Worst American president in history?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Property rights evolved due to market forces.

Under government protection.

Yes.

[The Black Forrest]

We should probably end this thread derailment......

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Fact: a smaller government doesn't mean a less efficient government.

Fact: a smaller government doesn't guarantee an efficient government.

No, but you implied that a small government guaranteed an inefficient government.

We should probably end this thread derailment......

Good idea.

[Death Metal]

Not necessarily. You've yet to actually prove a causation. You've just provided empty rhetoric.

EDIT- Oh, and make sure you understand the difference between natural monopolies and trust-driven monopolies.

To be honest with you, it's hard to find sources on drug use in America

That was a pathetic attempt to dodge burden of proof on your original argument. Thanks for proving me right.

Anyway, anyone who calls Lincoln a "tyrant" is full of shit, seeing as what he was doing what eliminating the "right" to strip other human beings of their rights without consent. The South were the true tyrants of the civil war, regardless of what people clinging on to the Constitutionally fictitious notion of "state's rights" try to assert through whitewashing.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

We should probably end this thread derailment......

How about we talk about Nixon? I presume you're some kind of leftist, and in that case what do you think of his policies?

[The Black Forrest]

We should probably end this thread derailment......

How about we talk about Nixon? I presume you're some kind of leftist, and in that case what do you think of his policies?

I don't fault him for his work with China......

[Kelinfort]

We should probably end this thread derailment......

How about we talk about Nixon? I presume you're some kind of leftist, and in that case what do you think of his policies?

While did establish the EPA and re established relations with China, his price controls were ineffective and his overreach of executive authority was appalling and unforgivable.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

To be honest with you, it's hard to find sources on drug use in America

That was a pathetic attempt to dodge burden of proof on your original argument. Thanks for proving me right.

Failure to find sufficient sources doesn't prove you right at all. It just doesn't prove my argument right. Nevertheless, I found at least two sources that effectively confirm what I'm saying.

I'll ask you to be a bit more polite. Just because you dislike me and my beliefs it doesn't mean you should completely disregard forum etiquette and argue with me just for the sake of arguing with me.

Anyway, anyone who calls Lincoln a "tyrant" is full of shit, seeing as what he was doing what eliminating the "right" to strip other human beings of their rights without consent. The South were the true tyrants of the civil war, regardless of what people clinging on to the Constitutionally fictitious notion of "state's rights" try to assert through whitewashing.

Are you addressing me? I've never made an argument like this at all, and agree with you except on the notion of states' rights, which are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

[WRIF Army]

Government should only use coercion to adjudicate disputes between citizens, otherwise politicians and bureaucrats have no business meddling in the voluntary and peaceful exchange of adults.

If people weren't assholes, you wouldn't need government or the law.

I agree, but I would also point out that government has been the means by which assholes have caused the most pain and suffering in society.

[WRIF Army]

It was a question. Not my fault your statement was so unclear. Explain to me what you meant to say then.

Forrest said that eminent domain can be beneficial "for the good of the whole". This statement (and phrases like "for the general welfare" and "the common good") have long been used to supersede individual rights in favour of the will of the majority.

I agree, if eminent domain was for the 'public good', it wouldn't be coercive. Behind every 'public good' is a crony capitalist politician and his beneficiary in the private sector.

[WRIF Army]

I agree with most of this. But in my opinion, corporate welfare is even worse than normal welfare.

I only agree with corporate welfare that benefits businesses at are the most productive or create the most jobs (I.E. Above minimum wage) for the nation. A form of a tax incentive, if you will.

If 'corporate welfare' was really beneficial to society, it wouldn't have to be forced in backroom deals by corrupt politicians and crony capitalist firms. The consumer and economic reality should determine which firms provide the most benefits, not politicians acting on behalf of their campaign contributors.

[WRIF Army]

But it unfairly benefits companies that are already doing well for themselves and enables the existence of monopolies. If we want to create the perfect conditions for businesses large and small to thrive, we'd abolish most forms of subsidies and regulation.

Your plan of stopping monopolies entails removing anti-monopoly legislation?

The most destructive and coercive monopoly is the federal government. Free market monopolies cannot use bad laws or armed force to compel anyone to use their services or goods. Also, they are subject to competition at the drop of a hat. The government monopoly uses armed force and outlaws any competition. I bet you can't name a truly free market firm that gained and maintained its quasi-monopoly status by screwing the consumer. The only damaging private sector monopolies have been protected and insulated from competition by government rents and protections, crony capitalism.

[Threlizdun]

Equal protection under the law is incompatible with protection of private property.

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

Except that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Seeing as natural rights are a nonsensical concept in the first place, I don't see how they'd enter into this. Rights are ensured through entities capable of granting them. The right to a healthy life with a social safety net is granted to us through the UDHR.

img

No, there simply isn't any source of rights other than entities capable of giving them. The notion of natural rights is preposterous.

Your plan of stopping monopolies entails removing anti-monopoly legislation?

Anti-monopoly legislation simply spawns more monopolies. So yes, that's my plan.

So all the practices leading to the rise of monopolies before we had legislation preventing it will simply cease to occur once they are removed again?

[Threlizdun]

Your plan of stopping monopolies entails removing anti-monopoly legislation?

The most destructive and coercive monopoly is the federal government.

I'm not disagreeing with that

Free market monopolies cannot use bad laws or armed force to compel anyone to use their services or goods.

Free market monopoly is an oxymoron, though market economics certainly can and do use laws and armed forces to compel others to use their services

Also, they are subject to competition at the drop of a hat.

Then you don't understand the definition of monopoly

The government monopoly uses armed force and outlaws any competition.

The state does that, though that isn't an inherent feature of all governments.

I bet you can't name a truly free market firm that gained and maintained its quasi-monopoly status by screwing the consumer.

I can't name a truly free market in the first place because such a system is contradictory on even a theoretical level and impossible to implement in the real world.

The only damaging private sector monopolies have been protected and insulated from competition by government rents and protections, crony capitalism.

The relation between capital and the state has been cemented throughout history. If you are searching for a state that doesn't integrate itself with the capitalist and vice versa then you are looking in vain.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

Except that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Aside from, perhaps, most of human history.

No, there simply isn't any source of rights other than entities capable of giving them. The notion of natural rights is preposterous.

Individual rights come from God. Government only protects rights and grants privileges.

So all the practices leading to the rise of monopolies before we had legislation preventing it will simply cease to occur once they are removed again?

Anti-monopoly legislation has only acted as an alternative avenue of crony capitalism. At first, politicians gave favours to corporations in the form of subsidies and anti-union laws. Now they give favours to corporations in the form of subsidies and regulations.

[Conscentia]

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

What?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

What?

In the words of Hayek:

What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.

[WRIF Army]

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

Except that has absolutely no basis in reality.

img

No, there simply isn't any source of rights other than entities capable of giving them. The notion of natural rights is preposterous.

Anti-monopoly legislation simply spawns more monopolies. So yes, that's my plan.

So all the practices leading to the rise of monopolies before we had legislation preventing it will simply cease to occur once they are removed again?

The most soothing words to corrupt and inefficient firms is 'government regulation' that largely insulates an industry or firm from competition. Health insurance firms supported Obamacare because it guarantees them a captive consumer that doesn't get sick. The most feared word to corrupt and inefficient firms is 'competition'. No consumer is going to patronize a firm that sells overpriced crap unless that firm is protected from competition by govt. regulations. They will find another vendor or another vendor will materialize in short order in a truly free market. The offending firm will lose something critically important to firms in a free market, its reputation.

[WRIF Army]

The most destructive and coercive monopoly is the federal government.

I'm not disagreeing with that

Free market monopolies cannot use bad laws or armed force to compel anyone to use their services or goods.

Free market monopoly is an oxymoron, though market economics certainly can and do use laws and armed forces to compel others to use their services

Also, they are subject to competition at the drop of a hat.

Then you don't understand the definition of monopoly

The government monopoly uses armed force and outlaws any competition.

The state does that, though that isn't an inherent feature of all governments.

I bet you can't name a truly free market firm that gained and maintained its quasi-monopoly status by screwing the consumer.

I can't name a truly free market in the first place because such a system is contradictory on even a theoretical level and impossible to implement in the real world.

The only damaging private sector monopolies have been protected and insulated from competition by government rents and protections, crony capitalism.

The relation between capital and the state has been cemented throughout history. If you are searching for a state that doesn't integrate itself with the capitalist and vice versa then you are looking in vain.

You stated that I don't understand the definition of monopoly because I stated that monopoly firms in a free market are subject to competition. Is this not true? My point was that a firm can have monopoly status (gained by satisfying consumer desires) and at the same time be subject to competition if the monopoly firm gets lazy or greedy.

This position is not inconsistent or contradictory in my opinion.

[Threlizdun]

Except that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Aside from, perhaps, most of human history.

Pinochet, Franco, Batista, Diem, Suharto, and Pahlavi would like a word with you.

Individual rights come from God. Government only protects rights and grants privileges.

Something that lacks any evidence of existence is not a valid basis of something as significant as rights, especially once one could not possibly know what rights were granted by it even if it were to exist.

Anti-monopoly legislation has only acted as an alternative avenue of crony capitalism. At first, politicians gave favours to corporations in the form of subsidies and anti-union laws. Now they give favours to corporations in the form of subsidies and regulations.

That failed to answer my question about how you would expect monopolies to simply not form in the same circumstances that allowed them to form in the first place.

[Threlizdun]

Except that has absolutely no basis in reality.
No, there simply isn't any source of rights other than entities capable of giving them. The notion of natural rights is preposterous.


So all the practices leading to the rise of monopolies before we had legislation preventing it will simply cease to occur once they are removed again?

The most soothing words to corrupt and inefficient firms is 'government regulation' that largely insulates an industry or firm from competition. Health insurance firms supported Obamacare because it guarantees them a captive consumer that doesn't get sick. The most feared word to corrupt and inefficient firms is 'competition'. No consumer is going to patronize a firm that sells overpriced crap unless that firm is protected from competition by govt. regulations. They will find another vendor or another vendor will materialize in short order in a truly free market. The offending firm will lose something critically important to firms in a free market, its reputation.

You didn't answer a single question I asked

[Conscentia]

What?

In the words of Hayek:
What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.

Nonsense. Capitalism contradicts individualism utterly. It requires those do not own means of production to seek to serve those that do for their survival. Only socialism (manifest as economic democracy - ie. co-ops) & distributism (which is simply not feasible, in my opinion) are compatible with individualism.

What does this have to do with American presidents?

[Threlizdun]

I'm not disagreeing with that
Free market monopoly is an oxymoron, though market economics certainly can and do use laws and armed forces to compel others to use their services
Then you don't understand the definition of monopoly
The state does that, though that isn't an inherent feature of all governments.
I can't name a truly free market in the first place because such a system is contradictory on even a theoretical level and impossible to implement in the real world.
The relation between capital and the state has been cemented throughout history. If you are searching for a state that doesn't integrate itself with the capitalist and vice versa then you are looking in vain.

You stated that I don't understand the definition of monopoly because I stated that monopoly firms in a free market are subject to competition. Is this not true? My point was that a firm can have monopoly status (gained by satisfying consumer desires) and at the same time be subject to competition if the monopoly firm gets lazy or greedy.

This position is not inconsistent or contradictory in my opinion.

When something is literally defined by its lack of competition, yes, talking about competition with monopolies is ridiculous because monopolies by definition don't have competition.

[WRIF Army]

The most soothing words to corrupt and inefficient firms is 'government regulation' that largely insulates an industry or firm from competition. Health insurance firms supported Obamacare because it guarantees them a captive consumer that doesn't get sick. The most feared word to corrupt and inefficient firms is 'competition'. No consumer is going to patronize a firm that sells overpriced crap unless that firm is protected from competition by govt. regulations. They will find another vendor or another vendor will materialize in short order in a truly free market. The offending firm will lose something critically important to firms in a free market, its reputation.

You didn't answer a single question I asked

The natural order is voluntary, peaceful exchange -- not looting. Capitalism is the only system that is natural because it is the only system that encourages growth. It is win-win, meaning that both parties to any exchange benefit for the exchange wouldn't take place. Statism or government actions are almost always coercive, they are win-lose. If government created growth, wealth and increased living standards - it wouldn't be coercive. You can't grow a society or a system with a zero sum outcome. In many cases, the transaction costs of government actions lead to negative sum outcome. Hence, capitalism, private property which is the foundation of capitalism is the natural order, any other system leads to extinction.

[WRIF Army]

You stated that I don't understand the definition of monopoly because I stated that monopoly firms in a free market are subject to competition. Is this not true? My point was that a firm can have monopoly status (gained by satisfying consumer desires) and at the same time be subject to competition if the monopoly firm gets lazy or greedy.

This position is not inconsistent or contradictory in my opinion.

When something is literally defined by its lack of competition, yes, talking about competition with monopolies is ridiculous because monopolies by definition don't have competition.

In a free market, there are no barriers to competition, boycotts, substitution goods..... because the monopoly firm can't use coercion to force consumers to use their product or services. Nor can they prevent competition, boycotts, substitution goods.... from entering the market. The only industry in which monopoly status can crush competition is the market for defense (government).