|
jrodefeld posted:Violence and inflation are not words that libertarians use to mean "whatever we want it to". These words have definite meanings and libertarians use these terms according to their dictionary definitions. Inflation is an expansion of the money supply. Violence is the use of initiatory force. Those are not the dictionary definitions of either of those terms you dumbfuck. You can have inflation without expanding the money supply, and violence is any behavior involving physical force intended to hurt someone or damage something, even self-defense You've just proven his point
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Actually plenty of libertarians insist that the maintenance of territorial integrity and border security are more or less the only things for which a government is fit. The minarchist libertarian might argue that in the name of national security which is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government according to the Constitution, the State has the obligation to see who comes and goes in order to provide security. If you stipulate that the State is either necessary or inevitable, I can understand that position. What I can't understand is any libertarian, even using the broadest interpretation of that label, supporting actions by the State that heavily restrict the free movement of people who don't posed any national security threat. If I were a minarchist or Constitutionalist, I would say that immigration policy should be unrestricted besides ensuring that the immigrant doesn't have a dangerous disease like Ebola or is a criminal and that private property owners should have no obligation to associate with those they don't want to associate with and there can be no mandates to provide education, healthcare or any other social service to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK so political borders are just imaginary lines on a map put there by illegitimate states who desire lordship and dominion, but nothing can interfere with the right of men and women to enjoy freedom of movement and association. OK, got it. Nobody has any right to restrict anyone's free movement except on their own personal property. You can invite anyone onto your property and you can dis-invite anyone as well. But you have no right to tell anyone else who they can invite or not invite, associate with or not associate with on their property. It's called freedom of association, one of the hallmarks of any free society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
Jesus it's like going back in time and reading a badly written Victorian journal article.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Libertarians encountered in the wold are wholly inconsistent and unprincipled, and their stance on immigration is a frequently encountered example of that. This is not inconsistent or unprincipled. You could just as easily criticize me for being supposedly "unprincipled" in my defense of free speech as a natural right merely because I don't want you to give me a lecture in my living room. You have jurisdiction over your own physical body and your personal property but you have no right to restrict anyone's movement or consensual behavior anywhere outside of that small area that you have jurisdiction over. Saying that people have freedom of movement is an expression of the right to free association and cooperation among human beings in that there can be no restrictions on people who wish to move and associate with those that want to associate with them. Right now if you want to hire someone who lives in Mexico, you will be restricted by the Federal Government, by laws which restrict travel as a general principle across this entire nation, not a restriction against immigrants walking across your living room, which is naturally quite a different matter altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Those are not the dictionary definitions of either of those terms you dumbfuck. You can have inflation without expanding the money supply, and violence is any behavior involving physical force intended to hurt someone or damage something, even self-defense You are wrong about inflation but you are correct about the term "violence". I was trying to explain that libertarians use the term "violence" in the correct way rather than in supposedly redefining it. Violence of course does include initiatory force, but it also includes self defense. So when libertarians oppose initiatory violence, we are using the term correctly. You have conceded that point. Self defense is a type of violence that libertarians support in the last resort. As for inflation, classically inflation has always meant an expansion of units of currency. Think about the language. Prices can't "expand". Prices rise or fall. Units of currency can expand or contract. Rising prices is a usual consequence of monetary expansion but it doesn't always happen at the same time. There is an association obviously between expansion of the money supply and rising prices but they are NOT the same thing. Prices of course can rise and fall for many other reasons than expansion or contraction of the money supply. I haven't proven his point. His point was that libertarians misuse the terms "inflation" and the term "violence". As you have conceded, initiatory force IS violence. And expansion of the money supply is inflation. If increasing the units of a currency through printing money is not inflation, what do you call it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
Hey jrodefeld, stop being a coward and answer the previous questions on healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Nobody has any right to restrict anyone's free movement except on their own personal property. You can invite anyone onto your property and you can dis-invite anyone as well. But you have no right to tell anyone else who they can invite or not invite, associate with or not associate with on their property. It's called freedom of association, one of the hallmarks of any free society. Except that before the Fair Housing Act, people were commonly banned by their HOAs in from selling or renting their homes to black people, so not only is it entirely consisten with Libertarianism for other people to tell you what you may and mayn't do with your property, but as we've discussed exhaustively in this thread and others, for Hoppe the ability to require newcomers to town to sign contracts relinquishing their right to invite black people over to their house is Libertarianism's raison d'être.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
I find it absolutely hilarious that jrod responds to my posts when they're dumb little jokes, but if I put effort into a response he acts like they never existed.jrodefeld posted:You are wrong about inflation but you are correct about the term "violence". I was trying to explain that libertarians use the term "violence" in the correct way rather than in supposedly redefining it. Violence of course does include initiatory force, but it also includes self defense. So when libertarians oppose initiatory violence, we are using the term correctly. You have conceded that point. Self defense is a type of violence that libertarians support in the last resort. This is exactly my point. You constantly throw around "libertarians are against violence" until people point out self defense, and then suddenly it's initiatory violence until you think we've forgotten and you switch back. Your own "dictionary definition" that you made up said this: jrodefeld posted:Violence and inflation are not words that libertarians use to mean "whatever we want it to". These words have definite meanings and libertarians use these terms according to their dictionary definitions. Inflation is an expansion of the money supply. Violence is the use of initiatory force. This is plain language and people that take issue with these clear definitions are the ones who are confused. They should take their beef to Webster's or some other dictionary distributor because they are arguing against centuries of common usage of the English language. You defined violence to be initiatory, and then when we called you out on it, you backpedaled and said that you were only saying that initiatory violence is a kind of violence, which is loving meaningless. But I guarantee you'll lapse back into that bolded definition after you disappear for a while and come back. This is the pattern with you in a lot of things: you make broad declarations, we point out they're wrong, you revise your statement to the point of tautology, and then a week or a month later you make the same broad declaration again like the whole thing never happened. It's just bizarre. As for inflation, you're wrong there too. Inflation is a general increase in prices, or a shrinking of the purchasing power of a given amount of money. It is entirely possible for the money supply to increase dramatically without causing price increases (see: quantitative easing), and it's possible for prices to increase without the money supply increasing. This is basic stuff here. And lastly, I love that Lysander "literally a member of the First International" Spooner was somehow a free-market advocate in opposition to Marx. This is yet another stupid claim you've made that everyone called you out on before. Do you think we'll stop telling you you're wrong if you keep asserting this stuff enough times?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is not inconsistent or unprincipled. You could just as easily criticize me for being supposedly "unprincipled" in my defense of free speech as a natural right merely because I don't want you to give me a lecture in my living room. You have jurisdiction over your own physical body and your personal property but you have no right to restrict anyone's movement or consensual behavior anywhere outside of that small area that you have jurisdiction over. Hold on, are you now putting a cap on how much property someone can own? Is that what's happening here? If you aren't, then where are you getting the idea that someone's jurisdiction would be small? What if I owned a hundred square miles of land? What if I owned ten thousand? What if I owned the entire Mississippi River, and had the deed to every single inch of it and decided that I wanted to construct a 100 foot high wall from bank to bank across the whole thing? That'd sure but a hamper on someone's ability to freely move across the land, don't you think? And what's the over-under on jrod sticking around? I'm putting my money on five more posts at most.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:15
|
|
Nolanar posted:As for inflation, you're wrong there too. Inflation is a general increase in prices, or a shrinking of the purchasing power of a given amount of money. It is entirely possible for the money supply to increase dramatically without causing price increases (see: quantitative easing), and it's possible for prices to increase without the money supply increasing. This is basic stuff here. He's just hanging on to the fact that when the word inflation was first used, it was used in a monetary context, even though the common use of the word even in economics has been for some time 'increase in prices', even if you, like Friedman, argue that price rises are a monetary phenomenon. I don't know why it is that idiots think that the important thing to do in an argument is argue about definitions, or that pointing out a historical definition of a term has intrinsic value. Sometimes it's important, but this is not one such occasion.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:He's just hanging on to the fact that when the word inflation was first used, it was used in a monetary context, even though the common use of the word even in economics has been for some time 'increase in prices', even if you, like Friedman, argue that price rises are a monetary phenomenon. Fair point, I was hasty. I will revise my statement from "his use of inflation is made up and arbitrary" to "his use of inflation is outdated and stupid and pointless." Credit where due, J-man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:50
|
|
Nolanar posted:Fair point, I was hasty. I will revise my statement from "his use of inflation is made up and arbitrary" to "his use of inflation is outdated and stupid and pointless." Credit where due, J-man. Sounds about right.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Violence and inflation are not words that libertarians use to mean "whatever we want it to". These words have definite meanings and libertarians use these terms according to their dictionary definitions. Inflation is an expansion of the money supply. Violence is the use of initiatory force. This is plain language and people that take issue with these clear definitions are the ones who are confused. They should take their beef to Webster's or some other dictionary distributor because they are arguing against centuries of common usage of the English language. As other posters have pointed out, yes, yes they are. For example, you attempt to redefine taxation as a form of violence despite the fact that that definition, while appropriate to your twisted ideology, does not at all match the common usage understood by millions of people. quote:I posted an article that I don't think many of you read, called "Free Market Anti-Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" by Sheldon Richman. People like Richman and Gary Chartier, among others, have been persistent in trying to revive a forgotten tradition of libertarianism. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, radical laissez-faire market anarchism and liberalism was not considered to be a part of the right, but of the left. Frederic Bastiat was a leftist market anarchist as was Lysander Spooner and many others. "Capitalism" is an unfortunate term that doesn't really explain what radical market advocates endorse. The term really only become widespread when Marx used it as a derogatory term. As Richman pointed out in his article, early market anarchists favored a "freed" market primarily because it provided the best method for the exploited masses to undermine the power and influence of the capitalists, meaning in this sense the literal meaning of those State-privileged big business leaders, owners of capital that have forever sought to cartelize, to monopolize and to find new and additional ways to provide privilege and protection for themselves and their wealth. As others have pointed out, we are interested in arguing with you, not with Sheldon Richman by proxy. This coupled with the fact that many of the people you quote seem to have been drawn from somewhere in the 16th century in terms of social view does not exactly make it loving endearing. That said, I do have to wonder what the gently caress this has to do with anything? Anarchists in the mid to late 19th century had crazy libertarian leaning views? Okay? Whup-de-loving-do. I think that Lysander Spooner was as wrong on the topic of anarchism and natural law as you are, and I don't think someone who's primary method of travel was horseback and whose primary method of communication was letter writing can necessarily inform decisions and policies a century and a half removed. quote:Advocates of a freed market saw the surest way for the underclass to triumph over the exploitative class was to undercut them in the marketplace, provided the unnatural privilege and monopoly protection provided by the State was removed and these leaders of industry had to compete on an even playing field with the rest of society. And then came the thought experiment of socialism, and people who were interested in helping the poor decided that was a better system than trying to beat capitalism at its own game. quote:These intellectual fore-bearers of modern libertarianism made up a great majority of the abolitionist movement, of the early labor movement, the womens rights movement and many other progressive causes. A hallmark of leftism throughout history before the 20th century was an opposition to the State. Conservatism is and was a desire to cling to the institutions and hierarchies that have existed, the "old order" as it was called. The reactionaries, the conservatives were those that sought to undermine the principles of liberalism through bringing back the old system of feudalism, of State power, of class and an elite that governed society through institutions such as the Church. By contrast, the liberals were those that sought to break up such institutions by removing such artificial privilege by tearing down the State, by advocating laissez-faire markets, individual natural rights and class consciousness. Hey, you're making up the definition of words again! Lets play a fun game where you try and show where the US attempted to bring back loving feudalism in the 18th or 19th centuries. Go a head, I'll loving wait. Because unless you mean Capitalism leading to the creation of robber barons (see what I did there), the very specific definition of feudalism didn't come loving close to the united states during that time period and you are making poo poo up wholesale. Also, no. Anarchism has never been a significant philosophy. It wasn't large in the 19th century, and it isn't large today. To say that "These intellectual fore-bearers of modern libertarianism made up a great majority of the abolitionist movement" is to be saying an outright loving lie, because there were hundreds of thousands opposed to abolitionism who weren't loving crackpots who believed in natural rights. quote:It is a sad story that Karl Marx, who was legitimately a part of the left, mislead generations of 20th century activists by misdirecting anger which should be directed toward those that use force against others, those who seek the political means to wealth acquisition rather than market means, and directing it against any who privately own capital and the means of production. While professing to hate the State and seeing it correctly as the exploitative institution that it really is, Marxists undermine their anti-statism by focusing their anger against private entrepreneurs and the free contract between employer and employee.   Marxists aren't undermining their anti-statism because they aren't necessarily anti-state. Private enterprise is poo poo, and the free contract between employer and employee is inherently unbalanced in the favor of the one who isn't going to starve if he loses his job, which is why Marxists believe that it is exploitive by nature. quote:As I've explained already, the prospect of profits provides the incentive to take risks with wealth that would otherwise not exist. The worker in essence, chooses to trade the potential for slightly hire future earnings for lower but immediate and guaranteed present wages. Since each worker has the right to become an entrepreneur himself and reap the full benefit of a return on their labor, their choice to trade their labor for wages is a reflection of a higher time preference and an aversion to risk. It cannot be seen as exploitative for this reason. Now, businesses certainly CAN be genuinely exploitative and they certainly have been on numerous occasions. But it is their use of force and coercion coupled with State privilege that is exploitative not the private ownership of capital. I'm going to focus on the bolded part here. Do you really honestly believe this? What about someone who is crippled and wouldn't be able to access most businesses without the Americans with Disabilities Act? What about someone who is desperately loving poor and just one step above literal starvation. Sure he has the right to become an entrepreneur... from somewhere, but what loving good does that do him? Natural rights are a pointless loving thought experiment because they mean absolutely nothing in the face of the fact that most people can't take advantage of them in any meaningful ways. You believe that it is an aversion to risk, but for the vast majority of people it simply is not an option. How many people in this thread could just quit their jobs and start up a business today? How many of them do you think woud be able to do it in five years, or ten years even if they started planning for it today. If someone is living paycheck to paycheck how the gently caress are they going to get the capital to start a business when they are barely able to feed, clothe and house themselves. The 'choice' you are presenting here is a false one that relies on an ability most people simply do not have. The vast majority of people will never start a business because they cannot start a buisiness, not because they have different loving time preferences that make them think that working eighty hour work weeks at McDonalds is a better option. Higher time preference is a fancy way of saying that person doesn't want to loving starve, or wants to buy clothes for their kids or pay the power bill. quote:Once Karl Marx burst onto the intellectual scene, the "left" splintered into two movements. The Marxists on the one hand, and the radical individual market anarchists on the other. Both wanted to ultimately get rid of the State, but Karl Marx did not clarify but only obfuscated and confused matters. Marx did not invent the concept of class consciousness or the idea of a mass movement to overturn the power of the exploitative elite. In fact, it was classical liberals and anarchists who had a competing and far more logical theory of class and exploitation. On the one hand there were those who sought wealth in the market through voluntary trade, the economic means. On the other were those who sought the political means to wealth acquisition. The old order, the financial elites, high priests, Kings, the aristocracy and politicians had from time immemorial employed the political means and held together a nakedly exploitative system of serfs and overlords. The liberal revolution born from the Enlightenment era thinkers like John Locke overturned this order that had existed throughout recorded history. The surest and best way for the masses to rise up against this old feudal order was to assert the principles of liberalism, of natural rights, of freed markets and private property, of eliminating the State and the privileges it has granted to these ancient and exploitative institutions. Marxism does not necessarily require the removal of the state. There are plenty of ways of instituting socialism that involve governmental power remaining in existence, shockingly. As to the rest of this word salad. gently caress you I guess? I'm really not sure how to respond to you jerking off on how great your ideology is even though it has never in history accomplished anything of worth. quote:This is why authors like Gabrielle Kolko who was indeed a Marxist, but a genuine radical leftist nonetheless, termed the Progressive Era "The Triumph of Conservatism". In this instance, the two branches of leftism observed the same thing which was the triumph of the "old order", of special privilege cronyism and State power, over the radical leftism of liberalism. It was in fact the triumph of capital, of big business and the banking elite that drove the progressive movement. Its really getting old watching you claim people who would think you are a loving monster as members of your ideological group. For the third loving time in this thread I'm going to repost this: "“Under no circumstances,” he wrote, “should I be listed in your Registry, or thought to be in any manner a supporter of your exotic political position. If anything proves my thesis that American conservative ideology is more a question of intelligence than politics, it has been the persistent use of my works to buttress your position." That is his way of saying "If you are using my work to support your position, you are a loving idiot." That said, I disagree with Kolko and think he is wrong on a great many things! quote:During this time the correct political spectrum got twisted and confused. Leftists became associated with Statism and the New Deal of FDR and right-wing opposition to Roosevelt caused us to erroneously associate conservatism with opposition to the State. Its almost as if conservatives were opposed to social programs that benefit from the poor because the people who have the most stand to benefit the most from dismantling programs that take their money to help the poor while simultaniously putting limits on their ability to gently caress them in the rear end, such as the 40 hour work week. quote:Murray Rothbard calls socialism not a "radical leftism" but rather a confused, middle of the road ideology. Essentially modern left-progressives, taught to worship FDR and social democracy in school and in the media are attempting to achieve liberal goals (equality, equal rights, justice, policing economic power) using incompatible conservative means. This tension leads only to continual disappointment as, year after year, expansions of State power never lead to the outcomes that "left" progressives and social democrats claim. Wealth inequality doesn't shrink through State power expansion, higher Federal education budgets don't lead to a better educated populace, a "war on poverty" leads to stagnant poverty rates and so on ad infinitum. Would that I cared what Murray Rothbard called anyone anything. I suspect Murray Rothbard also called African American's niggers but that doesn't exactly hold much value with me either. Oh, and gently caress you for the bolded line. Students aren't taught to worship poo poo in school, and your assertion that people being taught history is somehow indoctrination because it doesn't include your fringe ideology is honestly sort of pathetic. I'd also argue that all of your examples are in fact, wrong. Wealth Inequality shrinks as a result of progressive taxation, higher Federal education budgets don't lead to a better educated populence because the problem is education funded through property taxes, and the war on poverty did in fact drastically lower poverty rates, as did Social Security, the fact that we undermined it means it didn't do the job well enough is all. quote:Most economists and historians would concede that Marxism has been discredited and his ideas such as the "labor theory of value" have no credibility and have fatal flaws. But what we need, and if the modern left has any sense whatsoever, they will adjust their tactics and embrace the radical liberalism of Frederic Bastiat, of Lysander Spooner and become principled anti Statists and advocates for individualism, of freed markets without privilege and private property. Almost all economists and historians would concede that Mises has been discredited and his ideas such as "Praexology" have no credibility and have fatal flaws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:You believe that it is an aversion to risk, but for the vast majority of people it simply is not an option. How many people in this thread could just quit their jobs and start up a business today? How many of them do you think woud be able to do it in five years, or ten years even if they started planning for it today. If someone is living paycheck to paycheck how the gently caress are they going to get the capital to start a business when they are barely able to feed, clothe and house themselves. Ah! But you see, Caros, no one in this thread would start a business because of all the ding-dang hassle that the government makes to stop you from starting a new business! Without government interference you could easily just start a new business in your own home and compete with any monopoly there is, simple as that. Like Time-Warner, all you need to do is run your own cables to people's homes or launch your own satellite into geosynchronous orbit, then buy the rights to some programs to air (better hope that they don't have exclusive contracts!) or produce your own content, advertise your service, and install signal receiving equipment in your clients homes. It's all so simple once you remove the government!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ah! But you see, Caros, no one in this thread would start a business because of all the ding-dang hassle that the government makes to stop you from starting a new business! Without government interference you could easily just start a new business in your own home and compete with any monopoly there is, simple as that. Like Time-Warner, all you need to do is run your own cables to people's homes or launch your own satellite into geosynchronous orbit, then buy the rights to some programs to air (better hope that they don't have exclusive contracts!) or produce your own content, advertise your service, and install signal receiving equipment in your clients homes. It's all so simple once you remove the government! The Canadian libertarian party has taking down the crtc (Canada FCC basically) as one of their central planks. I'm going to assume this is what they are thinking because it is funnier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Murray Rothbard calls socialism not a "radical leftism" but rather a confused, middle of the road ideology. Essentially modern left-progressives, taught to worship FDR and social democracy in school and in the media are attempting to achieve liberal goals (equality, equal rights, justice, policing economic power) using incompatible conservative means. This tension leads only to continual disappointment as, year after year, expansions of State power never lead to the outcomes that "left" progressives and social democrats claim. Wealth inequality doesn't shrink through State power expansion, higher Federal education budgets don't lead to a better educated populace, a "war on poverty" leads to stagnant poverty rates and so on ad infinitum. While your entire rant is full of holes, and you continually display a complete lack of understanding of history, this bolded part is the most hilarious part of this post. Here are some figures from Piketty (a real, non-racist economist).  The incredible, precipitous decline in income inequality in America, following entry into World War 2 is tied to a few things that are the direct result of increasing governmental power: 1) The National War Labor Board's "maintenance of membership" ruling made union membership compulsory for new employees at union run factories with military contracts, with the option for employees to opt out within 15 days of hiring. Unions extracted this rule as a concession in exchange for no-strike pledges, wage controls, and price controls during the war. Union membership soared during the war and continued rising afterward. 2) Confiscatory tax rates on the highest incomes curtailed the share of income going to the highest deciles. 3) Social Security and Medicare reduced Elder Poverty from 78% in 1935 to 9.7% in 2010. 4) The GI Bill and increasing budgets for public education lead to a more educated and higher paid workforce among the lower and middle classes. We could go on and on about government power in the economy increasing in the period 1928 - 1980, and the concomitant decrease in the level of income inequality.  To go along with the decline in income inequality, there was a substantial decline in wealth inequality. In the period 1810 - 1910 there was an inexorable increase in the share of wealth owned by the top decile and the top 1%. WWI cast a pretty severe blow to wealth inequality (de-colonialization and divesting foreign assets by the ownership class, privatization of key industries in Europe, destruction of capital, etc), and governmental interference in the next decades and beyond brought wealth inequality lower and kept it persistently lower until very recently. Policies like rent controls in Europe, housing market intervention in America (housing remains the major asset of the lower classes, and homeownership increased from 45% of the population in 1910 to 64% in 1960), and banking regulations designed to restrict bubbling asset values, all contributed to declines in wealth inequality. Deregulation, lower taxes on high incomes, and cuts to vital domestic policy programs in the last 30 years have all contributed to an increase in income and wealth inequality.  Finally, the War on Poverty and increasing federal welfare budgets do in fact lead to declining poverty rates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Advocates of a freed market saw the surest way for the underclass to triumph over the exploitative class was to undercut them in the marketplace, provided the unnatural privilege and monopoly protection provided by the State was removed and these leaders of industry had to compete on an even playing field with the rest of society. Are you loving making GBS threads me? In what world is the average upstart in any position to beat out an established player? Poor upstarts have a harder time getting loans, pay higher interest rates when they do, have a hard time attracting talent, receive fewer benefits from economies of scale, can't advertise as much, and on and on and loving on. You love to throw out ideas that look somewhat nice from a bird's eye view, but try to look at them from up close and it's just mountains of poo poo surrounded by seas of phlegm. No seriously though is there a single economic principle that doesn't suggest literally the opposite of what you're going on about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Are you loving making GBS threads me? In what world is the average upstart in any position to beat out an established player? Poor upstarts have a harder time getting loans, pay higher interest rates when they do, have a hard time attracting talent, receive fewer benefits from economies of scale, can't advertise as much, and on and on and loving on. Not to mention in a 'Free Market' the more established players can easily buy out startups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Quick question: would a free society impose any formal penalties against established players price-sharking upstarts out of business? After all, free people can sell things at a loss if they feel like it: what tyrannical sociopath would tell a rich philanthrope that he can't generously sell his goods at a loss???
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Anti-trust legislation is violence, friend.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Quick question: would a free society impose any formal penalties against established players price-sharking upstarts out of business? Disinterested posted:Anti-trust legislation is violence, friend. The even more hilarious part is, lets say we transitioned to a totally (*snicker*) free market TODAY. Right now. No Rules, No Holds Barred Free Market Who does people like Jrod think will totally control the market right out of the gate and smash start-ups like a annoying fly? What is to stop Fortune 500 Industrial and Corporations from completely cornering the market?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Who does people like Jrod think will totally control the market right out of the gate and smash start-ups like a annoying fly? What is to stop Fortune 500 Industrial and Corporations from completely cornering the market? Nothing. That's exactly the problem and the greatest irony of a proper free market. The government needs to regulate the poo poo out of it and prevent monopolies to keep the market properly free. Otherwise you get, you know, Standard Oil. Libertarians need to read about the 19th century and see all the reasons why regulation started happening in the first place. Some of the poo poo that happened during the 1800's in the name of profit is downright horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not to mention in a 'Free Market' the more established players can easily buy out startups. Idea for a start-up: Creating start-ups that exist solely to be bought out
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:24
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The even more hilarious part is, lets say we transitioned to a totally (*snicker*) free market TODAY. Right now. No Rules, No Holds Barred Free Market The state  Literally The Worst posted:Idea for a start-up: Creating start-ups that exist solely to be bought out That's already all of them anyway.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The state  Exactly my point. ToxicSlurpee posted:Nothing. That's exactly the problem and the greatest irony of a proper free market. The government needs to regulate the poo poo out of it and prevent monopolies to keep the market properly free. Otherwise you get, you know, Standard Oil. Seriously disturbing. Treating workers like appliances and the violent armed suppression of employees. I can't wait for the Free Market 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
This is why Hans Hermann Hoppe is the Best and Most Honest libertarian: He fully acknowledges his ideal would be ruled by a multitude of tyrants exercising minute control over the lives of their subjects and would possess the ability to do as they please* to these subjects. *within the limits of the covenant, not that this would realistically mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Idea for a start-up: Creating start-ups that exist solely to be bought out It's actually extremely common in the software world for people to start small companies with the explicit plan, from day one, to sell them the instant whatever they're coding becomes something they can sell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Jrodefeld why have you not hosed off to Bir Tawil yet? It is a literal paradise no government will claim. How can you literally abide in the United States, gleefully eating pudding created through corporatism and theft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's actually extremely common in the software world for people to start small companies with the explicit plan, from day one, to sell them the instant whatever they're coding becomes something they can sell. See: The entire video game industry. EA does this repeatedly, completely dismantling a software development team and laying nearly everyone but the most key employees after every project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:See: The entire video game industry. EA does this repeatedly, completely dismantling a software development team and laying nearly everyone but the most key employees after every project. The architecture industry works the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Idea for a start-up: Creating start-ups that exist solely to be bought out Isn't that the entire point of those tiny app startups that couldn't possibly be profitable on their own but are attractive to the big players to help with user retention?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
I don't understand how jrod and other libertarians can have this enormous blind spot in their philosophies where they never consider that once a Free (or Freed or whatever the term du jour is) Market is implemented that the biggest companies won't use violence to ensure their position at the top and maintain their monopoly. I understand why on a macro level the philosophy in general ignores this and none of the "great thinkers" talk about, because it completely falls apart once you consider it for more than two seconds, but I don't understand how individuals who are seemingly intelligent don't figure this out for themselves. I know that jrod doesn't think about it because he doesn't actually do any of his own thinking and just regurgitates whatever article he's read but surely there are smarter libertarians out there that also ignore this. Do they understand the problem and just ignore it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't understand how jrod and other libertarians can have this enormous blind spot in their philosophies where they never consider that once a Free (or Freed or whatever the term du jour is) Market is implemented that the biggest companies won't use violence to ensure their position at the top and maintain their monopoly. I understand why on a macro level the philosophy in general ignores this and none of the "great thinkers" talk about, because it completely falls apart once you consider it for more than two seconds, but I don't understand how individuals who are seemingly intelligent don't figure this out for themselves. I know that jrod doesn't think about it because he doesn't actually do any of his own thinking and just regurgitates whatever article he's read but surely there are smarter libertarians out there that also ignore this. Do they understand the problem and just ignore it? Even better: That they define legal actions against corporations as 'violence' but completely ignore, say, when a corporation does the same thing to private entities or companies to gain an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Isn't that the entire point of those tiny app startups that couldn't possibly be profitable on their own but are attractive to the big players to help with user retention? Yeah, the start-up industry is full of horrible people. They'll get a bunch of enthusiastic young programmers, push them into working 14 hour days and on weekends for no extra pay because "Our app is going to make it big! If we all put in the effort our company will be big time one day!". Everyone pitches in, tons of unpaid overtime, horrible wages, but it's all going to be worth it in the end. Then a big company offers to buy them out, the owner of the startup becomes filthy rich and the workers get absolutely nothing because low level tech-industry nerds have no concept of labour rights, contracts, and lack the confidence to ask about such things. Of course any worker who asks about such things in a startup is ostracized for not being a team player and not understanding they're like a family and how could you be so lazy and greedy???
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, the start-up industry is full of horrible people. They'll get a bunch of enthusiastic young programmers, push them into working 14 hour days and on weekends for no extra pay because "Our app is going to make it big! If we all put in the effort our company will be big time one day!". Everyone pitches in, tons of unpaid overtime, horrible wages, but it's all going to be worth it in the end. Then a big company offers to buy them out, the owner of the startup becomes filthy rich and the workers get absolutely nothing because low level tech-industry nerds have no concept of labour rights, contracts, and lack the confidence to ask about such things. Of course any worker who asks about such things in a startup is ostracized for not being a team player and not understanding they're like a family and how could you be so lazy and greedy??? Seriously, read The Trenches (a Penny Arcade story/comic). http://trenchescomic.com/comic/ Its full of stories just like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Is that really how it works? I was under the impression that everyone involved was perfectly aware of what's going on and was getting a big payoff of some kind if they got bought out by Google or Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Is that really how it works? I was under the impression that everyone involved was perfectly aware of what's going on and was getting a big payoff of some kind if they got bought out by Google or Facebook. It's impossible to over-estimate how awful the tech sector is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't understand how jrod and other libertarians can have this enormous blind spot in their philosophies where they never consider that once a Free (or Freed or whatever the term du jour is) Market is implemented that the biggest companies won't use violence to ensure their position at the top and maintain their monopoly. I understand why on a macro level the philosophy in general ignores this and none of the "great thinkers" talk about, because it completely falls apart once you consider it for more than two seconds, but I don't understand how individuals who are seemingly intelligent don't figure this out for themselves. I know that jrod doesn't think about it because he doesn't actually do any of his own thinking and just regurgitates whatever article he's read but surely there are smarter libertarians out there that also ignore this. Do they understand the problem and just ignore it? SedanChair posted:Because all good things are an emergent property of True Libertarian Society. It never gets any more complicated than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
When we achieve
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:59
|
|