Libertarian Islands

[Moral Libertarians]

Abolish them as well, then.

How?

You're going to disband all the existing companies?

Open them up to free competition; this may or may not have the effect of dismantling them.

[New England and The Maritimes]

How?

You're going to disband all the existing companies?

Open them up to free competition; this may or may not have the effect of dismantling them.

... and if they say "fuck you" and engage in predatory tactics anyway?

[Grave_n_idle]

How?

You're going to disband all the existing companies?

Open them up to free competition; this may or may not have the effect of dismantling them.

Sure, because it's okay to use the oppressive power of government when it suits YOUR desires.

[Moral Libertarians]

Open them up to free competition; this may or may not have the effect of dismantling them.

... and if they say "fuck you" and engage in predatory tactics anyway?

Then... what? I meant abolishing all the restrictions and regulations on a sector makes the entry of competitors in the market far far easier. More competition = more choice and lower prices. Plus artificial monopolies which may have been protected by licensing requirements will be broken down.

[Moral Libertarians]

Open them up to free competition; this may or may not have the effect of dismantling them.

Sure, because it's okay to use the oppressive power of government when it suits YOUR desires.

I don't want anyone to use it's power.

[New England and The Maritimes]

... and if they say "fuck you" and engage in predatory tactics anyway?

Then... what? I meant abolishing all the restrictions and regulations on a sector makes the entry of competitors in the market far far easier. More competition = more choice and lower prices. Plus artificial monopolies which may have been protected by licensing requirements will be broken down.

From where i'm sitting, licensing requirements, while annoying and pointless in a lot of cases, aren't that large of a barrier to entry in the general market. What I'm talking about is the power of the purse, which corporations have. They can force competition out of the area through any number of means, and since small businesses don't magically spring out of the ground it can be pretty effective.

[Grave_n_idle]

Sure, because it's okay to use the oppressive power of government when it suits YOUR desires.

I don't want anyone to use it's power.

Then you're doing nothing to 'open' anyone up 'to free competition'.

[Grave_n_idle]

... and if they say "fuck you" and engage in predatory tactics anyway?

Then... what? I meant abolishing all the restrictions and regulations on a sector makes the entry of competitors in the market far far easier. More competition = more choice and lower prices. Plus artificial monopolies which may have been protected by licensing requirements will be broken down.

You can't abolish all restriction and regulation without destroying the industry and it's players.

[Moral Libertarians]

I don't want anyone to use it's power.

Then you're doing nothing to 'open' anyone up 'to free competition'.

You're misunderstanding what I mean by "open". I mean completely abolishing all government restrictions, regulations, licenses and taxation, and allowing individuals to make their own decisions as to how resources should be allocated.

[Moral Libertarians]

Then... what? I meant abolishing all the restrictions and regulations on a sector makes the entry of competitors in the market far far easier. More competition = more choice and lower prices. Plus artificial monopolies which may have been protected by licensing requirements will be broken down.

You can't abolish all restriction and regulation without destroying the industry and it's players.

Nonsense. Demand and supply emerge spontaneously from the economic decisions of individuals (and firms, which are composed of individuals). They are neither created or maintained by the state.

[Sorratsin]

-snip-

I agree with most of what you said, those licensing laws are stupid.

What I don't see is why we need to completely eliminate the government to remove some of the barriers it's erected. Basically, why are those barriers intrinsic to government? I would say the TLC was created through collusion of government and existing big cab companies than anything else.

What's to stop large companies from erecting barriers to entry in the absence of the government? The government did not make standard oil buy out all it's competitors in order to create a monopoly, it did so because it was in it's own self-interest.

And I apologize for not getting to this sooner, I completely forgot about this thread.

[Moral Libertarians]

-snip-

I agree with most of what you said, those licensing laws are stupid.

What I don't see is why we need to completely eliminate the government to remove some of the barriers it's erected. Basically, why are those barriers intrinsic to government? I would say the TLC was created through collusion of government and existing big cab companies than anything else.

What's to stop large companies from erecting barriers to entry in the absence of the government? The government did not make standard oil buy out all it's competitors in order to create a monopoly, it did so because it was in it's own self-interest.

And I apologize for not getting to this sooner, I completely forgot about this thread.

On the case of cab companies, they cannot erect barriers that are anything like as powerful as those government can do. They can't require competitors to have a license, for example; they have no legal authority for that. Neither do they have the ability to arrest those who do not adhere to their requirements.

[Sibirsky]

-snip-

I agree with most of what you said, those licensing laws are stupid.

What I don't see is why we need to completely eliminate the government to remove some of the barriers it's erected. Basically, why are those barriers intrinsic to government? I would say the TLC was created through collusion of government and existing big cab companies than anything else.

What's to stop large companies from erecting barriers to entry in the absence of the government? The government did not make standard oil buy out all it's competitors in order to create a monopoly, it did so because it was in it's own self-interest.

And I apologize for not getting to this sooner, I completely forgot about this thread.

Dude, no need to apologize.

And what ML said.

Also, I for one, am not calling to eliminate government entirely. Just remove some licensing requirements, in this particular case. It would help us with our unemployment situation too. I believe, state and local governments are causing far more economic harm than the Feds. Obviously nothing that concerns trade, federal taxes, monetary policy, etc. But licensing stuff, like this.

[Grave_n_idle]

Then you're doing nothing to 'open' anyone up 'to free competition'.

You're misunderstanding what I mean by "open". I mean completely abolishing all government restrictions, regulations, licenses and taxation, and allowing individuals to make their own decisions as to how resources should be allocated.

Which is a nonsense.

If you took government out of the picture completely, you wouldn't do away with restrictions, regulations or taxation - you'd merely change the bodies involved.

The nearest you can get to a real free market, is one that is made free by a powerful enough entity - like a government.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can't abolish all restriction and regulation without destroying the industry and it's players.

Nonsense. Demand and supply emerge spontaneously from the economic decisions of individuals (and firms, which are composed of individuals). They are neither created or maintained by the state.

Which is irrelevant, and completely ailed to address the point made.

Restriction and regulation are imposed by the industry, and it's players. Whether or not government is involved, markets will be restricted and regulated, unless you destroy the players and the industry.

[Moral Libertarians]

Nonsense. Demand and supply emerge spontaneously from the economic decisions of individuals (and firms, which are composed of individuals). They are neither created or maintained by the state.

Which is irrelevant, and completely ailed to address the point made.

Restriction and regulation are imposed by the industry, and it's players. Whether or not government is involved, markets will be restricted and regulated, unless you destroy the players and the industry.

What?

Freely interacting firms and individuals will not impose regulations on themselves. The closest thing that could happen to this would be a voluntary safety standard so they can put a nice badge on their products.

[Moral Libertarians]

You're misunderstanding what I mean by "open". I mean completely abolishing all government restrictions, regulations, licenses and taxation, and allowing individuals to make their own decisions as to how resources should be allocated.

Which is a nonsense.

If you took government out of the picture completely, you wouldn't do away with restrictions, regulations or taxation - you'd merely change the bodies involved.

The nearest you can get to a real free market, is one that is made free by a powerful enough entity - like a government.

Society is not subordinate to government, neither is it created or made possible by government. It is separate; the state is merely a parasite living off the wealth-generating activities of individuals.

[The House of Petain]

Jonestown Part 2: Rise of the Libertarians

[Polruan]

Society is not subordinate to government, neither is it created or made possible by government. It is separate; the state is merely a parasite living off the wealth-generating activities of individuals.

Oooo, someone just read Ayn Rand and is dying to tell everyone about it!

[Moral Libertarians]

Society is not subordinate to government, neither is it created or made possible by government. It is separate; the state is merely a parasite living off the wealth-generating activities of individuals.

Oooo, someone just read Ayn Rand and is dying to tell everyone about it!

I don't agree with Rand's ideas; I merely believe government is harmful.

[Grave_n_idle]

Which is irrelevant, and completely ailed to address the point made.

Restriction and regulation are imposed by the industry, and it's players. Whether or not government is involved, markets will be restricted and regulated, unless you destroy the players and the industry.

What?

Freely interacting firms and individuals will not impose regulations on themselves.

Nonsense.

Seriously, is it a requirement of becoming a libertarian, nowadays, that you have to agree never to read a history book?

[Grave_n_idle]

Which is a nonsense.

If you took government out of the picture completely, you wouldn't do away with restrictions, regulations or taxation - you'd merely change the bodies involved.

The nearest you can get to a real free market, is one that is made free by a powerful enough entity - like a government.

Society is not subordinate to government, neither is it created or made possible by government. It is separate; the state is merely a parasite living off the wealth-generating activities of individuals.

Wrong. Government is the inevitable product of sufficiently large society, because society is complex and often conflicting, and government is the mechanism we always invent to lubricate all those square cogs.

Which is actually irrelevant to the point I previously made, just as your 'rebuttal' was.

[Distruzio]

Which is irrelevant, and completely ailed to address the point made.

Restriction and regulation are imposed by the industry, and it's players. Whether or not government is involved, markets will be restricted and regulated, unless you destroy the players and the industry.

What?

Freely interacting firms and individuals will not impose regulations on themselves. The closest thing that could happen to this would be a voluntary safety standard so they can put a nice badge on their products.

I have to agree with GNI here, boss. Freely interacting firms and individuals do tend to appropriate behavioral norms for any particular activity. Consider a night out with your friends. Doesn't get much more voluntary than that, does it? Did you need to tell your friends not to abuse you while you were out with them? Why not? Likely b/c each of you understand that, should you wish to associate with one another again, certain amounts of civility should be acknowledged and emphasized.

The same holds true for market activity.

Should Walmart wish to continue making money, it will have to abide consumer preferences. Consumers prefer cheap products, multiple products, and safe products. That is regulation. Merely voluntarily applied.

[Distruzio]

Society is not subordinate to government, neither is it created or made possible by government. It is separate; the state is merely a parasite living off the wealth-generating activities of individuals.

Wrong. Government is the inevitable natural product of sufficiently large society, because society is complex and often conflicting, and government is the mechanism we always invent to lubricate all those square cogs.

Which is actually irrelevant to the point I previously made, just as your 'rebuttal' was.

We agree. Who thought that'd be possible?

Of course, this in no way implies that I support the State.

[Capisaria]

does anyone else think this should be a RP on NS?