where this will not be the truth.
I'll leave the conversation at that though. I've got to go check homework (from public school lol) and cook dinner
Again, business and government like you alluded to before the bolded sentence can both cause harm. Both businesses and government can steal from you for instance. So both can do the bold.
In regards to the red, government (i.e. a ruling class or "governing body") is a "fact of life."
In ever society there is a ruling class or governing body. Even amongst family units there is a governing body. This is a natural thing in regards to the human experience.
The reason why you say your #2 in that there is "currently no free society on Earth" is based upon the fact that a "free society" how you envision it in an anarchist Libertarian way, cannot possibly exist....ever....at all. This is because humans, as a part of the human experience will ALWAYS create a governing body. It has always been that way and always will be.
You all can come up with scenarios to try to explain and rationalize an anarchist mindset but the fact of the matter is that to continue an anarchist Libertarian type of society, one MUST create an anarchist Libertarian government. Creation of a governing body is a MUST. As a human, you cannot by-pass the fact that government must exist.
I will reiterate that I never stated that government was "better" than "the markets." I stated both were a human creation and both will always exist. You cannot one without the other. Due to that IMO (and this is my particular view you can take it or leave it as you will but wanted to put it out here primarily for people who may be reading and considering being an anarchist Libertarian - give them something to think about) you can NEVER have a truly Libertarian society because government is a part of the human experience just like free markets are a part of the human experience.
I think that's a good point to focus in on. I don't believe people will always create a governing body - and by that, I mean a person or group with the perceived right to initiate force and violate property rights (the main things I'm against). That's why I wanted to use the same definition of government so we weren't arguing two separate things.
So I'll ask, is it inevitable that people will always give someone/some group political authority to rule over them? I say no. You just need enough people to stop believing the myth of authority. Most people already accept that it's wrong to use force outside of defense and it's wrong to take what belongs to someone else, but they make a massive exemption for the government.
That's the only thing that needs to change. Once people recognize something as evil, they stop supporting it. The problem is that most people don't think it's wrong for the government to do things that would be wrong for anyone else to do...for example, taxation.
I think that's a good point to focus in on. I don't believe people will always create a governing body - and by that, I mean a person or group with the perceived right to initiate force and violate property rights (the main things I'm against). That's why I wanted to use the same definition of government so we weren't arguing two separate things.
So I'll ask, is it inevitable that people will always give someone/some group political authority to rule over them? I say no. You just need enough people to stop believing the myth of authority. Most people already accept that it's wrong to use force outside of defense and it's wrong to take what belongs to someone else, but they make a massive exemption for the government.
That's the only thing that needs to change. Once people recognize something as evil, they stop supporting it. The problem is that most people don't think it's wrong for the government to do things that would be wrong for anyone else to do...for example, taxation.
On the bold, I say "yes."
There has never been a group or community of humans who have not had some sort of governing body or "authority" whether it be an individual or group of individuals.
Again, that is why you and others state that there is no "free society" on earth of which you can use as a case study. This is because that can never exist unless everyone leads solitary lives without the influence of anyone else (including spouses, children, parents, etc.). As stated, even in families there is a level of authority and a governing body (parents usually). This is a natural thing for humans to do and it will always be done. Humans are communal and will always form communities or families based on our biological nature. This is even evident in the animal world.
Many coal mining companies did not pay people with actual currency. They limited the ability of people to move freely and basically enslaved them. I know that you are aware of the recent history of coal mining and share cropping and how both of these "businesses" disregarded the "rights" of others and forced them into poverty and slavery.
Do you have anything to support this? No, I am not familiar with the history of coal mining.
I didn't say that there weren in regards to the bold. I said that Libertarians do not see that both business and government can do damage to our freedom. One is not "better" than the other.
You just said what I said, both need checks and balances.
Furthermore, another post pointed it out, we can't opt out the government but we can stop buying products or services; however, if a business has virtual monopoly, like Comcast in my area or Google in search business, it needs to be corrected.
You just said what I said, both need checks and balances.
Furthermore, another post pointed it out, we can't opt out the government but we can stop buying products or services; however, if a business has virtual monopoly, like Comcast in my area or Google in search business, it needs to be corrected.
And the only way a business can have a monopoly is by using state power to disadvantage competition, or to satisfy customers enough that they don't want an alternative.
Do you have anything to support this? No, I am not familiar with the history of coal mining.
I have ancestors who were miners in West Virginia and use the WV Culture website a lot for research. The have a good, brief history of coal mining in WV. If you are truly interested, I'll suggest some books. Many of you may say "well they should have left." If they do not have anything of value except their labor and they have families and children to feed who may be harmed or starved to death by their leaving, then there would be no possible way to leave the mine towns. Everything in their lives was controlled by the mining companies and they were in very isolated communities without access to any other employers or businesses of which to buy goods. ETA: My great grandfather and his father and grandfather before him, started mining when they were 7-8 years old. So it was something they were trapped in from a very young age. His wife, my great grandmother was also from a family of miners. She told me that many of her own elders said that working in the camps/towns was just as bad as being a slave. They had been slaves on farms prior to moving to WV after seeing advertisements for mine jobs. They were stuck in mining from 1880-1930 when unions finally started making some headways in the mining industry that included black miners. She moved away from WV in 1948.
West Virginia's Mine Wars
From the link:
Quote:
Most of these new West Virginians soon became part of an economic system controlled by the coal industry. Miners worked in company mines with company tools and equipment, which they were required to lease. The rent for company housing and cost of items from the company store were deducted from their pay. The stores themselves charged over-inflated prices, since there was no alternative for purchasing goods. To ensure that miners spent their wages at the store, coal companies developed their own monetary system. Miners were paid by scrip, in the form of tokens, currency, or credit, which could be used only at the company store. Therefore, even when wages were increased, coal companies simply increased prices at the company store to balance what they lost in pay.
Miners were also denied their proper pay through a system known as cribbing. Workers were paid based on tons of coal mined. Each car brought from the mines supposedly held a specific amount of coal, such as 2,000 pounds. However, cars were altered to hold more coal than the specified amount, so miners would be paid for 2,000 pounds when they actually had brought in 2,500. In addition, workers were docked pay for slate and rock mixed in with the coal. Since docking was a judgment on the part of the checkweighman, miners were frequently cheated.
In addition to the poor economic conditions, safety in the mines was of great concern. West Virginia fell far behind other major coal-producing states in regulating mining conditions. Between 1890 and 1912, West Virginia had a higher mine death rate than any other state. West Virginia was the site of numerous deadly coal mining accidents, including the nation's worst coal disaster. On December 6, 1907, an explosion at a mine owned by the Fairmont Coal Company in Monongah, Marion County, killed 361. One historian has suggested that during World War I, a U.S. soldier had a better statistical chance of surviving in battle than did a West Virginian working in the coal mines.
Will also note that sharecropping was just as bad as mining in regards to trapping people in poverty. I have ancestors who were both coal miners and share croppers. Both also faced danger to life and body or family if they left. Many black sharecroppers were still considered to be the slaves of families who formerly owned them and many were even referenced in wills of whites after the Civil War. Also, many poor white people in the south were forced into sharecropping as well after the war and were stuck in a similar condition in regards to being paid with credit and charged rent and then cheated out of their pay. There are accounts of black people who actually had to "run away" from sharecropping in the dead of night with families and many were killed if they tried to run away.
Last edited by residinghere2007; 10-27-2016 at 08:11 AM..
There has never been a group or community of humans who have not had some sort of governing body or "authority" whether it be an individual or group of individuals.
Again, that is why you and others state that there is no "free society" on earth of which you can use as a case study. This is because that can never exist unless everyone leads solitary lives without the influence of anyone else (including spouses, children, parents, etc.). As stated, even in families there is a level of authority and a governing body (parents usually). This is a natural thing for humans to do and it will always be done. Humans are communal and will always form communities or families based on our biological nature. This is even evident in the animal world.
This is what I meant when I was talking about getting the definitions right. You're referring to something different than I am.
There actually have been small examples of stateless societies (Medieval Iceland, Ireland for a period of time, and I think a couple others), but even if there weren't, that wouldn't hurt my argument. What I'm saying is that it's possible for people to give up the idea that anyone can be a rightful ruler over others. That means that they have special rights that nobody else has.
I see people get confused about that a lot. They equate lack of a ruling class with every man for themselves, or lack of organization. All I'm saying is that we should apply the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights consistently to everyone. We apply it to everyone except government, which is why I have hope. Just stop giving that select group an exemption from that.
If that happened, that rules out having a state. It would just be people with the same rights as anyone else, as it should be. People used to claim that the King got these special rights from God, and eventually people started questioning that. (And since you may bring up that people might disagree on what rights are, it doesn't matter here. Whatever rights are, they should be applied universally to every human).
This is what I meant when I was talking about getting the definitions right. You're referring to something different than I am.
There actually have been small examples of stateless societies (Medieval Iceland, Ireland for a period of time, and I think a couple others), but even if there weren't, that wouldn't hurt my argument. What I'm saying is that it's possible for people to give up the idea that anyone can be a rightful ruler over others. That means that they have special rights that nobody else has.
I see people get confused about that a lot. They equate lack of a ruling class with every man for themselves, or lack of organization. All I'm saying is that we should apply the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights consistently to everyone. We apply it to everyone except government, which is why I have hope. Just stop giving that select group an exemption from that.
If that happened, that rules out having a state. It would just be people with the same rights as anyone else, as it should be. People used to claim that the King got these special rights from God, and eventually people started questioning that. (And since you may bring up that people might disagree on what rights are, it doesn't matter here. Whatever rights are, they should be applied universally to every human).
Again, there has never been an example of any group of humans who do not have some sort of governing body or authority figure in charge. The existence of that governing body/authority figure means that a government is at play.
There will always be a ruler in social situations with humans.
I'm not confused on this. I know for a fact that this is the case. We can disagree but I know that all humans have a governing body or authority figure in charge unless they live by themselves. And if that occurred, humans would die out. There is always an authority figure at play if you have more than one human.
And on the bold, I did bring that up - that people disagree on what a "right" is and especially so in regards to property rights. Some people think there is no such thing as a right to any property at all, that people cannot own the land. You will always have an issue with those sorts of people because they will never respect your rights as a property owner.
Also, the "non-aggression principle" IMO is not something that humans can adhere to. Humans are very aggressive beings. There will always be some sort of aggression at play or perceived aggression at play. We have evolved as a species based on our aggressiveness and fighting over both property and "rights."
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.
