~*What if?*~

I just recently covered monopolies in 20th century history, They would definately control a lot of the population financially. Besides if it was easy enough for everyone to be rich why wouldn't that have happened already. You would have a financially superior country and as time went on it would make everything else you have a lot better as well.

You people lack to understand how humans don't give a shit about anything but themselves.

No wrote:

Liquid Nitrogen wrote:

No wrote:

Almost instantly monopolies would form

Why?

The only thing stopping it is the fucking government

Um... My question was, "how does the government stop it?"

Anti-trust laws, courts...

Quote :

I suggest reading Atlas Shrugged.

Did you miss the part about how I made about 3 or so references to this very book in past threads? Hell, I even made a thread ABOUT Ayn Rand.

Quote :

Um... My question was, "how does the government stop it?"

Well, first consider the following: The Third Reich.

Upon the failing of the German empire after the first World War, people became desperate; they needed a charismatic leader: Hitler. He offered security and assurance that could not be found elsewhere. What do you think will happen to us when we become panicked?

With the impending economic recession (I only say impending because I don't want to offend any of the "don't-say-it-it-won't-happen" types), people will become desperate. If we simply remove government, certain charismatic individuals may rise up to claim a position of power that, though not "legitimately" established (quotes being necessary due to the loose interpretation of what is considered legitimate assignment), could easily equate to that of a dictator. People are not interested in creating a diverse, competitive market against corporations who can assimilate such mass quantities of products. Very similar to the political parties of today, a few amount of corporations would be able to absolve almost all issues: education, transportation, communication, etc.

Though our current government has very few laws directly related to the reduction of monopolies (save for a few on competitive interests and eminent domain), it protects against these large formations simply by its sheer complexity. Sure, the amount of red tape and structure of our bureaucracy is tasking and inefficient, but I'd rather have a slow government than a pseudo-utopiac corperialization (yes, I made that up, but it sounds cool huh?).

You will notice a great similarity to the game Bioshock, which is influenced by the works of Rand.

I wanted to add more on the difference between this scenario and simply an overbearing government, but I'll leave that up to the complex bureaucracy bit...I'm done.

That idea fit the bill as far as the whole bioshock game goes. Brilliant game =)

I say we all go back to the middle ages.

Demo wrote:

Quote :

I suggest reading Atlas Shrugged.

Did you miss the part about how I made about 3 or so references to this very book in past threads?

Yes.

Quote :

Upon the failing of the German empire after the first World War, people became desperate; they needed a charismatic leader: Hitler. He offered security and assurance that could not be found elsewhere. What do you think will happen to us when we become panicked?

With the impending economic recession (I only say impending because I don't want to offend any of the "don't-say-it-it-won't-happen" types), people will become desperate. If we simply remove government, certain charismatic individuals may rise up to claim a position of power that, though not "legitimately" established (quotes being necessary due to the loose interpretation of what is considered legitimate assignment), could easily equate to that of a dictator.

I'm not arguing for the removal of government. I'm arguing for the restriction of its power, which runs counter to allowing someone with dictatorial powers. And the panic was because Germany had just lost the bloodiest war in human history, not because the government was weak. Social upheaval and losing a major war will lead to revolution no matter how powerful the government is.

Quote :

People are not interested in creating a diverse, competitive market against corporations who can assimilate such mass quantities of products. Very similar to the political parties of today, a few amount of corporations would be able to absolve almost all issues: education, transportation, communication, etc.

I don't understand what that first sentence means, and don't see why the second one is bad. To maintain rule over such issues, those businesses would have to be the very best in those areas, or competition would force them out of their monopoly.

Quote :

Though our current government has very few laws directly related to the reduction of monopolies (save for a few on competitive interests and eminent domain)

Please explain why eminent domain, i.e. the government taking your land for less than it is worth, is harmful to potential monopolies.

Quote :

[Government] protects against these large formations simply by its sheer complexity. Sure, the amount of red tape and structure of our bureaucracy is tasking and inefficient, but I'd rather have a slow government than a pseudo-utopiac corperialization.

This is not an issue of a lot of red tape. This is an issue of government abuses of power.

For example, there are huge taxes on the import of sugar. This is to "protect American sugar businesses." Um, wait a minute. To protect American sugar businesses, the government is raising the price of sugar by decreasing the supply. Let's look at who is benefiting here.

You: You lose money. You are being forced to pay more for sugar.
Sugar growers abroad: They lose money. There is a smaller market for their goods.
American sugar growers: They gain money, because you are being forced to buy their goods.

Not to mention, the government is limiting competition in the sugar business, and thus helping potential monopolies.

If we go back to the Middle Ages then we won't have to worry about taxes, because we won't have a choice .

Quote :

And the panic was because Germany had just lost the bloodiest war in human history, not because the government was weak.

Quote :

Upon the failing of the German empire after the first World War

Besides, the point I was trying to make was theoretical (tying to the US, that is). I was not saying that the government was weak, but that the potential removal (or, as was seen in the example, replacement) of a government creates definite weakpoints that can be exploited.

Quote :

Please explain why eminent domain, i.e. the government taking your land for less than it is worth, is harmful to potential monopolies.

Although that may be the application of eminent domain in prior context, it has been anchored as a precedent that establishes governmental supremacy in matters of territorial and corporate structures (for an example, see Gibbons v. Ogden). Although I do agree with you in that it does frequently take away property at a poor payoff, that is not part of the argument over monopolies being made.

Quote :

This is not an issue of a lot of red tape. This is an issue of government abuses of power.

Do you think by establishing the libertarian dream that all abuses of power will just absolve? It may be a good idea in theory, and I do believe it should be implemented to an extent, but just letting people have free reign over their property and territory is inherently flawed. Why? Because there are people involved...and people are inherently flawed.

Quote :

For example, there are huge taxes on the import of sugar.

This applies globally, while I was referring to a local interest. This becomes a completely different argument. Yes, while the reduction in supply, and vicarious increase in price, may produce less competition, the aspect of foreign interest far outweighs this. I hesitated to use that last statement as I know it opens a whole new can of worms, but you have to remember the amount of investment foreign industries have in America, especially among rich Mid-easterners. By keeping economy local, we can prevent the "rich Asians" from completely controlling our economy.

Also remember that I speak from a realist stand-point. While I do not agree with many of my statements from a theoretical position (especially the last one about local interest), I attempt to take into account a practical, modern state of affairs.

"This applies globally, while I was referring to a local interest. This becomes a completely different argument. Yes, while the reduction in supply, and vicarious increase in price, may produce less competition, the aspect of foreign interest far outweighs this. I hesitated to use that last statement as I know it opens a whole new can of worms, but you have to remember the amount of investment foreign industries have in America, especially among rich Mid-easterners. By keeping economy local, we can prevent the "rich Asians" from completely controlling our economy."

However, you have to remember that the government has been attempting to localize our oil for awhile, but we can't build any knew refineries or drill for oil in the US due to environmentalists (liberals), so therefore how do you expect us to localize the economy?

There are two sides to liberals, the environmalists and the nonenvironmentalists both of which always feel victimized. Anyways, the environmentalists sue everytime we try to build new refineries and withdraw oil from our own country, then the rest of the liberals blame the government for not getting new refineries for not getting oil, which it's not even the government's responsibility to get oil anyways ><.

Demo wrote:

Do you think by establishing the libertarian dream that all abuses of power will just absolve? It may be a good idea in theory, and I do believe it should be implemented to an extent, but just letting people have free reign over their property and territory is inherently flawed. Why? Because there are people involved...and people are inherently flawed.

But if you limit peoples' power, then their abuse of it is going to be less damaging. And if you only grant people free reign over their own property and territory and not other peoples', their flaws will only hurt them and not anybody else.

Quote :

This applies globally, while I was referring to a local interest. This becomes a completely different argument. Yes, while the reduction in supply, and vicarious increase in price, may produce less competition, the aspect of foreign interest far outweighs this. I hesitated to use that last statement as I know it opens a whole new can of worms, but you have to remember the amount of investment foreign industries have in America, especially among rich Mid-easterners. By keeping economy local, we can prevent the "rich Asians" from completely controlling our economy.

But "controlling our economy" will happen when they can offer better, cheaper goods than local businesses. If American sugar businesses start being able to produce better, cheaper sugar than the Asians, then people will buy that. So the Asian "monopoly" (quotes because Asia is not a single body and will have competition with itself) would only last as long as people are choosing to buy their products, which they will only do so long as the Asian "monopoly" makes them happy.

Also, I find your assumption that all Asia produces is sugar to be extremely racist. They also produce rice.

Quote :

And if you only grant people free reign over their own property and territory and not other peoples', their flaws will only hurt them and not anybody else.

And I wonder, how is reign established? From a libertarian stand-point, property is defined as something being used without waste (as used in the context of Locke and Rothbard) and, therefore, could be exploited, as anything you use "for the masses" or as an "indirect benefit" could be loosely defined as being practically utilized, even though there is no direct use for yourself or your family. I do believe that, under a State of Nature and an ideal Social Contract, there would be enough land and product in the world to be had and enjoyed by all, but there is an inherent flaw in the mentality of mankind that will invariably intervene, ultimately nullifying many of the theoretical observations of the great libertarian minds. Therefore, although I agree that there are massive quantities of flaws in our current economy (especially locally), I am very hesitant to just allow people to have at it...compromise must be made.

Demo wrote:

From a libertarian stand-point, property is defined as something being used without waste

From my standpoint, "property" is something that is owned.

Demo wrote:

Quote :

And if you only grant people free reign over their own property and territory and not other peoples', their flaws will only hurt them and not anybody else.

And I wonder, how is reign established? From a libertarian stand-point, property is defined as something being used without waste (as used in the context of Locke and Rothbard) and, therefore, could be exploited, as anything you use "for the masses" or as an "indirect benefit" could be loosely defined as being practically utilized, even though there is no direct use for yourself or your family. I do believe that, under a State of Nature and an ideal Social Contract, there would be enough land and product in the world to be had and enjoyed by all, but there is an inherent flaw in the mentality of mankind that will invariably intervene, ultimately nullifying many of the theoretical observations of the great libertarian minds. Therefore, although I agree that there are massive quantities of flaws in our current economy (especially locally), I am very hesitant to just allow people to have at it...compromise must be made.

Locke? Rothbard?

Locke: "Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labor.

Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labor. In addition, property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his social theory"(wikipedia.com).

By no means does he mean "waste", he is speaking to the fact that property is something earned, not someting used by the masses or "indirect benefit", where the heck do you get this BS Demo? Now lets examine Rothbard. Well actually since my mom won't stop bugging me I'll get to that later.

Guys... Your posts are extremely boring... Please stop.

I like your "They also produce rice." in small text. If the united states adopted me as their king and withdrew their negative feelings of monarchy, all things would be solved. Just like cipherz says we should go to the medieval stage.
By the way I never said the problems would be solved well

Fantasies are bittersweet, but I could not give into lies. You should know this by now, know this by now.

Ha ha, you are trying to revive the forums by posting random things where they do not belong.

Well, I will not indulge you by replying! I will not reply out of spite!

How does that feel?

Quote :

By no means does he mean "waste", he is speaking to the fact that property is something earned, not someting used by the masses or "indirect benefit", where the heck do you get this BS Demo?

Your reference to labor being the method in which property is derived is for the initial gaining of said property. The "waste" comes in later (had you actually read his book) in which he states that it is not just the application of labor that entitles you to this property, but the practical utilization of it. The reason I did not mention the labor part is that it didn't have to do with my argument at that time.

And if you ever wish to pin me on a political argument, NEVER use a Wikipedia reference. Even if it's somehow accurate, it's completely nullified by the fact that you actually searched for political support from Wiki.

Demo wrote:

And if you ever wish to pin me on a political argument, NEVER use a Wikipedia reference. Even if it's somehow accurate, it's completely nullified by the fact that you actually searched for political support from Wiki.

Find me something on Wikipedia that is inaccurate. ESPECIALLY something political, since many pages dealing with political topics (including the one on John Locke) are protected from most of the Internet.

Suppose it's time to revert to my old tactics:

Suck it, Nitro.

Wow, something readable.
Sweet. We're back in business, enough with gay "purposeful" debates.

"Your reference to labor being the method in which property is derived is for the initial gaining of said property. The "waste" comes in later (had you actually read his book) in which he states that it is not just the application of labor that entitles you to this property, but the practical utilization of it. The reason I did not mention the labor part is that it didn't have to do with my argument at that time."

Define practical utilization.