Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[AuSable River]

source ??!!!

what is the source for 2+2 = 4 ???

indeed, are you aware that thousands, if not millions of free market firms fail yearly ?


again for the 20th time, explain the process whereby a firm can crush competition without satisfying consumer preferences.

until you answer this challenge --- dont bother with these inane strawman diversions.

Mavorpen, how do you have an "exceptionally large" company with "large amounts of money" without pleasing any kind of customer. You've got to get up there first... And also, if you are rich, how do you stay rich if your customers hate you and don't buy anything from you?

dont waste your time -- he's a troll

If you go back and read his posts, you will see that I exposed him several times.

[AuSable River]

What about libertarian liberals?

what about them ??

do you have a question ?

[Norstal]

The Church of Scientology has survived despite any attempts to bring it down.

So.

it has survived without you (or me) having to surrender a dime of our time or money --- so who made you the religious police ???

I did.

What right or sanction do you have to attack an entity that gets all of its wealth by voluntary and non-coercive means ???/

You have a screwed up definition of voluntary and coercion.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html
http://www.anti-scientologie.ch/testimony-lorenzen.htm
http://writingshares.com/cnn-anderson-c ... -religion/

indeed, the left is the pay police, the equality police, the charity police, the thought police, et al.

Yes. Yes we are. What are you gonna do about it? Whine on the internet?

they are utterly despotic and their reprehensible goal is to find ways to gain power by inserting their noses in places they are not needed or welcome.

Indeed we are. I enjoy swimming in the dollars we have stolen from you. I think I'll spend it to help educate myself in college.

[Liriena]

OP, why do you hate the children, the elderly, the poor, the hungry, the sick and the unemployed?

That's what the oh-so-despicable big government takes care off: those who are one way or the other incapable of participating in the Market to receive basic services which are recognized by most of the civilized world as human rights.


BTW: I'm not pro-big government, I'm fucking pro-big state. Learn the difference!

[Wirbel]

Mavorpen, how do you have an "exceptionally large" company with "large amounts of money" without pleasing any kind of customer. You've got to get up there first...

I've never said they do this.

And also, if you are rich, how do you stay rich if your customers hate you and don't buy anything from you?

If there's no competition, obviously.

But that is still not different from the government, which would have NO COMPETITION AT ALL.

[Mavorpen]

But that is still not different from the government, which would have NO COMPETITION AT ALL.

Yes there is. There are these things called elections.

[Norstal]

I've never said they do this.

If there's no competition, obviously.

But that is still not different from the government, which would have NO COMPETITION AT ALL.

Not even the black market?

And what Mavor said too.

[Norstal]

There's also prostitution, weapon sales, organ sales, Chinese medicine if you want examples of businesses that requires no zombies. I can go on and on to prove this libertarian notion that a corrupt organization or business will die in a total free market.

these are all voluntary -- and yes many go out of business if they dont satisfy 'consumer' preferences.

in contrast, government has been responsible for more 'involuntary organ donations'in the form of political executions, tortures, and murders than any other societal entity.

I'm sure they have.

the moral of the story is that you cant criticize the free market because it is not perfect ----- no human endeavor is perfect --- however, the free market is voluntary, free, and competitive whereas the government is none of these.

Can't criticize cause it's not perfect eh? Then you should stop arguing about everything right now.

[AuSable River]

source ??!!!

what is the source for 2+2 = 4 ???

http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html

indeed, are you aware that thousands, if not millions of free market firms fail yearly ?

But not the largest ones.

again for the 20th time, explain the process whereby a firm can crush competition without satisfying consumer preferences.

Easy: buy the competition, steal their ideas (no government to enforce copyrights or patents), physically destroy their business by hiring mercenaries, and more.

until you answer this challenge --- dont bother with these inane strawman diversions.

lol,

mavoren, how can a firm buy competition without their approval ?

how can a firm steal ideas without prosecution ??

how can a firm physically plunder a rival without being imprisoned ???


indeed, you seem to be manufacturing an anarchist fantasyland that is nothing of what limited government libertarians advocate ?


moreover, what you fear is actually going on as we debate (albeit one-sided debate) as government buys firms without the approval of owners (see GM) although in most cases the bigger and more powerful the government the more it engages in intellectual theft and physical plunder.

[Wirbel]

OP, why do you hate the children, the elderly, the poor, the hungry, the sick and the unemployed?

That's what the oh-so-despicable big government takes care off: those who are one way or the other incapable of participating in the Market to receive basic services which are recognized by most of the civilized world as human rights.


BTW: I'm not pro-big government, I'm fucking pro-big state. Learn the difference!

Children- Should be taken care of by their parents.
Elderly- Should have saved money for retirement (the government just steals it through MediCare and gives them almost nothing back).
Poor- Who could find jobs if the government didn't regulate the economy.
Unemployed- Refer to poor.

[Miss Defied]

source ??!!!

what is the source for 2+2 = 4 ???

Well that was proven a long time ago. Unlike your outlandish claims. Remember Austrian theory =/= fact

indeed, are you aware that thousands, if not millions of free market firms fail yearly ?

Millions reall?. I mean thousands, I'll buy that. But millions? No. I'm beginning to suspect that you fail to understand that the words you use have actual meanings. And that, especialy with numbers, there are actual values that correlate to them.

again for the 20th time, explain the process whereby a firm can crush competition without satisfying consumer preferences.

Apple

until you answer this challenge --- dont bother with these inane strawman diversions.

Investment in a thesaurus may spruce up your rhetoric.

Edit: tags and typos

[North California]

You and FranksFreedom are going to become the new Hippostania. I can feel it.

[Wirbel]

http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html
(Image)

But not the largest ones.


Easy: buy the competition, steal their ideas (no government to enforce copyrights or patents), physically destroy their business by hiring mercenaries, and more.

(Image)

lol,

mavoren, how can a firm buy competition without their approval ?

how can a firm steal ideas without prosecution ?? Without a government

how can a firm physically plunder a rival without being imprisoned ??? Without a government


indeed, you seem to be manufacturing an anarchist fantasyland that is nothing of what limited government libertarians advocate ?


moreover, what you fear is actually going on as we debate (albeit one-sided debate) as government buys firms without the approval of owners (see GM) although in most cases the bigger and more powerful the government the more it engages in intellectual theft and physical plunder.

[The UK in Exile]

http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html


But not the largest ones.


Easy: buy the competition, steal their ideas (no government to enforce copyrights or patents), physically destroy their business by hiring mercenaries, and more.

lol,

mavoren, how can a firm buy competition without their approval ? 1.

how can a firm steal ideas without prosecution ?? 2.

how can a firm physically plunder a rival without being imprisoned ??? 3.


indeed, you seem to be manufacturing an anarchist fantasyland that is nothing of what limited government libertarians advocate ?


moreover, what you fear is actually going on as we debate (albeit one-sided debate) as government buys firms without the approval of owners (see GM) although in most cases the bigger and more powerful the government the more it engages in intellectual theft and physical plunder.

1: coercively.

2: expensively.

3. secretly.

[Mavorpen]

lol,

mavoren, how can a firm buy competition without their approval ?

Threaten them. Not illegal, no government.

how can a firm steal ideas without prosecution ??

No government, no prosecution.

how can a firm physically plunder a rival without being imprisoned ???

No government, no prisons.

indeed, you seem to be manufacturing an anarchist fantasyland that is nothing of what limited government libertarians advocate ?

Well of course, because what you advocate is silly and unrealistic.

moreover, what you fear is actually going on as we debate (albeit one-sided debate) as government buys firms without the approval of owners (see GM) although in most cases the bigger and more powerful the government the more it engages in intellectual theft and physical plunder.

I agree, this is a one sided debate, with you not addressing any points. The government saved GM, so useless point there.

[Samuraikoku]

mavoren, how can a firm buy competition without their approval ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover#Hostile_takeovers

[AuSable River]

these are all voluntary -- and yes many go out of business if they dont satisfy 'consumer' preferences.

in contrast, government has been responsible for more 'involuntary organ donations'in the form of political executions, tortures, and murders than any other societal entity.

I'm sure they have.

the moral of the story is that you cant criticize the free market because it is not perfect ----- no human endeavor is perfect --- however, the free market is voluntary, free, and competitive whereas the government is none of these.

Can't criticize cause it's not perfect eh? Then you should stop arguing about everything right now.

were arguing degrees of corruption and how society deals with it.

within a statist society -- government plunders societal wealth by coercive means and redistributes this money to cronies in the public and private sector in a quid pro quo scheme of special interest votes and bribes for preferential tax and regulatory policies.

in contrast, within a free market society of limited government (national defense, federalism, and legal arbiter of last resort) corruption, inefficiency and waste by private sector actors is not undone by government benefactors.

the culprits go bankrupt.

[Wirbel]

Contradiction

If gov't owns everything- No Choice But To Use Their Services
If corporation gobbles up everyone else- No Choice But To Use Their Services

[Mavorpen]

Children- Should be taken care of by their parents.

And they don't have to without a government.

Elderly- Should have saved money for retirement (the government just steals it through MediCare and gives them almost nothing back).

Source?

Poor- Who could find jobs if the government didn't regulate the economy.

Who would also be forced to spend hundreds of thousands on healthcare costs, would be payed little to no money, and would be extorted heavily without the government.

Unemployed- Refer to poor.

No.

[Mavorpen]

Contradiction

If gov't owns everything- No Choice But To Use Their Services
If corporation gobbles up everyone else- No Choice But To Use Their Services

It's called moving.

[AuSable River]

mavoren, how can a firm buy competition without their approval ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover#Hostile_takeovers

you obviously dont understand the basics of firms who have sought additional capital by selling stock or ownership in a company.

indeed, these companies sell some of their company to investors on the open market (NYSE, NASDAQ, et al) hence, a hostile takeover is the voluntary lobbying of these owners.

in sum, everyone who sells stock via an IPO offering understands that they surrender some ownership to others. Moreover, they realize that they may be subject to hostile takeover if an investor(s) desire the company.

hence, your example is bogus.

[AuSable River]

lol,

mavoren, how can a firm buy competition without their approval ?

Threaten them. Not illegal, no government.

how can a firm steal ideas without prosecution ??

No government, no prosecution.

how can a firm physically plunder a rival without being imprisoned ???

No government, no prisons.

indeed, you seem to be manufacturing an anarchist fantasyland that is nothing of what limited government libertarians advocate ?

Well of course, because what you advocate is silly and unrealistic.

moreover, what you fear is actually going on as we debate (albeit one-sided debate) as government buys firms without the approval of owners (see GM) although in most cases the bigger and more powerful the government the more it engages in intellectual theft and physical plunder.

I agree, this is a one sided debate, with you not addressing any points. The government saved GM, so useless point there.

your wasting my time --- this is my last response to your ridiculous strawman arguments.

go back and find the post where I advocate zero government and get back with me.

[Forster Keys]

You and FranksFreedom are going to become the new Hippostania. I can feel it.

Hippostania formats better and has less of a chip on his shoulder.

[Samuraikoku]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover#Hostile_takeovers

you obviously dont understand the basics of firms who have sought additional capital by selling stock or ownership in a company.

indeed, these companies sell some of their company to investors on the open market (NYSE, NASDAQ, et al) hence, a hostile takeover is the voluntary lobbying of these owners.

in sum, everyone who sells stock via an IPO offering understands that they surrender some ownership to others. Moreover, they realize that they may be subject to hostile takeover if an investor(s) desire the company.

hence, your example is bogus.

You asked an example of how someone could buy competition without approval. There's your answer.

[AuSable River]

lol,

mavoren, how can a firm buy competition without their approval ? 1.

how can a firm steal ideas without prosecution ?? 2.

how can a firm physically plunder a rival without being imprisoned ??? 3.


indeed, you seem to be manufacturing an anarchist fantasyland that is nothing of what limited government libertarians advocate ?


moreover, what you fear is actually going on as we debate (albeit one-sided debate) as government buys firms without the approval of owners (see GM) although in most cases the bigger and more powerful the government the more it engages in intellectual theft and physical plunder.

1: coercively.

2: expensively.

3. secretly.

please expand on this fantasy --- I enjoy a good laugh.

hence, you have to explain the process by which this occurs. provide a hypothetical case study so I can debunk it in short order as I have numerous times in this thread.